SASHA PEPELYAEV

25|11|20

I think the first thing I want to address when writing this reflection is the discussion around what is seen as valuable for us as learning artists. In our current situation, the discussion is between having a performance outcome vs not. In the former, the focus is naturally on the process of making material that is crafted into a form that is able to be performed as a mostly insular result: a performance. In the latter, the focus is more on learning the artist/s aesthetics, values, and techniques in a studio setting. This means more time to get in depth without the pressures of having to ultimately refine anything. 

I think both of these ways of learning have merit and value, but it does seem to be that the performance based learning can be disregarded as unhelpful because we are not specifically taken through the values of the artist so explicitly, and have to balance a lot more in order to find the patterns in their work.

For example - now working with Mart Kangro - he is so up-front about his interests as an artist. We have been doing exercises that directly address these interests, and honestly I’ve been hit with so much juicy information. At the same time however, I would love to know how Mart actually makes a show. All of these fundamentals and concepts are endlessly applicable, but at the end of the day we’re here to make performance, and I want to see how these artists do that.

This brings me to a secondary point I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: it seems like the research and development phase of performance making can become over-emphasised to the point that the actual performance becomes secondary. An afterthought in some ways. I’ve felt this in a number of performances over the last few years. Maybe this is just me having a rant about a personal gripe that isn’t necessarily shared by many others, but I’ve always held in high value the idea that the performance is the thing we do, very likely to an over-extent that has damaged my work in other ways. A teacher in Australia once said that a performance is a gift to an audience. You are actively giving them something – it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bright positive experience, but you are giving them an experience. Sometimes, I feel as an audience member that I’m just watching a lightly staged outcome of artistic research. That I could’ve not been there, and it wouldn’t have made a difference. 

It’s not about how you perform necessarily, but rather about the intention for this being a performance, and not an essay. You can do all the deep research and creative investigation in the world, but if you don’t know how to shape it into a communicable thing, then it’s going to be half the thing it could’ve been. 

ANALOGY TIME.

It’s like travelling all over the world to find the best ingredients you can get your hands on, but then when you get back home you throw them all into a bowl, microwave it for 10 minutes, serve it to your guests and say, “Enjoy this cake.”

It doesn’t matter how good those ingredients are, if you don’t know how to shape and refine them so they can be eaten and enjoyed by your guests, they’re not going to add up to much.

To focus back on the process has been very good for me since coming to the CPPM, and I’m hoping that it’s something I can continue to do even once I’ve left – but I also hope that the value of performance can be re-discovered. 

Anyway. Now that’s done with, let’s talk about Sasha.

Working with Sasha has been one of the most unique experiences of the CPPM so far, largely because he only ever treated us like actual artists. I always felt like I could’ve been someone working with him through the process of creation on a real-world production, for better or for worse. 

His style, aesthetic, and values also were quite unique. It felt like he had these very significant influences from his Russian background, mixed with an almost operatic sense of grandiose. There was no time for subtlety with Sasha. Although it’s not the work I would be interested in making, it did really show some foundations in creating his sort of large brushstroke work: structures need to reflect something relatable and recognisable for the audience; ambiguity is not synonymous with being unclear; you can’t avoid the reality of the stage (this one is funnily very similar to Mart, though at a whole different end of the spectrum); and, how to (try) and incorporate technology into performance. 

I want to go into these last two.

So, this idea of not avoiding the reality/convention of performance was interesting. For someone who is drawn heavily towards big characters and performances, he did always have a very clear line on what you could get away with. For example, when we tried to emulate a prison break style scenario with a warden holding a light and guards marching back and forth, it created an incompatibility for him. The illusion of the prison was not (and would really never be) fully convincing, so the mirage was pointless for him. Instead, he would get us to focus on the actual situation and relationships between the characters and their situation. It’s similar in a way to Mart, who doesn’t want us to create any sort of stage illusion, but rather address directly the reality of us performing for an audience. Same same, but different. For me this will be a very interesting thing to keep an eye on in my final work, especially with such large concepts going on.

