Narrative / Performances: Taking Risks in Safe Spaces; Playing Safe in Risky Spaces

As facilitator I tried to suggest and encourage a variety of lenses and frames for the writers’ work. In our field, ethnography and criticism have given way to extensive theorizing about performance; theories from performance studies and culture studies have enriched our research. For me theory is both appropriate and fruitful for examining the APPEX Project, specifically because its locus and that for the production of theory are the same—the university. The shared locus itself presents a topic for interrogation, which did take place.

The following discussion of four theoretical approaches, albeit brief, represent my preliminary musings, reflect the mindset I brought to the residency, and suggest possible directions for a more extensive consideration of the Project’s significance. The Thu-Kenny performance recalled for me Fischer-Lichte’s theory of productive reception (1997), provocative in its larger dimensions. She feels that “performance productivity perceives the elements taken from the foreign theatre traditions and cultures according to the problematic which lies at the point of departure”(Balme 1997: 25). For us that point of departure is the encounter each performer experiences with the structure of APPEX. Is the problematic one of instant recognition and acceptance, or is it one of initial hesitation and questioning about how an individual’s art form will fare within this prescribed structure? An emerging workshop performance negotiates the tensions inherent in the encounter (or series of encounters). A particular tension might result in an explicit element manifested in the work, or it may only inform the process which leads to performance. Although Fischer-Lichte uses dyadic models, i.e. Asia and the West, the APPEX setting suggests triadic or even quadratic models—a Vietnamese tradition accepts elements from a (metamorphosed) Japanese one within a performance setting that is an American adaptation of a 19th century European institution (the “salon”).

Similarly, I find relevant the Pavis theory of mise-en-scene as presented by Singleton (1997 (2)). Pavis posits three categories of performance: the autotextual (performance exists independent of social context), the ideotextual (performance speaks to a current social/political/psychological issue), and the intertextual (references previous productions or metatexts). Among these categories, Thu’s evaluation of his salon performance is primarily intertextual, because in his view it references but does not replicate previous homeland presentations.

Ta Vu Thu and Zhang YiJuan
PHOTO: LARRY LOEHER

However, within the APPEX context Thu’s salon clearly carries ideotextual value; it foregrounds the cross-cultural collaboration central to APPEX. The ideotextual category suggests another fruitful direction for reflection and analysis. For example, we could regard the performance as a metaphor of reconciliation for the violence visited upon Vietnam. The metaphor could be defined either by performer nationality—Vietnam/Thu the artist and the U.S./Kenny the artist, or by national culture—Vietnam/Tuong the genre and Japan/taiko the genre.

A third theoretical approach revisits Singer’s concept of cultural performance, especially his observation that “for the outsider, these [performances] can conveniently be taken as the most concrete observable units of cultural structure, for each performance has a definitely limited time span, a beginning and end, an organized programme of activity, a set of performers, an audience and a place and occasion of performance.” His recognition of performance as sites for cultural production resonates with APPEX and its aspirations. If we consider the traditional arts (which were almost entirely Asian in both years), cultural production is certainly part of the rhetoric of nationhood and, in many cases, subject to government policy.

A fourth theoretical direction considers gaze: how the subject perceives the object. A number of different gazes could be explored. The gaze of a performer upon the genre of another culture is one. A second entails the gaze by the internal observer—artist, writer or staff—on the participants collectively and upon one another. A third gaze might come from the external observer, for example from the audience at the outdoor performance at Cal Plaza in downtown Los Angeles in 1999 or at the salon presentations in both years. Los Angeles Times critic Lewis Segal, writing about the Thu-Kenny presentation, registered a specific gaze which seemed to ascribe authenticity and traditionality. His gaze encountered an absence of taped music or mediated sound and concluded the performance to be traditional. Clearly, Thu invoked other criteria of the authentic and the traditional for his evaluation.

