>Page 5

Rethinking Collective Artistic Production

The following criteria are central to our definition of the collective: we want our relationship to be horizontal as opposed to the hierarchies found in dance companies or organizations working under one artistic director. In line with our reliance on free and inexpensive internet technologies, we are, as we have pointed out in a previous article (Chatterjee and Lee 2013), (*5) inspired by an open source philosophy that emphasizes “collaboration instead of competition; openness instead of proprietary rights and trade secrets; quality code [or choreography] instead of profitability,” (Berquist 2003: 223). (*3) Very importantly, “we define ‘loyalty’ as committing to coalition-building dialogues that embrace productive disagreement and critical feedback” (Chatterjee and Lee 2013: 2). (*5)

A capacity of sustaining disagreement is, in Ziemer’s discussion, associated with friendship. While some notions of accomplice-ship as delineated by Ziemer do resonate with the Post Natyam Collective, we are not “only” accomplices. Accomplice-ship is, according to Ziemer, characterized by temporality: a short-term relationship targeted toward one specific, subversive project/intervention and lasting through the duration required for completion of this project/intervention. The Post Natyam Collective, however, is not short-term, and its members are also friends. Being part of Post Natyam Collective means having entered into a long term, committed, consensual, intimate, creative, and personal relationship. According to Ziemer, being friends and accomplices (partners-in crime)*10 *(10) is not mutually exclusive (cp. Ziemer 2012: 124–127). (*20)

For the Post Natyam Collective multi-vocality is central: finding a consensus is not necessary in the artistic process, but it is required for moving forward organizationally. Our collaboration has continued to change over the past ten years, catalyzed by several structured and intense visioning processes that included reflecting our individual and shared goals and needs, past experiences of challenges and successes, as well as adjusting our collaboration to availabilities and access to funding and infrastructure. There were two distinct turning points: one occurred in 2008/2009, when we moved away from attempting to get together in person to produce a joint artistic product in favor of a long-distance process;*11 *(11) and the second was in 2011, when we moved away from focusing on creating a joint product altogether to engaging in shared artistic process. These shifts are highly intertwined and affected by processes of self-organizing our collective, in which we strive to pool resources and share—as much as possible—the contributions necessary to create an artistic product (cp. Becker 1974) among collective members. For a large part of the process, we even, in some sense, act as each other’s engaged audiences, receiving and commenting on artistic raw materials via the feedback process. Unlike many collaborations, therefore, our process is no longer geared towards a shared goal, a final collaboratively created product; instead it is trying to create artistic support, a shared pool of materials from which we can translate and recycle materials, and an intimate engagement with each other’s artistic explorations, as well as expanding our shared knowledge by engaging with disparate (aesthetic, political, theoretical, etc.) positions and local knowledges contingent on our geographic dispersal (cp. Chatterjee, Ling Lee, Moorty, and Tata 2011). (*8)*12 *(12)

<<zur vorherigen Seite zur nächsten Seite >> alle anzeigen

Bergquist, Magnus (2003): Open Source Software Development as Gift Culture: Work and Identity Formation in an Internet Community. In: Garsten, Christina/Wulff, Helena (eds.): New Technologies at Work: people, screens, and social virtuality: Oxford and New York: Berg, pp. 223–241.

Chatterjee, Sandra/Ling Lee, Cynthia (2013): Internet, Intermedia and Consensual Collaboration: Blogging Choreography by the Post Natyam Collective. In: Digital Proceedings: Canadian Society of Dance Studies’ Conference 2012. http://csds-sced.ca/English/Resources/ChatterjeeLee.pdf

Chatterjee, Sandra/Ling Lee, Cynthia (2012a): Choreographing Coalition in Cyberspace: Post Natyam Collective’s Politico-Aesthetic Negotiations. In: Zobl, Elke/Drüeke, Ricarda (eds.): Feminist Media: Participatory Spaces, Networks and Cultural Citizenship. Bielefeld: transcript, pp. 146–157.

Chatterjee, Sandra and Cynthia Ling Lee (2012b): Initiate, Transform, Sustain, Reach Out: Post Natyam Collective Members Reflect on Long-Distance Collaboration. In: p/art/icipate – Kultur aktiv gestalten # 01, https://www.p-art-icipate.net/initiate-transform-sustain-reach-out-post-natyam-collective-members-reflect-on-long-distance-collaboration/ (accessed 15/6/2015).

