Switch: a question of choice.
We
associate spontaneity with free improvisation. In the realm ofа
dance,
equilibristic steps over the floor express spontaneity, inа
painting
dramatic sweeps of the brush does the trick, as does a freeа
flow of
words. One could think of a Pentecostal miracle where speakingа
in
tongues is literally inspired into being. Still, speaking in tongues
is
not an act of free will, but happens when the Holy Spirit takesа
possession of
the individual. Similarly free dance is always governedа
by
what the body once learnt. It is thus a paradox that one can hearа
arguments
about letting the body forget; the body should forget only to
be
able to do what it has been trained to do. It seems that spontaneity
is a
matter of choice. We choose to be spontaneous by doing what weа
have
agreed upon is an act of spontaneity.
This
might serve as an argument against every kind of singularity,а
indeed
against all arguments in favour of the free will -
but one canа
also
stop thinking right there and switch to another line of thought.а
On
the other hand, how long can one really endure the same thought inа
the
same direction? Just as spontaneity is a matter of choice, so isа
order a
question of selection. True order can only exist in retrospect,
when
memory and history have abolished all differences.
What
can drive a thought to change direction and why does the sameа
thought
never end up the same way? When Staffan Eek tries to get
closeа
to
peculiar ways of association, he does so through rigid control,а
compelling
permutations and other systems. Everyone can do the sameа
thing.
Everybody shall do the same thing. It is not about Prussianа
discipline,
although there are some interesting parallels here. Whenа
Michel
Foucaultа in
Surveillance and Punishment explained how the soulа
is
the prison of the body (and not the other way around) he does so byа
referring to
the military system, where the march can be described andа
controlled in
detail.
Still,
the military march rests, as does the system of Staffan Eek, onа
uneven
ground. An accurate step can be described in detail, and yet itа
will
look different in different bodies. In disciplinary circumstances,
attempts
are made to remove such flaws, but these are the veryа
foundations of
Staffan Eeks work. The quartet consists of bodies
thatа
have
different backgrounds: some are trained, others are not. Butа
everyone
can do the same thing. Everybody shall do the same thing.
The
actors are given one aspect and one position. The aspect is markedа
by a colour and the position by a chair. But who gets which
aspect andа
what
chair? In order to reach equality everybody must do the sameа
thing,
every combination must be tried. No one can choose, the choicesа
are
already made. Yet, it is right here, in the struggle for equalityа
that
the differences between the bodies is most visible.
Associating
is nothing that can be forced or controlled. But we cannotа
avoid
them either. When Staffan Eek calls a quartet a process with noа
boundaries
that aims to result in a show, the process takes anotherа
direction
and submits to rigid systems. But the more the process drills
the
quartet, the more the differences start to reveal. The better theа
bodies
learn their lessons, the more the dissimilarities are broughtа
out. The fewer mistakes, the easier to compare one body to another.а
Each
body becomes a different dialect. The challenge for each is not to
revolt
against the system, but to submit to it. The more submission,а
the
more exact and tiresome the movement. Exact and tiresome butа
never
the same.
In
Switch, all the choices are made and all the changes areа
pre-determined.
But contrary to the military system, theseа
system-builders do
not believe that the drill will make everybodyа
equally nice.
They are rather convinced that every attempt to makeа
everything
alike will result in making the dissimilarities moreа
visible. Because the result will never be the same. Yet,
everybodyа
shall do
the same thing.
Håkan
Nilsson