		prev home next
		Taking Risks in Safe Spaces; Playing Safe in Risky Spaces musings on writing about the APPEX experience RICARDO D. TRIMILLOS
		[Interculturalism]…signifies a revision of a cartographic location of all cultures, seen through a kaleidoscope of exchange, borrowing, bartering, and appropriation, dependent on the subject position of the borrower. — Brian Singleton1
		Introduction
		I am delighted to contribute to this volume on the APPEX Project. I have interacted with APPEX since 1997, when I spoke for its Inroads/Asia conference. I was privileged to be an active APPEX residency participant in 1999 and 2000 as coordinator for the humanities component.1 Throughout these “musings” I occupy two temporal positions—a pre-residency position and a post-residency one—between which I alternate rather freely. For my contribution I choose to describe the intent of the humanities component as well as my personal vision for it. The essays stand as a major and collective statement concerning its outcomes. Ricardo D. Trimillos and Danongan Kalanduyan PHOTO: LARRY LOEHER As a researcher I have long been cognizant of the “power of the written word” in the domain of performance; often the written study about performance has a longer life than the performance itself. In addition—and unfortunately—the author-scholar often garners more individual benefit in terms of respect and recognition than the performers or genres written about. This is particularly true of Asian and minority American genres (Trimillos 1994). As a performer of the Japanese koto and an ethnomusicologist, I have first-hand experience in negotiating the role of performer and the status of the academic. For the humanities component Judy Mitoma, director of APPEX, and I wanted to facilitate a more equal relationship between subject and object. It was my thought that if we consciously addressed the conditions of inequality, we in the humanities component might find ways of re-defining the subject/object, researcher/practitioner dyad. Modest progress in that direction emerged early and spontaneously during the residency: the humanities fellows came to be called “the writers,” a complementary appellation to the artists who were known as “the performers.”2 The writers met regularly as a group throughout the residency. They organized and facilitated weekly Forum sessions: small group discussions that provided an opportunity for reflexivity among performers and writers about arts production. Problematizing the quality of the subject-object relationship during the writers’ meetings and invoking alternative processes of exploration during the Forums were intended as catalysts for innovative, artist-inclusive approaches to writing. For me, this intent was further motivated by personal trajectories of critique and resistance to an hegemonic and unitary academe. The essays in this collection in part reflect varying degrees of resonance with my envisioned goals. For research writing about APPEX, I considered the major goals to be: 1. Privileging field data and the six weeks of immediate experience comprising the APPEX residency 2. Focussing upon major themes of the APPEX subtext, such as cross-cultural contact, creativity, and collaboration 3. Attempting to communicate something of the quality, nature, and dynamic of the residency 4. Contextualizing APPEX in larger frames that reflect structural, theoretical, intercultural, and activist/advocacy approaches or agendas 5. Personalizing the narrative by foregrounding the individuality of persons, personalities, personas, and voices 6. Addressing issues of participation, authority, and empowerment for the artist Among the challenges for navigating this experiment in arts research was determining which aspects should occupy the foreground, the midground, or the background, and which would not be included at all.
		The Structural Frame
		From my point of view, the APPEX Project as an entity rests upon a number of a priori assumptions, including: 1. A positive value for creative collaboration 2. The “mixability” of discrete forms 3. A respect for tradition and a valorization of innovation 4. The empowerment of the individual artist in a number of domains, including representation, control, and entitlement 5. An expressed emphasis upon process My hope was that the writers would consider these as the matrix upon which each could superimpose an individual narrative. Some might interrogate or problematize the assumptions; others might choose to analyze or comment on how they were played out during the residency. The diversity of their responses is reflected in the collected essays.