* 1

Cynthia Ling Lee and I have dialogically retraced this development (2004–2012) in a previous issue of this ejournal (Chatterjee and Ling Lee 2012): https://www.p-art-icipate.net/initiate-transform-sustain-reach-out-post-natyam-collective-members-reflect-on-long-distance-collaboration/)

* 5

Here we encounter a parallel moment of untranslatability: Ziemer focuses on the German noun Komplizenschaft, which translates into English as complicity. The English noun complicity, however, resonates differently than the German Komplizenschaft does, as it has already been redefined beyond the legal realm for critical contexts of resistance and is used to refer to various modes of participation in the perpetuation of hegemonic structures. In a recent article on female complicity, Guiliana Monteverde provides the following definition for herself, which resonates with my understanding: “The definition of complicity advanced here refers to the broad notion of participation in a practice, belief, behaviour, or understanding that can lead to oppression, discrimination, or exploitation of your own or another group (group here is a loose term referring to identity politics; I acknowledge that all people cross several identity groups).” (Monteverde 2014: 63-64).
The English accomplices and “partners in crime” are similar to the German “Komplizen”—but do not describe the state of the relationship that is discussed in Komplizenschaft.
In my considerations I will hence use the invented translation “accomplice-ship.”

* 6

These reflections on the collective draw extensively on materials that were written prior to 2014, when there was a change in membership: Anjali Tata is at the moment not a member of the collective, and Meena Murugesan joined since then. The extensive citations of co-written material come out of an effort at creating a text that is infused with multivocality.

* 7

All the members of the collective have studied at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Los Angeles, UCLA, and the grassroots (politicized) art scene of Los Angeles are part of the context out of which the collective emerged. Geographic dispersal happened over time.

* 8

Taiwanese-American, mixed heritage Indian-American, Indian-Canadian, and mixed heritage German-Indian; queer and allies/accomplices. Meena Murugesan has pointed out the shared identity category “of color” in the process of revisiting our manifesto with her as the most recent member.

* 9

Exploring the (identity political and historical) differences of notions of community, collectivity and collaboration in the transnational contexts Post Natyam operates in (USA, Germany/Austria, [South] Asia, Taiwan), will be important and necessary, but goes beyond the scope of this article.

* 10

In a recent internet “provocation,” which Cynthia has pointed out to me while reading a draft of this paper, the term accomplices is proposed to substitute “allies” in a critique of the “ally industrial complex” (Accomplices, not Allies: Abolishing the Ally Industrial Complex, 4 May 2014. Online at: http://www.indigenousaction.org/accomplices-not-allies-abolishing-the-ally-industrial-complex/ (accessed 20 August 2015). The critique targets allies, who “advance their careers off the struggles they ostensibly support [… ] in the guise of ‘grassroots’ or ‘community-based’” work (Ibid.). Accomplices, on the other hand, share the risk. The provocation defines accomplices:
Accomplices listen with respect for the range of cultural practices and dynamics that exists within various Indigenous communities.
Accomplices aren’t motivated by personal guilt or shame, they may have their own agenda but they are explicit.
Accomplices are realized through mutual consent and build trust. They don’t just have our backs, they are at our side, or in their own spaces confronting and unsettling colonialism. As accomplices we are compelled to become accountable and responsible to each other, that is the nature of trust (ibid.).

* 11

See Chatterjee, Sandra with contributions from Cynthia Lee, Shyamala Moorty, and Anjali Tata (2009), “Case Study: The Post Natyam Collective—Towards sustainable, transnational, collective practice,” in Gesa Birnkraut, Karin Wolf (ed.), Kulturmanagement konkret: Interdisziplinäre Positionen und Perspektiven, 03/2009, Hamburg: Institut für Kulturkonzepte Hamburg, e.V., Eigenverlag), 101–107.

* 16

“Dies räumliche Zwischen ist der Erscheinungsraum im weitesten Sinne, der Raum, der dadurch entsteht, daß Menschen voreinander erscheinen und in dem sie nicht nur vorhanden sind wie andere belebte oder leblose Dinge, sondern ausdrücklich in Erscheinung treten“ (Arendt in Rogoff 2002: 58)

* 18

We have first developed our thoughts around “cultural queerness” in the joint conference presentations: Chatterjee, Sandra and Cynthia Ling Lee, “Decentering Nationalist Discourses and Remapping Identity in Contemporary (Indian) Dance.” SDHS/CORD Conference, Riverside, CA, USA. 15–17. November 2013. Presented by Cynthia Ling Lee. We are further discussing and developing the notion in our forthcoming article: Chatterjee, Sandra and Cynthia Ling Lee (forthcoming): “’our love was not enough’: queering desire, gender, and cultural belonging in contemporary abhinaya,” in Clare Croft (ed.), Meanings and Makings of Queer Dance. Under contract with Oxford University Press, projected publication date: 2017.

