Tuesday, January 25, 2011

What the Body Knows: There Is No Black Swan For You

From meeting people immediately after a show, I gather that the performance can be -- usually is -- really powerful.  But I am only just beginning to understand that that the effect is not the same for an audience member as it is for me.  Art can influence people, deeply and in a longterm way, yes; I have to and do believe that.  But it is also true that more often than not, the effects of even the most powerful art last only a couple of hours -- at best a couple of days.

I know this for myself from other disciplines.  I go to a gallery, I see powerful works of art, I feel them hit me deeply, but they rarely bring about immediate and deep change in how I live my life.  I do feel altered, different, but my gut reaction usually softens as time passes and I fold my new knowledge/perspective into my existing world.  I don't usually leap to an entirely new way of living.

But being the performer is an entirely different level of knowledge.  I remember listening to an interview with Noomi Rapace, the actor who plays Lisbeth Salander;  Rapace talked about not being able to attend a post-production party, because she was vomiting her character out of her system.  A similar kind of artist experience is promoted in the Black Swan.  Portman's character becomes increasing unable to maintain a boundary between her non-dancer self and her character in the ballet.

In the case of Nina, Portman's character, the blurred boundaries between ballet, dance and reality result from an unbelievable mish-mash of popular ideas about art, creativity, mental illness and madness.  The film is an utter nightmare on these topics.  Portman's Nina lives an inconsistent, overly dramatic, pop-psychologized mashup of self-harm, anorexia and hallucinations with some sexuality anxiety thrown in for good measure, ....  I don't even know what to call it.  It does no service to the dancers who struggle to survive in a profession that does nothing to nurture and much to destabilize.  It does no service to the disabled people who wrestle with prejudice and stereotype every day.

As a dancer, though, I have been asked if my life is like that.  Do I wrestle with losing myself in my roles ?  I've usually given fairly straightforward answers.  I am a modern dancer.  The pieces that I am in do not usually lend themselves to narrative psychology.  My roles are driven by movement rather than by personhood or personality.  I do not have to become a person, much less a character with years of history and interpretation known to critics and ballet-o-manes alike.  To the extent that I have psychology to deal with, that understanding arises from the movement itself.

Back in May, I wrote:
One of the things post-modern/contemporary dance does is expose the dancer as individual, person without embarking upon a story. Unlike traditional modern dance and ballet where uniformity is one of the issues being taken on, post-modern/contemporary dance can seek to separate the dancers and acknowledge them for who they are -- as movers sometimes or, even, as people off the stage. Choreographers create for these dancers movements that are perhaps drawn from the individual dancer's own set of preferred movements -- a movement vocabulary -- or that the choreographer thinks is unique to and for them. It's a dangerous and risky project for a dancer: the border lines between who you are, what kind of mover and performer you are, and who you think you are suddenly become blurred. It's scary.
I simultaneously struggle with and relish what performance asks of me.  And, in a show that has more than one piece, I can move from being sexy, to twitchy, to fiery, to contemplative or to whatever grows within me as the movement of the dance takes over.  At the end of a show, I might be completely high and bubbly and/or completely exhausted and nonsensical.  It's trippy allowing your body to be such a communicative thing; the emotions of the movement run your emotional experience of the performance.  And that is something that I strive for.

I do a lot of work to empty my mind before dancing.  It takes practice to turn that inner judgmental voice off -- you look bad, ugly, fat ... you screwed that up again.... do you really think that looks anything like a real dance move? -- and surrender to feeling and communicating only what your body tells you.  It takes practice to turn off your technical voice -- OK, just a little bit more to the left, grab here, not there ... lean, lean. .... push hard.  Gosh, hope I don't fall.... what comes next again?  You have to be able to trust that your body knows what it is doing and that it will do that.  And you have to be ready to hear what it has to say.

It's a lot of work to be as responsive to and respectful of your body in these ways.  But the thing about body knowledge is that the body knows what it has to do and, if you get your mind and your self out of the way, the experience of the body doing its thing can be exhilarating.  If you can let your body lead you through the show, it will process that show with and for you.  I experienced this most recently last week.  A section of my part was created from a series of static positions -- find ten positions in which it seems that you might be posing for yourself, privately -- or something like that.  I let my body help me find the positions.  The choreographer took them and worked them into movement.  But every time I do them, I still experience the feeling I had in them.
  1. What?  Really? You?   I don't care if you check me out.  
  2. I'm completely in control.
  3. Caught you looking.
  4. Peekabo
  5. Shy
  6. Calm.  At peace.
  7. Oh, the agony! (said with camp irony)
  8. Uh uh.  Not me.
  9. I can't see you.
  10. Yahhh.
As vivid as they are for me, I don't know what they mean for an audience member; I just know that this is how my body feels.  And when body and I are done with one, we move to the next.  Or, rather, I move through my body to the next.  By the end of the piece, my body has taken me on this journey; we're both OK with it all and though my mind is probably worried -- was I good?  did you like it?  how was it?  what did you see?  I felt too vulnerable, did that come through? -- my body is usually excited, happy, exhausted, whatever.  Either way, it's done.  The storm that is performance has come and gone.

