Dance on Film

Having enjoyed: h2dance presents: SHORT FILMS by Rachel Davies, Shelly Love, straybird/Lucy Cash, Becky Edmunds, last night I am to resurrect this Blog... Two things came up: To the question: 'Why Dance and Film not, Dance and Painting or other media', the answer: 'Yes, why not other media.' Though the distinction was made between film with/about dance and dance film, with the latter being a film curated through choreography, and if I understood correctly, the former, where dance is the subject or tool and not the medium. With narrative a tool interpreted in all mediums and a tool being a means to an end rather than that of a medium of expression. The other point, where Rachel Davies described the, '3 births' of a filmed dance piece: The idea, the shoot and the edit. How can working with others with other specific disciplines to the one you practice negate/compliment your own?

People shopping at Wilkinsons is not funny.

'It is both tragic and absurd that, as our society has become less equal and as in recent years the poor have actually got poorer, resentment against those at the bottom has positively increased. Chav-hate is a way of justifying an unequal society. What if you have wealth and success because it has been handed to you on a plate? What if people are poorer than you because the odds are stacked against them? To accept this would trigger a crisis of self-confidence amongst the well-off few. And if you were to accept it, then surely you would have to accept that the government's duty is do something about it - namely, by curtailing your own privilages. But, if you convince yourself that the less fortunate are smelly, thick, racist and rude by nature, then it is only right they should remain at the bottom. Chav-hate justifies the preservation of the pecking order, based on the fiction that it is actually a fair reflection of peoples worth.'

An extract from 'Chavs, The Demonization of the Working Class', Owen Jones, Verso Press, 2011

Just a quick one...

Two trails of thought coming together:
1. Why is architecture taught through critique?
2. What approach is best for an architect?

Bit obvious probably but criticism is often seen as a negative, but does it prepare you for the most important role of an architect, critical response?
Work is just reproduction and, therefore, not art or architecture if it doesn't at the very least provide a critical response to an existing or proposed circumstance.
Positive criticism is then probably a necessary tool to develop these skills, but has a very narrow band of usefulness.

So be critical of what's around you, have an opinion, work it out for yourself, or do something else.

A rocket launcher from an attack helicopter welded to the back of an old Toyota truck.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

During the August riots in London and around England the police response was particularly closely monitored by news agencies and the public. In Hackney, East London, from where I am writing this piece, the disturbances were at their worst on the second day of disquiet. The police presence rapidly evolved, ominous from the equipment used: the fluorescent jackets of community policing to full riot gear.

With the officers well protected, seemingly a tactic of passive containment was put into motion; officers moving forward during lulls in action of the protestors and making partial retreats when challenged more severely. This, however, allowed those taking part in the disturbances much legroom for opportunistic theft, causing damage to shops and homes alike.
The tactics seemed to quell the will of the mob, perhaps leaving them with spoils and/or proud of making a point to the rest of the nation.

Many of the marginalised in society have very real grievances, yet this argument is not the one we are dealing with here. Why leave property to be taken or damaged in a society that would not normally tolerate such actions in plain view?

In Libya, the Rebels now to be known as the new government have in a Mad Max type manner been re-configuring complex weapons systems, abandoned by the Gaddafi government to suit their less technical expertise. By the time of writing they control most of Libya, a testament to their individual and collective ambition more than technical know-how.

These two instances generate questions of the fundamental principles of possession under a society where the rule of law is not invulnerable.

What are the implications for architecture?

How is a buildings program relevant to or sullied by the society in which it sits, and where do the design team ‘draw a line’ and decide that a building is not in the interests of a wider audience.

Where is the flexibility? A simple example from a friend of mine was a study this year of streetscapes in Soho, Central London, where outdoor seating were always laid within their allotted spaces outside café’s, pubs and restaurants. Yet, sandwich boards, banned in the area on conservation grounds were widely prevalent and dashed across the pavement at many different locations.

With designers often scrambling to be able to build a project it is easy and questionably initially necessary to plumb for projects, which may not have the strictest moral purpose. Do we have the means to contest this; should we care?

Possession is nine tenths of architecture.

Napoleon's Russian campaign, 1812

Charles Joseph Minard's depiction of losses to Napoleon's army during the campaign

Health inequality

‘Inequalities are a matter of life and death, of health and sickness, of well-being and misery. The fact that in England today people in different social circumstances experience avoidable differences in health, well-being and length of life is, quite simply, unfair. Creating a fairer society is fundamental in improving the health of the whole population and ensuring a fairer distribution of good health.
Inequalities in health arise because of inequalities in society - in the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. So close is the link between particular social and economic features of society and the distribution of health among the population, that the magnitude of health inequalities is a good marker of progress towards creating a fairer society. Taking action to reduce inequalities in health does not require a separate health agenda, but action across the whole of society.’

nicked this from: The Marmot Review, February 2010, Fair Society, Healthy Lives