		A Performance: Ta Va Thu and Kenny Endo
		To illustrate my personal response I present one example, initially to explore point #2 above, the “mixability” of discrete forms. I subsequently extend it to other sections of the discussion. Ta Vu Thu PHOTO: KATERI HYUNG My case is the 1999 salon performance by Ta Va Thu, a powerful singer-actor of the Tuong classical opera of Vietnam, accompanied by Kenny Endo, a versatile Japanese-American artist of the contemporary Japanese taiko tradition. APPEX holds a series of “salon” evenings, a variety program in which the respective metier of each artist is featured. The mixing in this case arose from a logistic problem: there was no recorded Tuong orchestral accompaniment against which Thu could sing his arias. Although he had a CD sound source, it already included the vocal part. A lip-synch performance was unacceptable to the artist, and probably to the audience as well. The “APPEX solution” mixed Tuong vocal, dance, and mime with Japan-based, improvised taiko drumming accompaniment. The mixing in this case was not primarily in the interests of collaborative experimentation, but was an ad hoc response to the absence of proper accompaniment. The six-week residency with its group-living situation enabled a trust to develop among the artists that made such collaboration both feasible and acceptable. It also facilitated my informal and spontaneous conversations with Thu concerning his performance. Initially, he felt it was not a satisfactory representation of Tuong tradition, muttering, “not good, not good.” However, he later volunteered that the salon was an effective vehicle to show his abilities in the form. Further, he appreciated working with Kenny and felt the salon was successful as an artistic performance, mutatis mutandis. Kenny Endo PHOTO: LARRY LOEHER His reactions are rich in implication. The Thu-Kenny collaboration is not an acceptable cultural performance, i.e. as national representation. Nevertheless, it is acceptable as an artistic one, i.e. as aesthetic product. For Thu the separability of performance as national expression from performance as artistic endeavour is clearly a conceptual possibility. In the second category, mixability is conceivable. Does mixability stand in opposition to cultural representation? Is it good for artistic product? How is it received? On what terms can the performer feel s/he is successful? Such questions were part of the discussions among the writers as they reflected upon the events of APPEX, their performer colleagues and themselves.
		The Theoretical Frame
		As facilitator I tried to suggest and encourage a variety of lenses and frames for the writers’ work. In our field, ethnography and criticism have given way to extensive theorizing about performance; theories from performance studies and culture studies have enriched our research. For me theory is both appropriate and fruitful for examining the APPEX Project, specifically because its locus and that for the production of theory are the same—the university. The shared locus itself presents a topic for interrogation, which did take place. The following discussion of four theoretical approaches, albeit brief, represent my preliminary musings, reflect the mindset I brought to the residency, and suggest possible directions for a more extensive consideration of the Project’s significance. The Thu-Kenny performance recalled for me Fischer-Lichte’s theory of productive reception (1997), provocative in its larger dimensions. She feels that “performance productivity perceives the elements taken from the foreign theatre traditions and cultures according to the problematic which lies at the point of departure”(Balme 1997: 25). For us that point of departure is the encounter each performer experiences with the structure of APPEX. Is the problematic one of instant recognition and acceptance, or is it one of initial hesitation and questioning about how an individual’s art form will fare within this prescribed structure? An emerging workshop performance negotiates the tensions inherent in the encounter (or series of encounters). A particular tension might result in an explicit element manifested in the work, or it may only inform the process which leads to performance. Although Fischer-Lichte uses dyadic models, i.e. Asia and the West, the APPEX setting suggests triadic or even quadratic models—a Vietnamese tradition accepts elements from a (metamorphosed) Japanese one within a performance setting that is an American adaptation of a 19th century European institution (the “salon”). Similarly, I find relevant the Pavis theory of mise-en-scene as presented by Singleton (1997 (2)). Pavis posits three categories of performance: the autotextual (performance exists independent of social context), the ideotextual (performance speaks to a current social/political/psychological issue), and the intertextual (references previous productions or metatexts). Among these categories, Thu’s evaluation of his salon performance is primarily intertextual, because in his view it references but does not replicate previous homeland presentations. Ta Vu Thu and Zhang YiJuan PHOTO: LARRY LOEHER However, within the APPEX context Thu’s salon clearly carries ideotextual value; it foregrounds the cross-cultural collaboration central to APPEX. The ideotextual category suggests another fruitful direction for reflection and analysis. For example, we could regard the performance as a metaphor of reconciliation for the violence visited upon Vietnam. The metaphor could be defined either by performer nationality—Vietnam/Thu the artist and the U.S./Kenny the artist, or by national culture—Vietnam/Tuong the genre and Japan/taiko the genre. A third theoretical approach revisits Singer’s concept of cultural performance, especially his observation that “for the outsider, these [performances] can conveniently be taken as the most concrete observable units of cultural structure, for each performance has a definitely limited time span, a beginning and end, an organized programme of activity, a set of performers, an audience and a place and occasion of performance.” His recognition of performance as sites for cultural production resonates with APPEX and its aspirations. If we consider the traditional arts (which were almost entirely Asian in both years), cultural production is certainly part of the rhetoric of nationhood and, in many cases, subject to government policy. A fourth theoretical direction considers gaze: how the subject perceives the object. A number of different gazes could be explored. The gaze of a performer upon the genre of another culture is one. A second entails the gaze by the internal observer—artist, writer or staff—on the participants collectively and upon one another. A third gaze might come from the external observer, for example from the audience at the outdoor performance at Cal Plaza in downtown Los Angeles in 1999 or at the salon presentations in both years. Los Angeles Times critic Lewis Segal, writing about the Thu-Kenny presentation, registered a specific gaze which seemed to ascribe authenticity and traditionality. His gaze encountered an absence of taped music or mediated sound and concluded the performance to be traditional. Clearly, Thu invoked other criteria of the authentic and the traditional for his evaluation.
