With its attention turned towards experimental and innovative works of performing arts, Atalante offers a space for the artistic works, a discourse surrounding those works, and the field at large. During the fall of 2024 we will delve deeper into the various universes of the artists presenting work and make space for a dialogue between the artists, the spectators and the venue.
Presented below is a reflective text by Josephine Gray based on a discussion with stage artist Miguel Cortés and composer Kent Olofsson, in connection with their performance of Dröm/Spel at Atalante in November 2024.
Throughout Antiquity two notions were used pertaining to the description of what we moderns would refer to as (simply) dreams. In his famous treaty, Oneirocritica, Artemidorus Daldanius distinguished enhypnia from oneiroi in order to best treat the people who came to consult him about their dreams. Enhypnia contained nothing more than the recycling of the mundane everyday activities. A kind of waste-bin of what the dreamer had seen, done or eaten the previous day. Oneiroi, on the other hand, were made up of visions that potentially told of forebodings and prophecies. To this day we are indebted to Artemidorus for having scribbled down an archive of dreams from the budding Roman Empire leaving us with a nuanced view of dreams as such. His work were also the readings upon which philosophers and psychoanalysts such as Michel Foucault and Sigmund Freud based their further research on within the humanities.
Meeting with performance-maker Miguel Cortés and composer Kent Olofsson I was reminded of Artemidorus’ work as these two artists have also treated the plurality of meaning and the importance of dreams in their new piece DRÖM/SPEL. Having collaborated on several pieces over the years their point of departure for the piece has been the treatment of dreams as both liberator and captor. This apparent dual nature present within the idea we have of dreams is symbolically treated through the set-design. Hanging from the roof are multiple chains. They suggest the inherent capacity of chains as both connector, each link tied to one another, but equally the shackling nature of the chain as prohibitor of freedom. Miguel likens the stage filled with the hanging chains to “the cathedral of dreams”. A possible venue of either salvation or condemnation. The sense of magic enveloping the notion of “dream” and our inability of “rejecting [dreams] as something negative” is a conundrum Miguel has reflected upon with curiosity. The multiplicity of narratives that surround our understanding of dreams, from “prophecies to the consumer society”, has indeed turned out to provide fertile soil for their joint artistic discourse and expressions.
In the process of creating this work there has been a constant engagement with the questions surrounding our propensity towards a future-oriented way of thinking and its relationship to presence. Dreams of a better life has made us prone to “place things in the future”, as Miguel says, which in turn produces a kind of driving force towards that anticipated future. But what is this driving force? Could the sense of a certain lack be the reason for us striving towards the future? That the promise of the future is able to redeem the sense of lack experienced in the present tense is an idea that has been put to the test in their work on presence. The answer to this kind of questioning can [only] be found in art: “when playing together there is such a huge presence”, says Kent. There is a palpable tension imbedded between the antagonism that dreams yearn for an actual realisation in the possible future contra the actualised presence in the here and now. This tension enables a deeper appreciation and understanding about both life and art. The artist is always faced with the reason for creating and the creation itself. By allowing the creation itself to be at the forefront there lies a possibility to return a sense of agency to the act of dreaming itself. Both Kent and Miguel agree that there is a “dreamy” quality in the activity of playing and creating together. This activity, which is the act of creating in itself, also manages to proclaim the dream as present in the here and now in lieu of its postponement to the possible future. Creation in realtime also allows for the “dreamy” quality of our night-dreams to appear. Our nightly dreams have a habit of developing according to their own logic that we nevertheless experience as completely real and present while in the dreaming state. This particular state embodies the phenomenon of dreaming and stands opposed to the immaterial idea of the dream which we have grown accustomed to as a means of procuring our possible future desires. In the joint act of creating, of playing together, we find similarities with the all-encompassing experience of night dreams.