With this understanding of body-led performance, it's hard to see how I could get stuck in the artistic prisons of Black Swan.  To me, that's an outsider's view of dance.  I have 20 years of performance experience as a musician and another 3 as a dancer.  I know this, and I know how to do this.  But this is my blog, and you may have been reading me for a while.  I owe you some honesty.  I have actually experienced what is was like to not have the body process for me.

You know how body workers are always saying things like -- your body is your memory.  Your body remembers trauma.   Your body is holding pain, guarding against pain...    I've always nodded and just succumbed to feeling better.  Nothing better than a nicely warmed massage table.  Last November, I learned some of what that might mean.

This piece required a different sort of work.  Instead of emptying my mind to listen to my body, I had to empty my mind in order to inhabit different spaces, images, different states.  Then, I had to use my body express my inhabitation (if you see what I mean) as movement.  So, the impulse to move and feel did not originate in my body; my body became the expressive realization of different conditions, qualities, ideas. I was not accustomed to this.  It was a different discipline, one for which I had no training or preparation other than what we did in rehearsal. We certainly rehearsed.  But while you might think about rehearsal as a kind of practicing the movements, our practice was one of the discipline.  Time and again, we thrust ourselves into different worlds; sometimes, we stayed in one for minutes, but we just as often transitioned in seconds.  In each realm, the goal was to be completely and fully present.  We did this starting in mid-August for around six hours a day, five days a week.

By the time of the show, I had ceased to process, to clear the material from my body, but I didn't know that.  I still don't fully understand why or how that happened.  Was it simply that I didn't know how to work in this way?  That I didn't have the time to process, either emotionally, mindfully or movement-wise?  Or was it that I somehow just lost my grip?  I am actually rather scared to find answers to these questions.  I definitely should know, because then, I will be able to do something to work better next time.  But I am also scared to know.  In case the answer is something Black Swannish.

What did not clearing this piece from my body mean?  As I remember, there were many manifestations.  At first, it was just repeatedly singing and hearing the music.  That seemed fine; the music appealed to me.  It challenged my ear and drew out my soul.  Then, it sort of seemed as if I was constantly in rehearsal in my head.  I would hear the music and try to figure out what it meant in movement for me.  Even if I wasn't actually dancing at the time, I would feel myself miming dance to myself.

Finally, I noticed that my dance muscle memory was overriding my daily life muscle memory.  The performances were over, but I would reach for a coffee cup and feel my arm sliding into a dance reach (as opposed to a simple everyday reach).  My dance muscles would engage and my arm would slide out in a nonsensical fashion; the music would start playing, and I would fold my fingers, one at a time, around my cup.  The dance would fade as I slurped coffee, but it would come back -- with different music -- almost every time I did something that had a dance equivalent ... arch backwards, release down...  whatever.  For the duration of that movement and a couple of fragments beyond, I would fleetingly be jettisoned back into those seconds of the piece.

The body knows.  The body knows the work.  The body knows and holds dance -- I cannot imagine how it would be to hold trauma.  My "flashbacks" of the piece faded over time and with physical rest and body work.  Eventually, I was able to rediscover and retain some sense of a neutral body, one not "possessed" by that dance.  And now, finally, I feel enough distance between myself and the piece that I can write about it and what happened.

I didn't know that things had gone that far for me.  And I feel scared/shocked that I lost so much, that I gave so much, that the piece took so much.  It's hard for me to talk in terms of gain, though.  I now have a much stronger set of dance skills, yes, but ultimately, as for the audiences of the piece, the art passed through me.  I am different, yes, but only subtly altered; I cannot tell you how.  In writing this post, I have had the music from the piece on in the background.  It's a test.  Am I over this piece?  Have I really regained my autonomy?  I've noticed no desire to repeat the movement, no calling, no flashback to memories of performance or of rehearsal.  Yes, it is true.  Black Swan is a fictional horror film, not a reflection of dance reality.  Even my body knows that.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

A Little More Taxi Activism

Via hosts of peeps.