		The Intercultural/Cross-Cultural Frame
		The conscious crossing of borders in order to produce an artistic work is always a challenge and often a risk. In this regard, I wanted the writers to interrogate the interchangeability of the terms intercultural and cross-cultural. Are they synonyms or are there nuanced differences between them? Using them interchangeably might be a way of playing it safe, which was often the case. The expressed intercultural nature of the Project could also be problematized. While APPEX defines itself as intercultural, its rationale and structure are monocultural and Western. How does its Western, positivist impetus inform or mold its intercultural aspirations? Which of its features comprise intersections and fusions of different cultural expressions and sensibilities? Which of its components unconsciously or inevitably reference the ethos of the single culture, in this case the West? Tension between the monocultural and the intercultural was inherent in the micro-dynamic of the writers group itself. Language fluency among the writers included Japanese, Indonesian, Malay, Thai, Tagalog, Chinese, Spanish, and German. However all our exchanges were in English. Returning to the Thu-Kenny performance, the icons of interculturality were present and problematic. Costume was clearly iconic: Thu was marked Vietnamese and Kenny as Japanese. Remarkably, each wore a headband during performance. What is the significance of the headband in Vietnam? Is it identical, similar, or different from its meanings in folk Japan? The headband in an intercultural performance might well carry separated but juxtaposed cultural meanings. It could also become a unitary signifier for Asianness, for masculinity, or for performers of the Other or as the Other. Finally, the histories of both genre and person can be folded into an intercultural frame. Performers and scholars of Tuong acknowledge its historical roots in Chinese theatre forms (Tran 1962). Historically it is already an intercultural, synthesized genre. Turning to history of the person, Kenny Endo is Japanese American, self-defined and ascribed. Does his participation (and expertise) in Japanese taiko itself constitute an intercultural variable? Some writers found consideration of intercultural frames both provocative and productive.
		The Advocacy/Activist Frame
		Although not explicitly stated, there are a number of advocacy agendas that shape APPEX.3 It is here that the dialectic of safety and risk assume added significance. Thu’s stated intent was to represent, i.e. advocate for, his culture and by extension his nation through his participation in APPEX. His public performance was part of that agenda. In this respect his salon does not completely fulfill an advocacy agenda: the traditional music was absent. There were many ways in which the Project provides a space of safety for performers as well as for writers to explore, to examine, and to judge. APPEX is removed from the mundane homeland context with all its baggage of status, face, and authority. A Thu-Kenny collaboration needs a safe space. That safety includes the bonded and supportive nature of the group. It also requires an audience with an interest in Asia and in experimental, cross-cultural performance. For most viewers Thu’s salon was probably their initial encounter with Tuong. Expectations based upon traditional criteria would have been rare, even among those of Vietnamese heritage.4 In such a space of safety the artist possesses virtually uncontested authority vis-a-vis “tradition.” To be sure, an audience still constructs expectations based upon (assumed universal) notions of artistry, virtuosity, and integrity. Another site for advocacy concerns Western strategies in the process of creation and presentation. Workshops, projects, and salon presentations—formats familiar in the West—were naturalized throughout APPEX. Although initially regarding these formats as points of difference, the Asian artists recognized the value of some of the training techniques and presentation practices for their own careers; some incorporated them upon returning home. In reality such innovations arise from an external advocacy project rather than from an evolutionary process from within the culture or the practice. This reality entails ethical considerations and thus yet another kind of risk. Other risk-taking concerns the processes of creativity leading to product as outcome. Given the trope of the cross-cultural, product constitutes major evidence of success for the Project and includes public performances, videos, sound recordings, and this volume of essays. Does the cross-cultural collaboration work? In order to make a determination, the writers would need to consider the criteria for success and the processes by which success is determined. Both these issues belong to an advocacy (if not activist) subtext and may constitute one of the uniquenesses of the APPEX program. It was a hope that the writers would tease out both the uniquenesses as well as the commonalities of APPEX vis-a-vis similar cross-cultural creative ventures.