The sense of lack is also present in our discourse around dreams. There is a tendency to speak of dreams of improvement and not necessarily what we already have at our disposal, or what we have already achieved. As such, the rhetoric that surrounds the concept of dreams often makes us feel inadequate. In the process of creating DRÖM/SPEL Miguels’s and Kent’s focus has been to cherish and recognise “what we have”, “where we are” and “what we’re good at”. Focusing on these positive aspects has been a way of actively resisting the tendency towards novelty as a gratification in and of itself. Both of them have asked themselves how they can “capitulate in front of that which always wants to grow anew”. By remaining steadfast in the present and sticking to the tools they already had at their disposal, they found that “the presence [and the unexpected] makes itself known”, as Kent says, “space is allowed for them [the presence and the unexpected]. Miguel is wary of the instrumentalisation of dreams as an end-goal as this inevitably prohibits the multiplicity of dreams, it “excludes everything else”. Kent clarifies by pointing out that “we don’t have an end-goal, we are here and now” and it’s only then things start to happen. These things are unexpected simply because of the abandoning of any preconceived ideas of what a performance should be. The attitude of letting go of the descriptive is paramount to the act of creation because it does not serve the artistic process.
Music has always been central to their collaborations. The work on DRÖM/SPEL has allowed them to further develop the reciprocity between their artistic expressions. This particular artistic process has given rise to a relatively new way of working for them. Musically, the point of departure has been five lyrics Miguel wrote on the theme of dreams and is a radical shift from the previous works they’ve collaborated on whence the physical expression and the body has been a primary source of inspiration. The research on the intermedial within the performing arts which Kent has extensively researched as part of his doctoral thesis is also present. And although the lyrics originated from a way of thinking through the physical adhering to Miguel’s background in dance the form of their stage work is in this performance closer to a concert than to a dance-performance.
The scenographic objects–in this piece the aforementioned chains–are on a par in terms of artistic importance with the movements and music on stage. They are the prerequisite for how the room is perceived and guides what kind of movements are suitable within that room. For Miguel the beating heart of how they treat the stage remains the experience of the human existence. He seeks to “liberate [himself] from forms, from a certain aesthetic” in order to find “the human within the expression of dance”. The challenge is always in finding that which is inherently human within the notion of a predetermined aesthetic. The interest also alters when dealing with the experience that the seasoned dancer exhibits, but also requires an understanding of how the language of the body changes as we age. This fascination has also led Miguel to avoid presenting himself as a dancer, mainly because he understands that there is an external expectation of what a dancer “should” be which no longer resonates with him. Kent also says that “I’m not making music for the performance, we are making this performance together.” A mutual understanding on why to create enables them to ask profound question of the piece they are creating. In so doing an understanding for each other has grown and has diminished the need for conceptual thinking. Such an encounter with art, and each other, demands that we renounce the preconceived ideas we have about the ego, art and ones role in it. And by letting go of those preconceived ideas we are able to identify them as products cultivated by the constrictive views of societal norms. The ideas of what dance, or composition, is remains multidirectional and unruly. Our contemporary fascination and insistence upon the validity of analysis and categorisation have in many respects made us forget that the origin of art was all-encompassing and stems from the practice of ritual. The stage does not discriminate, it holds all forms of expressions, and it’s within the multiplicity of expressions that Miguel and Kent insist on creating.
If Artemidorus, and his successors within the humanities, found it sufficient to operate within the realm of only two notions of dreams, the time might be ripe to reexamine what we mean when we say dram in our contemporary societies? If it is the case that we are aware that the notion of dreams are used as slogans propagating a lifestyle, an attitude, or at worst a political agenda should we not then defend the phenomenon of the dream? To conduct an honest discourse around what it is we mean when we proclaim that “we” have a future dream? By creating space for dreaming as the daily activity it actually is, we can also appreciate its irreal qualities that is capable of giving rise to being in the present – just as art urges us to – and leave the so-called “future” to the agenda of the utilitarians.
Reflektion & text: Josephine Gray