Karsan Taxi.  Light, Airy,
Minivan-like AND Accessible,
with yellow body and black roof 
TAXI OF TOMORROW

The City Council is now considering Intro 433,  a bill which would require that any new taxi design approved by the Taxi and Limousine Commission be wheelchair accessible.  It currently has 31 sponsors, and we are seeking at least four more sponsors to be sure that, if passed, it is "veto-proof."

This is especially important now, as the TLC is considering three finalists for the "Taxi of Tomorrow," which would be the "iconic" taxi of New York City, which would make it the main New York City taxi for ten years.  Only one of the three, the Karsan, is wheelchair accessible.

We need your help in calling Speaker Quinn and your local council member to ask them to sign on.  Below is a list of those Council Members who HAVE NOT SIGNED ON, the link next to their name is where you can get their contact information:

Please call Speaker Quinn to urge her to support Intro 433 and to vote for the Karsan as the "Taxi of Tomorrow"

Christine C. Quinn http://council.nyc.gov/d3/html/members/home.shtml

Queens
Bronx
Brooklyn
Manhattan

Staten Island
You can find out about the taxi here.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

TLC SUED:

Hooray!!  Hooray!!!  Here is my post on how to catch a taxi in NYC -- hopefully soon to be redundant.


updated.  sorry my bad MTA




NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION SUED BY WHEELCHAIR-USERS FOR LACK OF ACCESSIBLE TAXIS

New York, New York - A class action lawsuit filed today (Jan 13, 2011) in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York alleges that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) violates applicable Federal and City law by failing to provide yellow taxis that men, women, and children who use wheelchairs are able to access. The suit is the first of its kind in the country.

The suit is significant, in part, because the TLC is on the verge of selecting a new model for New York's entire fleet of taxis. The taxi fleet will start to be replaced with the new model during the next two years.

If the TLC fails to choose an accessible taxi, men, women, and children who use wheelchairs will, for the next decade, continue to be unable to access New York taxis.

New York City has more taxis than any city in America. Yet only around 200 (1.8%) of the 13,237 taxis are accessible to people who use wheelchairs, and any at given time only a fraction of the accessible taxis are on the road.

The suit is brought by a coalition of individuals and organizations including: United Spinal Association, 504 Democratic Club, Taxis for All Campaign, and Disabled In Action. All these organizations advocate on behalf of people with disabilities and each has been lobbying for an accessible taxi fleet for years.

The lawsuit seeks no damages. Plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, which is a non-profit organization that specializes in impact litigation on behalf of people with disabilities. Plaintiffs are also represented by Outten & Golden, which is a leader in individual and class action employment discrimination litigation in New York City.

"The lack of accessible taxis means that men, women, children, and the elderly who use wheelchairs are excluded from participating in the city community and deprived of utilizing this vital mode of transportation," says James Weisman, United Spinal Association senior vice president and general counsel.

"Not being able to use taxis limits the jobs that people who use wheelchairs can take. It limits the social events they can attend," Plaintiffs' attorney, Julia Pinover, from Disability Rights Advocates' New York office said. She continued "New York experiences extreme and hazardous weather conditions. It leaves vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities and the elderly out in the cold, snow, or rain for intolerable periods of time. TLC's failure to make its taxi fleet accessible is shameful and unnecessary."

Chris Noel, who is an individual plaintiff, said, "I have been using a wheelchair for almost ten years. I remember how easy it was for me to hail a cab when I was not using my wheelchair. But now, because there are so few taxis I can use, I often wait for an hour or more before an accessible taxi even passes me." Jean Ryan of organizational Plaintiff Disabled In Action echoed this sentiment saying "I used to be able to get a taxi before I used a wheel chair. Now, forget about it."

Plaintiff Simi Linton, Ph.D., is a lifelong New Yorker and power wheelchair user who works primarily in New York City. Dr. Linton said, "New York City needs a taxi system that is accessible for all its citizens, including people with disabilities. On a recent trip to London, I was able to use any of London's taxis. I was able to get around that city independently and with dignity. London's fully accessible taxis should be a model for New York City."

"This is a golden opportunity for the TLC to transition the taxi fleet to an accessible car model with minimal administrative burden and at minimal cost to drivers and medallion holders", said Edith Prentiss of the Plaintiff organization the Taxis for All Campaign. "If this transition is not implemented now, it would be a disaster."

For more information, visit http://www.dralegal.org

Download the Press Release (MS Word file):http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/cases/Taxis/Press_Release.doc
Read the Complaint (PDF file): http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/cases/Taxis/Complaint.pdf

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Disability On Stage

I seem to have my grouch on.  This post is a series of questions and reflections on responsibility.  What are the obligations we have to each other as choreographers, dancers and audience members?

