MONTAGEM – Antropositivo – November 29, 2016 – por Ruy Filho

De Elisabete Finger e Alessa Camarinha

CCSP | SP | 26/11/16 – Festival Música Estranha

Entre a dança e o som revê-la a existência por um estado performático que soma corpo e cognição. É preciso revelar a dança como o movimento coreográfico, o que não significa necessariamente dançar aos moldes clássicos e modernos. A dança se revela na soma entre ritmo, movimento, desenho sobre o espaço, diagonais, planos e a presença como construção de sistemas narrativos sígnicos. Já o som, ainda que indiscutível, seja ruído, melódico, música, tem sua face mais direta, o que torna o preceito de uma coreografia sonora um tanto mais complexa. Se levado o som ao movimento, então estará limitado a uma composição. Em Montagem, Elisabete e Alessa conquistam um instante híbrido capaz de sustentar ambos, coreografia e sonoridade, sem necessariamente construir um tratado tecnicista ou filosófico sobre. As performers, pois todas são mulheres, conduzem caixas de papelão que são também caixas de som. Enquanto se deslocam por dentre o público, variam os volumes e acessos sonoros, provocando uma composição em constante transformação, cujo contexto se afirma pelos corpos e gestos. A performance simples e eficiente é repleta por ideias inteligentes e nada óbvias. E é na simplicidade aparente que Montagem conquista sua maior qualidade: a certeza de que assistimos, de um modo ou outro, o som dançar. Um acerto das artistas e do festival ao provocar o que pareceria inviável.

montagem_1_foto_thiago_lima

BURACO

Leipzig, 13th Jun 2014

Jornal Leipzig net

Dramaturgy New, Bulgaria, Jun 2012

http://dramaturgynew.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=118:antistatic-2012&catid=9:english-version&Itemid=10

Литературен вестник – Sofia, Bulgaria, April 2012

O’s OBJECTS
The performance “O” of the based in Berlin Brazilian artist Elisabete Finger
(author of the concept and sole performer) was one of the interesting accents in
this year’s edition of the Antistatic Festival for contemporary dance and
performance.
“O” is minimalistic but overwhelming spectacle: a sequence of hypnotic
actions, transforming the performer’s body and the environment implemented in
simple but expressive set – stretched on the whole floor and up to the half of the
bottom wall thick black nylon sheet. The constantly dripping from the left front
corner of the ceiling drop sets a pulsation, base‐structure on whose grid is laid and
distributed each one of the following images‐actions. The leaking from the “sky”
of the hall water, organic liquid turned into structuring flow line, is in a sense the
key to the performance: not the violation of the objects, but their mastering, the
revealing of their secondary (or primary?) potentialities, the free, without being
frivolous play with the presence of the body and the objects. The performer pulls
out unexpected objects from unexpected places and manipulates them in an
enigmatic way, displacing their usual functions and in this way altering the space,
opening it up for the unclear and even the monstrous. The anxiety, Unheimlich,
here is not connected with the impotent simulation of the unimaginable presence,
but with the real and effective change in the functions of the environment
through the techniques of the body.
The moving on all four, accompanied by minimal, elaborated in detail
convulsions, the slow, structured and continuous urinating, the swallowing and
spilling out of a whole boiled and peeled egg, the enveloping in big hairy muff, the
undressing – when first mentioned all those actions would call association with
breaking of the norm, excess, searching for the “real life” etc. The performance
could be rendered through a thorough Bataillian analysis (the headless figure, the
tremor of the limbs and the mirror relation mouth‐anus – the laying egg mouth,
undoubtedly could be exploited in such a perspective). The question is if that in
some sense easy reading wouldn’t overlook the concrete manner of presence and
manipulating of the objects, being tricked by the apparent. What is particular in
“O” is that the quickly identifiable as adhering to the theatre of the excess images
are in fact systemized in completely new order. Well measured operating with the
possibilities of those marked by the cultural references images, resistance against
2
the reflex that automatically says “egg, hole=Bataille”, “naked female
bottom=gender comment”, “urinating=provocation/animal presence”. The
urinating on stage in “O” is not connected with releasing, with annihilation of
some civilization inhibitions, but with retaining, with communication with the
spectator through the shared act of redirecting a physical function, not letting it
loose, but reducing it to a skilful instrument of the work.
The orifices (of the stage and of the body) are not part of a loose sexuality,
the call of the wild or artifacts of the archaic. On the contrary, they are part of this
world of playing realities, of traversing from whole to whole, of combining hairs
with shiny surfaces, smooth with hairy (glittering yellow balloons, connected to
each other and stuck with a hairy rope, reminding of a umbilical cord, popping out
from a hole in the nylon) of absorbing surfaces and surfaces on which the liquid
flows (the shimmering sea of the nylon sheet and the disappearing under it
murmuring body, enveloped in hairy cover). “O” is exploration of the mutual
penetration of different kinds of micro‐realities, of altering of the spaces and
objects through small of size, but definitive in their results actions.
Elisabete Finger turns into animal, not “natural” animal, but artificial,
puppet, odd animal that creates its own reality. Her presence is erotic, but not
calling for copulation erotic – closed, inwards focused, sensitive but not sensual
erotic. As “o” is in the same time a letter in the alphabet and the shape that the
mouth takes when spelling this letter, so every body on stage is in the same time
totality of its associations and its concrete physical form. And as “o” is in the same
time presence and hole (the outlines of the hole of the pretzel, not the pretzel
itself), so “O” is in the same time the things that are present in it and their
absence on the level of the normality. Or, “O” is a performance of the surprise and
the curiosity.
Ani Vaseva