In the very beginning of his book In The Swarm (2017), Byung-Chul Han defines 'respect': to look back. He asserts that 'respect presupposes a distanced look - the pathos of distance'. Here I am now, socially and geographically distanced from all of you, trying to make sense of it all, to share my practice and to connect.
The unknown is scary. And, yet, I am not scared.
Why?
Because one thing is certain:
if I wake up in the morning and I can make my body move to come out of bed,
anything is possible.
We are currently experiencing a huge turn in our every day life. We have been shaken from facts and we are communicating digitally more than ever. Digital media enables life to somewhat evolve, yet, it can and - to my understanding - already has affected our perception of reality, in more than one occasions. Body-images overflow the internet. Ideal standards are projected through screens - from shop windows to mobile phones and computers. The screen creates a distance, but not necessarily a respectful and considerate one. This artistic project, High-Intensity Identity Training: Strategies of Self-Awareness in a World Fit for Consumption, comments on the way identity can be commodified and delimited, when inextricably connected to the image of the body, particularly as projected through the lens of gym and fitness industry. Ιt is an example to generate thought and conversation.
It is one way to start talking about the potentiality of being more than what is assumed of us from the social construct.
Who is 'us' Penelope?
Well...If you ever felt that you are not enough, if you ever struggled with your life choices, if you have ever questioned their integrity based on your desires, if you ever felt guilty of your desires, if you ever felt obliged to abide to rules you do not believe, to religion you doubt, to social structures that fail, if you ever wished you were somebody else, someone entirely yours and yours alone, this is 'us'. Welcome to our blog.
Let me abide to the first assumption that is considered of me, being Greek.
'Technology' derives from the words ΤÎχνη [Techne] which means Art and Λόγος [Logos] which means either Reason or Speech.
Can, therefore, technology be loosely translated as a reason for art to happen or to be expressed? If so, is there any better way to have this conversation than through and with the Body?
Anne Bogart in her book And Then, You Act: Making Art in an Unpredictable World (2007) calls for effective action. She defines it as such:
Firstly, find something that you value and put it at the center of your life.
Put, then, your life at the service of what you value in order to engender other values and beliefs.
What an aspiration, to generate other values and thought through my art! Which technology can ever be enough to deliver such difficult task? And, yet, there is one medium, one tool, one friend that follows me through time, no matter the conditions, no matter the struggle: my body. So, here is my first technology to approach this something that i value so much that i will decide to place it in the center of my life.
What about what you value most Penelope, you're babbling again...
Being human, being more than one, always in the process of becoming.
Don't get me wrong. This is not only about me. My inherent need is to underscore the potentiality of hosting more than one identities into our one and finite body derives from the need to subvert the assumptions placed upon any body by the social construct, in order to suspend recognition and avoid categorization.
It was for these reasons that I consciously placed my own body in the center of attention. It was for these reasons that I felt the need to use myself as a case study, to expose myself and to place myself, consciously, under physical and temporal constraints. It was for these reasons that I wanted to push myself, my body to the limits: I wanted to question how much these constraints - even when consciously appropriated - are a personal choice or a need to fit in.
An need to fit in.
A need to perform.
For whom?
For what?
Under which circumstances?
So, what were your initial aims for the delivery of this project Penelope and much do they align or differ for the eventual outcomes?
Here are some facts:
B.Q. (Before Quarantine)
My body on stage. A performance. 30 minutes.
My body, myself off stage. A case-study. 331200 minutes.
What does my body produce? Movement, heat, sweat. Aspiration: emotion to both audience and myself.
What does my body consume? Movement, intermittent fasting regimen (high-protein, low carbs, no sugar), protein supplements (bought in February, to deal with fatigue)
A.Q. (After Quarantine)
My body on video. A performance? A documentation? A rehearsal? 30 minutes.
My body, myself off stage. A case-study. 331200 minutes.
What does my body produce? Trajectories of movement (new space, new home during quarantine, finding pace, reconfiguring time and reason for research). Emotion in the form of mood swings, tears and embodied frustration.
What does my body consume? Movement, going in and out the intermittent fasting regimen (choosing food based on confinement measures and not on a diet's schedule), initially increased sugar to gradually fade it out again, no supplements.
Data undoubtedly changing due to the unknown. The unstable circumstance of being confined. Of not having access. Of needing to change my mindset: how do I organize my training, how do I schedule my meals, how do I manage time when I am allowed to leave the house only once per day, within one kilometre from the house, for no more than an hour.
And, yet, my solo has always been about constraints. Constraints placed upon the body by society, but, most importantly, by me myself alone.