As a performer, my commitment to anyone who comes to a show is deep.  It begins with my willingness to get out of bed in the morning to do all the rehabilitative and training work I need to do to keep up with my schedule.  It continues through the day with rehearsal and into the evening.  You can see it in the classes and workshops I attend, the performances I attend, and the skills I acquire.  On stage, you can see it (I hope) in everything I/we do.

Beyond my personal schedule, body, and work, I also think I have a responsibility to make the work as good as it can be.  And that means not doing the cliche, the easy thing, the thing that confirms what you think you know about disability and dance.  I don't always get to choose what I do -- it is my job to realize a choreographer's vision.  But over the years, I have occasionally spoken up about stuff; we are allowed to collaborate and reflect on what we do.  Sometimes, our opinion is accepted and sometimes, well, it isn't.  As an artist, having a voice is important -- I should perhaps use it more often -- but I also have not felt the need to do so all that often.  I have a commitment to you to bring to the stage challenging and intriguing beautiful dance.  I do everything I can to make it happen.  As choreographers and audience members, I owe you that.

It is, I think, more complicated if you are the person staging dance with non-traditional bodies.  In particular, as a non-disabled choreographer from a mainstream dance world, what are your responsibilities when you put non-traditional bodies on stage?  (I always ask the question this way around because I have not, thus far, ever worked with a disabled choreographer.)  I begin with intergenerational dance because that's where I first began thinking about this question.  I'm getting older (aren't we all?); how will I be read?  How will my age affect my body and my ability communicate in dance movement?  If you do intergenerational work (intergenerational is usually used to describe work with older adult dancers), what are your responsibilities to your performers?  It's one thing for people to coo over children, but when so many adults are infantilized as they age, do you owe them and your audience work that presents them in such a way that they are not vulnerable to the overarching societal narratives of age?  Challenge?  Confront?  Confirm?  Can you make work without considering its reception?

Reception.  No one can control reception.  But I believe you can (and probably should) work to subvert easy thinking.  Easy thinking in an audience member is probably rooted in easy thinking in a choreographer.  And I think choreographers who use dancers with disabilities, or other dancers with non-traditional dance bodies and non-traditional movement training have a greater responsibility than they often recognize.  Both the mainstream dance world and dance audiences have a familiar and comfortable script about who is a dancer and who is not.  Choosing to make work with non-traditional dancers is a risk.  But the risk-taking has to go beyond merely placing those dancers on stage.  Once they are there, they have to work -- to be involved in the project of making art.

Art-making in my view moves beyond the mere display of difference or the narrating of personal stories.  In a kind of grouchinesss, I'd move beyond simple factual narration (I'm a second wave person), unless, of course, those stories are unusual, different and critically urgent.  Is what your performers have to say so unusual that the telling, the very revealing of the body is something new and world-shattering.  Think on the level of genocide survivor narrative or the Demi Moore pregnant photo.  Mere display of disability simply isn't interesting.  So, if the reviews and newspaper coverage repeats tropes of disability cuteness, overcoming, inspiration and such ....  I wonder if it is partly because the work recreates them.

I also think choreographers have an obligation to their performers and that that obligation is not one of therapy.  Some starters.  As a choreographer, you might be fascinated with disability, disabled bodies and the ways in which disabled peeps live and work.  You might be on a roller coaster of discovery and learning.  We are not.  And, for the most part, your fascinations and curiosities are not flattering.  We live this every day and consider ourselves to be on the spectrum of human variation.  Our lives are normal to us, and many of us have investments in the ordinariness of disabled life.  So you need to be prepared.  Beforehand.  Get your obsessions out of the way to the extent that the work you do with us does not have to be about you and your learning curve.

Then, there's the question of how you use us in performance.  So much of the language around disability on stage involves empowerment, inspiration and overcomings of shame, fear, ...  Really, you don't owe us that experience.  We may come away with some of that.  Or we may not.  But you don't have to stage that.  That's easy thinking, and both we dancers and your audience will know it.  If you are choreographing a dance piece, take advantage of what we have and who we are to choreograph.  Explore movement and teach movement.  Be familiar with what other people have done -- it isn't original any more to work with disabled dancers.  Expand your horizons and those of your performers.  Tell different stories.

Audience members owe us very little.  After all, we come to present our work to you.  You have paid to see this work.  Your presence is a gift to us and an essential element of our performance.  Come with an open mind and heart.  We will do this rest.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Differently Abled -- Disability Language On My Mind

Oops.  Accidental blogging break while transitioning from Rio to the Bay Area and from vacation to rehearsal.  breath.

