|
An article written by Holly Abney for Issue One of Portland's
Disconnect, an arts journal published by Red 76 Arts Group.
On September 28, 2001 the Chicago based Performance
Art duo, Cupola Bobber performed the West Coast premiere of their multi-disciplinary work, "Subterfuge" to very enthusiastic
response.
Cupola Bobber is Stephen Fiehn and Tyler B. Myers. They met four years ago while students at the School
of the Art Institute of Chicago and made their first piece together in June of 1999 before founding Cupola Bobber in September
of 2000. In "Subterfuge" Cupola Bobber utilizes a set of 36 two-by-fours, a leaf, a cardboard box and toast and a range of
sources and techniques to explore the nature of the soul in terms of the body. The result is a surprising 90 minutes of chaos
of creation and destruction. Using an intricate, barely visible web of lo-fi mechanics, the performers visually delight us
by slowly inflating themselves, waltzing with a leaf and making a model of the cosmos with a rock and a string. One performer
adheres toast to his face with an elastic band and the other squirts it with water until it falls off in sopping pieces. They
build ephemeral structures out of two-by-fours that have the illusion of being architecturally sound until they are laid waste---seemingly
by accident --- by the well-intentioned, yet clumsy performers.
The glue of this performance is an alternating and
mutating cycle of strange dances that become more rigorous, ridiculous and destructive as time goes on. Typical of endurance
art, the audience of Subterfuge is taken through a physical process along with the performers. We grip our chair, our breathing
changes, we itch, and we feel nauseous and/or euphoric. There is something very satisfying about becoming physically exhausted
while sitting quietly and watching something. Near the end of the piece, when the performers have tossed themselves through
an endless cycle of dances, tackles and falls, the collapse on the floor in sweaty, weary heaps only to fly up into the most
dynamic and physically demanding of all the dances at the first notes of James Brown's "Get Up." Now we straight up love these
guys as they rise from the dead to do an ass kicking hysterical, funk dance hybrid. After the performance, my friend Kate
asked, "What are they doing right now? Are they going somewhere- because I want to go with them- wherever they go? I mean,
if they need to go home and sleep, then I want to go too." I decided I would ask them about their process (via email) to see
how they came up with this complex and affecting work.
- What was the beginning point of Subterfuge?
There
can't really be one point at which the process begins. There is a point in time we suppose, but influences and sources affect
the process in different ways. We see our performance as a sort of programmed resonance- a series of triggers- that need the
audience to be personally invested with their history in order to find a place where meaning is productive and not deductive.
Interpretation must be based in an individual's own matrix of relations, and not approached in a non-personal way. So, in
designing the performance, we draw on our own personal histories to make something that can accomplish this resonance with
the audience we desire, and our personal history doesn't have a starting point really. At least not one we can pinpoint. We
got together and talked a lot about making a performance and things that interested us.
- How do you choose the forms
in which you express your ideas?
The ideas choose their form. In some cases we brought ideas into our discussions
that couldn't find a way to express themselves as live events, but that doesn't mean they go away. It just means that it is
now a part of our confusion, and will manifest itself in a less concrete fashion at a later time. Things must never be forced
unless that is the idea. Every idea has a form that mirrors back on itself and becomes a part of the idea itself. For us it
is a matter of finding the form, not choosing it.
- Along with that question, could you describe your working process?
Research is done, discussion takes place, we get on our feet and play, try everything, no matter how ridiculous. We
like to think our process is like making rock candy. You make a super-saturated substance, let it cool off, and it starts
to crystallize along a thread with time. Research is the substance-super-saturated with ideas- and sequence is the thread,
organizing the ideas as they come together. Time is important.
- How do you resolve collaborative conflicts?
Trust
is very important. We try everything, which helps when it comes time to discuss any problems with the idea, action, etc. A
lot of conflict is attributed to miscommunication, talking can sometimes be the worst way to get an idea out there, so we
do our best to try everything, to put it into the physical realm and react to it. In this way it is easier to work out problems.
Also, conflict shouldn't always be considered problematic. At times conflicts are as important as anything else.
-
Have you begun a new piece and if so, what ideas are you musing over?
Yes. We are very early in our process for the
new piece. Right now we are in discussions about different ways we can research ideas we are interested in, and ways in which
the style of research might inform the finished work. We are really interested in geographic identity and how that might be
best explored and elaborated on.
- Do you foresee any use of new forms or a difference in the use of tools, or structure,
etc. from the last piece to this one?
When making Subterfuge, we researched as we built the performance. The major
difference at this point is our interest in exploring systems of research that will contribute to the finished piece conceptually
and structurally; in other words, we would like to make a form for the research. This form will create a foundation of information
before we begin to think about how to perform the information. The information will present its needs, and that will dictate
the tools, structure and form of the finished work.
|