Finally, this playing with technology. Was it successful in my eyes? Not really. The techniques seemed to float between this realm of being really incorporated into the world of the performance, and only being used for occasional and specific effects. This realm, for me, is gimmicky. In conversation with an audience member following the performance, who also tends to feel the same way I do, they did say that in this case we could get away with it because we never tried to hide the technology or create any illusion of what was happening. Maybe this is another key for technology use: being open to the audience about what the tech is doing. I recently saw Two Body Orchestra, which I could write a whole essay on, and it also approached the tech this same way. No illusions. For my work, I have some ideas about how to possibly address this. Hopefully it works.

14|11|20

To be honest, out of all the artists we’ve worked with so far, Sasha is probably the first I can think of that has actually treated us as a company of artists making work. There’s no pretence of him being a teacher for us or even any real explanations of his process. Instead, we’re just living it as it happens.

This approach has been remarkably refreshing, and in some ways very enjoyable – however, it has also meant that the lack of clear structures and development makes the days a little more laborious and I can see the whole group depressing a little bit. 

I think there’s something to note in this, in terms of how to operate a rehearsal room going forward. In the past, I have always made an effort to begin the day with skill development exercises or games, before then taking those into the making process, and I think this time with Sasha has reinforced my desire for this each day. 

I’m also still trying to work out what Sasha is all about with his work. I’m seeing a very clear aesthetic quality in “fairy-tales”, and looking at his past work I can see this semi-fantastical quality. Maybe I’m reading too far into this, but it feels like he draws from a very different life outlook than what I am familiar with. Thematically, it aligns quite a lot with Eastern Europe and Russian works that deal heavily with the concept of government, or control from a higher power. In our specific case, there’s a clear through-line of puppetry and masters, and even in the structures without this obvious analogy, there is a quality of tragedy - no control of your fate.

I have picked up a very consistent method that Sasha employs, where he will look at (for instance) scenes from Pinocchio and break them down into their essential elements. Eg. A betrays B, and B find a clever way for revenge. Then, we are tasked in a short period to create a new short scene (or structure) with the former as its bones. So, in a way, we are recreating Pinocchio, but with no reference to Pinocchio. Though, we all know Pinocchio is the source material, so there’s inevitably qualities that crossover. I find this similar to how Eddie would give us abstract tasks such as “write the word LOVE with your nose”, and although the movement would seem irreverent, it would have the underlying feeling of love simply due to it being present in thought in the creation process. 

Going forward I feel like this could be an effective way to find choreographic structures in my final project – stripping religious ritual to its bones, and tasking my dancers with making new material from these simple structural outlines. 

01|11|20

What a wild start to these 3 weeks. Coming out of the heavily structured days with Giacomo, Sasha’s sessions seem like the wild west. I have no idea what we’re going to be working on, or why, but something interesting will usually happen.

At first this was quite jarring, and in some ways unpleasant – not having a structure or real aim for the process undertaken made the days seems almost a little devoid of significance. After a few days however, I am actually starting to really enjoy the laidback attitude of the work. I also think that so far, Sasha is the only guest artist who hasn’t come in with the pretence of having to teach us something or guide us through their process. He really does seem to be treating us like he would treat a group of artists that he might work with for a project. 

It’s also quite interesting that Sasha has such an curiosity for technologies in the creative realm. This depth mapping tool we’ve been exploring with the Kinect camera has constantly fluctuated between being a ridiculous device and a genuine tool of creation. The most interesting effects I think we’ve found using the tool is the time delay looping – something that I was intending to use for my solo, but then decided against for various reasons. One of these reasons is simply that this sort of device can very easily slip into being a ‘gimmick’, and it’s difficult to escape this. I don’t know exactly how, but I can imagine that you either have to make the entire performance situated around this tool (like I am intending for my final project’s use of live stream) or you manage to use the tool in a very subtle and effective manner that accentuates the other work on stage. I’m very interested to see how this plays out, especially for this “performance” we’re doing at the end of the 3 weeks.

Sasha is also a breath of fresh air in his demands for simplicity. Although I don’t necessarily agree with all that he says on the work, it is interesting to work from this perspective of clarity rather than the abstract that I think we default into. One gem of wisdom he dropped was that you need the top layer to be simple so that the viewer can see the depth below it. If the top layer is indecipherable, they’ll stay there, trying to decode what’s happening, rather than seeing deeper. I think this is quite apt in describing issues I’ve had with a lot of performances I see, especially in the contemporary art space, and something I want to hold onto for my work going forward, for sure.