Differently abled?  Can I tell you just how much I hate that phrase?  Not disabled -- just differently-abled.  Not disabled.  Just physically-challenged.  Perhaps even handicapable.  Anything but disabled, right?  Not right.  I hate those words.  And while I am at it, I also hate disAbility, dis-abled, (dis)ability and other such absurdities.  And while I don't actively throw things at the wall when I hear "Don't Dis my Disability or Ability," I'm not a great fan of these things either.

Some serious thoughts, though.  I appreciate what people are trying to do with these words, campaigns, and phrases.  I also appreciate and will defend disabled people's right to call themselves whatever they choose.  This isn't a piece in support of the language police in some political correctness mode.  So, please, if you identify yourself as handicapable, physically challenged or differently-abled, you have my support.  How you describe yourself is not my call.

All that said, I do think there are consequences to what we do and don't call ourselves.  And this piece is a reflection on that issue.  It's a fine line between raging on the one hand and meditating on how language shapes realities on the other.  It may be that my questions and perspectives are persuasive, but they are not intended to correct anyone.

I find myself starting with a question: "If we can't say it, who will and do we want them to own the word?" I know it's hard to claim disability.  I know that there's lifetimes' worth of hate, oppression, sadness, discrimination and, and, and ...  I know that these new circumlocutions seek to create a new climate -- one in which the negativity, utter can'tness and uselessness so immediately associated with disability -- will no longer exist.  I know that using language to create a different climate and to try and address the stigma is an important approach.

BUT.

But I believe we have a responsibility to choose language that does not recreate the very problems we are trying to counteract.  If we want to create a world in which people do not infantilize us, treat us as "special" and "different," etc., how does it further the cause if we, as a group, advocate for being known as "handicapable?"  What does it mean to be handicapable?  Yes, the word is designed to shift the emphasis to what people can do.  It's intended to get around the history of "handicapped."

That said, capability is serious stuff.  While emphasizing how much an individual "can do" is important to change the understanding of disability, the very notion of individual functioning is worth considering and putting under the lens of scrutiny.  I like the recent discussions of western culture, individualism, independence and disability interdependence.  Maximum individual ability is good, but there is also a political dimension to the way we understand it.  So, the emphasis on capability isn't just about whether you can do stuff like get dressed and get to work -- not to underestimate the trickiness of either of those, btw -- it's also about your value as a human being.  Stressing your "overcoming, inspirational handicapable, roll with the flow, no problem, I can-do it" personality may get you in the door, but it might not help the next person, nor does it guarantee you assistance once you are in the room.  In other words, handicapability might be seen to work against access.

Plus, really?  Handicapable?  When someone says that about me, I feel they don't see me as a serious adult.  My mind's eye sees the incessantly smiling face and artificially cheery voice.  "She's not disabled; she's handicapable!" And all the things that come with my impairment are elided into a cheerful grin.  I'm  six years old again.

Many of the same things could be said for differently abled.  Yes, disabled peeps can do stuff, but there are some very real limitations that come with disability.  It's really not like you gain a super 6th sense to compensate with.  It's true that you might do some things differently, but...  I want to see a positive acknowledgment of difference and difficulty -- from a personal and political perspective.

Outside our pride, culture, arts and rights movements, disability is less an immovable condition than a legally defined state and moving target.  There are no absolutes: you can be disabled enough to qualify for a parking tag, accommodations in the workplace, but not, say, certain types of state assistance.  What counts as disabled seems to be defined by the agency or organization from which you are seeking services.

Disabled began as a socio-legal category.  This is the first recorded usage of the verb in the fifteenth century from the OED.  Disable: "To incapacitate legally; to pronounce legally incapable; to hinder or restrain (a person or class of persons) from performing acts or enjoying rights which would otherwise be open to them; to disqualify" (subscription only).  It is deeply ensconced in the medical world: I think of the WHODAS disability assessment schematics and the medical professionals I encounter.  I think of political disability: the ADA and ADAPT.

Where does it live for us on a daily basis?  I don't write style and usage manuals, of course, so my opinion probably doesn't matter in the larger world.  But I do think that if we don't say it, other institutions and organizations will.  And they will own it.  If we say it, we have a chance to reclaim the word and with that reclamation build a new history and culture around our achievements (which are not coterminous with our abilities).

(It seems I am not the only one with an anti-euphemistic sentiment: see s.e. smith here.)

Disabled.  There.  I said it.