		Conclusion
		In retrospect, the processes of studying APPEX were more inductive than deductive, more exploratory than prescriptive. They were certainly specific to time and place, a parallel to the performances emerging from the workshops. For the humanities Fellows, APPEX offered an opportunity to take risks in a safe place, to re-visit accepted protocols, and to critique current paradigms of performance research. During the residency, the writers encountered these issues and concerns (as well as many others), which they variously advocated for, accepted, adapted, resisted, or rejected. Their encounters, voices, and positionalities are embodied within the essays they wrote. The writers constitute an assemblage of highly individual, engaged, and passionate colleagues. It is my personal hope that their work forms way stations toward scholarship relevant for our synchronic time and our global place. I further hope that the APPEX humanities Fellows continue on a trajectory toward finding mutually satisfying relationships with the artists with whom we work and with the forms which are our raison d’être. Honolulu, December 14, 2003
		Sources Cited
		Balme, Christopher. 1997. “Beyond Style: Typologies of Performance Analysis.” Theatre Research International 22:1:24-30 (Spring). Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 1997. “Performance Art and Ritual: Bodies in Performance.” Theatre Research International 22:1S:22-37 (Spring, supplement). Segal, Lewis. 1999. “Asia Pacific Performance is a Testament to Western Freedom.” Los Angeles Times 31 Jl 99: n.p. Singer, Milton ed. 1959. Traditional India: Structure and Change. Philadelphia: AFS. Singleton, Brian. 1997 (1). “Introduction: The Pursuit of Otherness for the Investigation of Self.” Theatre Research International 22:2:93-97 (Summer). Singleton, Brian. 1997 (2). “Receiving Les Atrides Productively: Mnouchkine’s Intercultural Signs as Intertexts.” Theatre Research International 22:19-23 (Spring). Tran Van Khe. 1962. La Musique Vietnamienne Traditionelle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Trimillos, Ricardo D. 1994. “More than Art: The Politics of Performance.” Looking Out: Perspectives on Dance and Criticism in a Multicultural World, David Gere, ed. New York: Schirmer. p. 23-39.
		Notes
		1 - The humanities component was a research-oriented, reflexive aspect added in 1999 to the ongoing creative and performance thrust of APPEX. Entitled “Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Examining Creativity in Performance,” it was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation as part of its Humanities Fellowship Program for both the 1999 and 2000 residencies. 2 - The terms identified “official status” during the residency rather than establishing a bounded definition of a participant’s competencies. Some writers are also performers, including Uttara Asha Coorlawala (1999); Garrett Kam, and Kazuko Yamazaki (2000). Mario Ontiveros (2000) is a visual arts curator. Similarly, individuals included in the performer category are writers and researchers, including Kenny Endo and Emiko Susilo (1999 and 2000) as well as Cristian Amigo, Josefina Baez, and Mao Tip Moni (2000). 3 - Peter Tokofsky’s essay, “Reflections on the Art-Making Process at APPEX,” touches upon these agendas. 4 - Tuong as a North Vietnamese tradition carried potential confrontation with the resident Vietnamese population, which is mostly South Vietnamese. The community has a history of essentializing Hanoi-associated cultural representations as communist. There were no incidents, suggesting that the APPEX salon provided a safe space for the local Vietnamese-American community as well.
		prev home next