With Roberta Marquez.
In Ivan Nagy´s Giselle.
As Don Jose in Carmen.
In last scene in Marcia Haydée´s Carmen, this coreography is great, each caracter is just perfect, was magic this work with Marcia.
Here in Manon, how wonderful, McMillan genius.
In Cranko´s Romeo and Juliet rehearsal, Another Big Genius, I love his ballets.
In Jaime Pinto´s Don Quixote.
In Marcia Haydée´s Slepping Beauty.
In Tetley´s Le Sacre du Printemps rehearsal.
In Don Quixote.
In Romeo rehearsal with Marcia Haydée, Richard Cragun , Georgette Tsinguirides, Georgette Farias and Pablo Aharonian.
Luis Ortigoza Working in His Bayadere version, with Stuttgart guest dancer Alexander Zaitsev.
In this beautiful Balanchine ballet, Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux.
In Marcia Haydée´s Carmen, This is very passion and erotic pas de deux.
Luis Ortigoza is The Principal Star Dancer in the Ballet de Santiago (Chile).
Here in Giselle (second act).
In the Studio.
In Cinderella, Marcia Haydée version. (this costume was used for Rudolf Nureyev, We have the original Raymundo Larrain production, he makes this to Marquis de Cuevas, was so special used this costume to all company, and is in perfect condition).
In Cinderella second act.
As Don Jose in Carmen.
In the studio with Luz Lorca Sub Artistic Director.
With our Artistic Director Marcia Haydée.
In The Corsaire.
In the studio dress rehearsal.
In Carmen pas de deux.
Right before Slepping Beauty pas de deux.
In Cranko´s Romeo and Juliet, (balcony pas de deux).
To me Julie Kent is beautiful as Giselle, I took these pictures the last time she danced here with Ballet de Santiago. Here are some in rehearsals, in the studio, on the stage, and also some from the first act.
This was the first rehearsal.
Julie and Luis.
This rehearsall was magic, and I couldn´t stop taking pictures.
They were very happy to see each other again. Before this Giselle they danced together in Bayadere and Sleeping Beauty.
This is once again the same shot that I took from “Appalachian Spring” photo call run.
This is Jessie Ksanznak, one of our stage manager on this fall. She is wataching “Appalachian Spring” from the stage right.
She is running her cues.
This is a REAL back stage. Cross over is a bit like a old club.
Here Denise Vale, who used to dance in the company and now rehearsal director is giving notes after the run. on the left Jackie Bulnes , on the right Jacquelien Elder with Maurizio Nardi on the rock.
The other moment after the run, David Zurak is feeling the space, and Maurizio and the Followers( Atsuko, Jacqueline and Masha on site) getting notes.
Over the past few weeks of my Dance and Technology class at Sarah Lawrence College, the students and I have been programing, dissecting and repurposing surveillance systems to develop mediated performance outlets/environments. To aid and inform our strategies in this project we have been thinking and reading about panopticism.
Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a theoretical architecture imagined in the 1780’s, is illustrated above. The name literally means the “all-seeing place.” He describes it as a multi-purpose architecture whose design principles are applicable to constructing factory, school, prison, hospital or asylum. A multi-story ring of individual cells surround a central watchtower; every cell is visible from the watchtower while the watcher remains invisible.
The viewer can see everything while remaining invisible.
This panoptic prison named Presidio Modelo, built under the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado in Cuba, once held the one and only Fidel Castro. It is now a national monument.
Foucault uses the Panopticon to analyze the new ways in which power is exercised in the modern world and the role surveillance technologies play in creating a disciplined/docile body. He describes Bentham’s architecture as a kind of multi-staged performance space.
The unverifiable possibility that a subject is being observed at any time is the essential mechanism by which the machine operates. Visibility, as Meghan noted in class, makes one take responsibility for their own subjection.
He who is subjected to the field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play simultaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection. Discipline and Punish 202
What does this have to do with performance? Everything…
Foucault describes the stacks of cells; “They are like so many small cages, so many small theaters, in which each actor is alone, perfectly individualized and constantly visible.”
In one way the panopticon is like a super-theater, a nesting of many stages.
However Foucault stresses that surveillance architectures are exactly the reverse of those of theater. He writes, “We are much less Greeks than we believe. We are neither in the amphitheatre, nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine.” Survellence allows one to see many while theater and spectacle is based on many seeing one
Compare the structure of the Panopticon to that of the Globe Theater.
Different yet the same. Definitely involved in a complex tangle.
This assembly can be used as a dance technology. On April 28th and 29th 2007 Martha Williams directed and performed in a dance installation entitled Stacked, converting an out of business clothing store into a surveillance menagerie. Each dancer took residence in one of nine changing rooms which they themed and designed the interiors of. Camera feeds from each cell were composed and projected in the central room so that all of the dances could be seen at once.
Turning the panopticon back into a performance space constitutes a double reversal.
With this in mind, take another look at the dance-cube I prototyped last fall. In this staging the cameras are on the perimeter of the studio so that the gaze is directed from the outside in (as in theater) rather than from the inside out.
Though still, looking at this dance I am reminded of the cells of the panopticon.
“They are like so many small cages, so many small theaters, in which each actor is alone, perfectly individualized and constantly visible.”
Could we characterize the structure of the internet as panoptic? Here is a great essay that explores that question.
This very space is haunted by panoptic geometries. Have a look at the contributor list in the sidebar, look at all those little faces, “perfectly individualized” subjects you can see all at once and may click on to reveal “so many small theaters.”
The design of social networking and internet dating sites, showing all your friends faces in an array, seduces us with a kind of panoptic fantasy, being able to see many at once. This is where things become slightly more complicated. Just like the panopticon embeds tiny theaters in an array, these social technologies embed so many small panopticons in a matrix of connectivity. Each cell is now its own theater and watchtower.
All these ideas should not creep us out. Rather, they should inform our thinking about performance and visibility and the way technology provides new venues for artistic expression. It is an open problem. In my estimation projects like Martha William’s Stacked, my dance-cube, or The(Inter)Mission are all part of a project to reverse-the-panopticon. While flirting with aspects of surveillance and making the subject hyper-visible, they enhance communication rather than simply separate us into little boxes.
So next time you feel like you are under surveillance consider it an opportunity to put on a show.