* 25

Assignment One: Queering Cultural Memory

“We (Cynthia and Sandra) have been formulating a theoretical concept, “cultural queerness,” which we’d like to use as the inspiration for this assignment. Here is a working definition (still in process): “Cultural queerness refers to the disruption of a dominant essentialized cultural norm in a way that complicates notions of cultural authenticity, cultural appropriation and identity-based representation. It aims to undo the easy equation between nation, race, and cultural/artistic production without ignoring uneven power hierarchies or histories of inequality.”
Think of a personal memory of feeling uncomfortable with a dominant essentialized cultural norm. For instance, Cynthia might address how it feels to be a non-Indian classical kathak dancer, while Sandra might reflect on a “relegation to Indianness” and the resulting exclusion from Germanness.
Explore this memory through a 10 minute free-write. Translate the memory into a subversive artistic or embodied product (such as choreography, writing, dance-for-camera, photos, etc…).”
http://www.postnatyam.net/work/queering-abhinaya/ (accessed 27 June 2015)

* 26

Assignment Two (created by Sandra): Abhinaya as a Tool for Queering

“This assignment focuses on utilizing techniques and compositional strategies associated with abhinaya for queering beyond a Indian/South Asian context. Therefore, I would like you to focus on an aspect of your work, which explores a context/content/form that is not Indian/South Asian. This could, for example, be a study inspired by a specific cultural context (i.e. in my case the German context of the integration debate), by a narrative set in a specific cultural context, or a formal/aesthetic exploration/deconstruction (i.e. in the German context: a deconstruction of conceptual dance).” http://www.postnatyam.net/work/queering-abhinaya/ (accessed 27 June 2015)

* 27

Assignment Three (created by Meena): “Queer Pairings” – Abhinaya and Indigeneity

“This assignment is inspired and informed by a talk I went to given by Professor Gayatri Gopinath at UCLA on April 17th, 2014 as part of Professors Anurima Banerji and Sue-Ellen Case’s course “Queer Performance and Politics.” Gopinath used queer theory as a tool of analysis (not as a term of identity) to connect diasporic communities and indigenous peoples as part of the same colonial expansionist project that among other things, attempts to contain and police racialized bodies (often literally i.e., low income housing projects and residential schools were mentioned). Gopinath analyzed the work of visual artists Tracey Moffatt (Australian Aboriginal) and Sehar Shah (Pakistani US) to develop a strategy that was termed as a “queer pairing” in order to talk about braided histories and non-normative bodies. For this assignment: 1) Choose an indigenous artist (the artist identifies as indigenous) that works with any medium – photography, sculpture, movement, performance, film, sound, poetry etc. I am most familiar with indigenous communities in North America so First Nations, Native, Aboriginal. However, please invite into this assignment what indigenous might mean in relation to places you have lived – Germany, India, Taiwan, Hawaii or other places. I am interested in this idea of home – who used to (and still) call the places we now call home, home?” http://www.postnatyam.net/work/queering-abhinaya/ (accessed 20 August 2015)

Sandra Chatterjee ( 2015): Rethinking Collective Artistic Production. In: p/art/icipate – Kultur aktiv gestalten # 06 , https://www.p-art-icipate.net/rethinking-collective-artistic-production/

Erstellt am 08.Okt 2015

Artikel drucken

Download PDF

Literaturverzeichnis *X Zitiervorschlag

Sandra Chatterjee

Sandra Chatterjee is a choreographer and cultural studies/performance studies scholar who combines her interests of choreographing, writing, and organizing. She is currently a postdoctoral research assistant at the Department of Art, Music and Dance studies at the University of Salzburg. In her choreography she draws on her training in classical Indian dance – Kuchipudi and Bharatanatyam – Polynesian dance, modern/postmodern dance, and yoga. She is a recipient of the Hawaii State Dance Council’s Choreographic Award and Cultural Preservation Award and holds a PhD in Culture and Performance from UCLA. As an independent choreographer she primarily performs in India and Europe, creating solo work, working with the Post Natyam Collective, and engaging in collaborations with artists such as Eko Supriyanto (Surakarta), P. Senthilkumar (Vienna) and Aditi Biswas (New Delhi). She has been a visiting scholar teaching at UCLA’s Department of World Arts and Cultures and has completed a diploma in Arts and Organisation in Vienna, Austria (University of Vienna and Institut für Kulturkonzepte).

Download

Topics

General

Rethinking Collective Artistic Production