Exposition

Quest for a Breathing Performance (2019)

Anu Vehviläinen

About this exposition

In this exposition, I study the concept of ‘experimentation’ in artistic research. I describe how the interdisciplinary collaboration of the Silence Ensemble influenced a violin-piano recital through both conscious and unintentional experimentation. The focus of the experimentation is on the ‘now-moment’. A detailed explanation of the technical practicing process before the concert is also offered to introduce the experimental approach. To define my individual experimentation, I refer to experimentation studies in artistic research and especially to Bart Vanhecke’s concepts of experimentation ‘in’ and ‘through’ art.
typeresearch exposition
keywordsnow-moment, experimentation, pianistic expertise
date23/04/2018
published23/05/2019
last modified23/05/2019
statuspublished
share statusprivate
affiliationSibelius Academy
licenseAll rights reserved
urlhttps://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/460869/460870
doihttps://doi.org/10.22501/ruu.460869
published inRUUKKU - Studies in Artistic Research
portal issue11.


Simple Media

id name copyright license
466726 2018.2.7 Yksinkertaista vai monimutkaista - Anu Vehviläinen.conv Mieko Kanno, Anu Vehviläinen All rights reserved
466727 2018.2.7 Yksinkertaista vai monimutkaista Track 1 Kanno & Vehviläinen All rights reserved
466728 2018.2.7 Yksinkertaista vai monimutkaista Track 1 Kanno, Vehviläinen All rights reserved
466729 2018.2.7 Yksinkertaista vai monimutkaista Track 1 Kanno, Vehviläinen All rights reserved
466730 William Byrd: Marche before the Battle Kanno & Vehviläinen All rights reserved
478275 20180528_123347_resized Anu Vehviläinen All rights reserved
478281 20180528_123359_resized AV All rights reserved
478288 0_A_VALMIS_VIDEO_valmistus_A AV All rights reserved
478303 20180528_123554_resized AV All rights reserved
478306 NUOTTI_byrd_eka_sivu AV All rights reserved
478307 NUOTTI_byrd_eka_sivu AV All rights reserved
478309 NUOTTI_Eka_sivu AV All rights reserved
478313 0_B_VALMIS_VIDEO_valmistus_B AV All rights reserved
478315 0_B_VALMIS_VIDEO_valmistus_B AV All rights reserved
478323 1_A_VALMIS_VIDEO_aloitussointu AV All rights reserved
478325 1_A_VALMIS_VIDEO_aloitussointu AV All rights reserved
478326 1_B_VALMIS_VIDEO_kaari AV All rights reserved
478327 2_VALMIS_VIDEO_ekan_soinnun_hakeminen AV All rights reserved
478328 2_VALMIS_VIDEO_ekan_soinnun_hakeminen AV All rights reserved
478330 1_B_VALMIS_VIDEO_kaari av All rights reserved
478332 2_VALMIS_VIDEO_ekan_soinnun_hakeminen AV All rights reserved
478333 3_VALMIS_VIDEO_eri_balanssit AV All rights reserved
478334 4_VALMIS_VIDEO_itsenäiset sormet AV All rights reserved
478335 5_VALMIS_VIDEO_altto_esiin av All rights reserved
478336 6_VALMIS_VIDEO_vasemman_soinnut AV All rights reserved
478337 7_VALMIS_VIDEO_vasemman_kahdeksasosat AV All rights reserved
478338 8_VALMIS_VIDEO_vasemman_kahdeksasosat_lapisoitto_tempossa AV All rights reserved
478339 9_VALMIS_VIDEO_puolinuottien_pidennykset av All rights reserved
478340 10_VALMIS_VIDEO_hidas_harjoitusversio_ja_tempossa AV All rights reserved
478342 3_VALMIS_VIDEO_eri_balanssit av All rights reserved
478344 4_VALMIS_VIDEO_itsenäiset sormet av All rights reserved
478346 5_VALMIS_VIDEO_altto_esiin av All rights reserved
478349 6_VALMIS_VIDEO_vasemman_soinnut av All rights reserved
478351 7_VALMIS_VIDEO_vasemman_kahdeksasosat av All rights reserved
478353 8_VALMIS_VIDEO_vasemman_kahdeksasosat_lapisoitto_tempossa av All rights reserved
478356 9_VALMIS_VIDEO_puolinuottien_pidennykset av All rights reserved
478359 10_VALMIS_VIDEO_hidas_harjoitusversio_ja_tempossa av All rights reserved
478365 11_KONSERTTI_MARSSI AV All rights reserved
478367 11_KONSERTTI_MARSSI AV All rights reserved
478377 1_ALOITUSSOINTU AV All rights reserved
478897 UUSI_ALOITUSSOINTU_20180611_094032_resized AV All rights reserved
478902 UUSI_ALTTO_20180611_094050_resized AV All rights reserved
478905 UUSI_VASEMMAN_ALOITUSSOINNUT_20180611_094114_resized AV All rights reserved
478907 UUSI_LIIKETTÄ_20180611_094125_resized av All rights reserved
478909 UUSI_VASEURIN_KAHDEKSASOSAT20180611_094136_resized AV All rights reserved
478965 KORJATTU_kahdeksasosat AV All rights reserved
478966 korjattu_valokuva_20180611_103134_resized av All rights reserved
478968 korjattu_valokuva_20180611_103134_resized AV All rights reserved
479653 12_erilaisia_muotoja AV All rights reserved
479657 12_erilaisia_muotoja AV All rights reserved
479659 12_erilaisia_muotoja AV All rights reserved
479661 korjattu_altto _esiin20180613_081252_resized AV All rights reserved
479662 korjattu_altto _esiin20180613_081252_resized AV All rights reserved
479669 20180613_081252_resized av All rights reserved
479670 20180613_081252_resized av All rights reserved
480621 12_erilaisia_muotoja AV All rights reserved
480623 korjattu_2_ALTTOESIIN AV All rights reserved
480624 20180613_081252_resized AV All rights reserved
480626 3_VALMIS_VIDEO_eri_balanssit AV All rights reserved

RUUKKU portal comments: 2
Sverker Jullander 21/05/2019 at 12:16

The following peer review was presented to the author during the process and has influenced the final exposition. It is here presented in a slightly edited form.

 

Sverker Jullander:

 

It is obvious that the submission is about performance, and as such it would qualify as relevant to the theme. This is not, however, to say that it answers or deals with all the questions in the call. In relation to the questions mentioned in the call, I think that it is closest to “How is performance as research actually done?’ rather than to other questions seeing performance as a ‘medium’ for doing other ‘things’. In other words, for this presentation, performance is the goal or study object rather than the means or medium for something else. The emphasis on the artistic work preceding or leading to performance, or, differently put, having performance as a consequence (an aspect not mentioned in the call). However, I do not see this as a problem.

 

The most important contribution of the exposition is that it goes into concrete detail in providing an ‘inside’ (auto-ethnographical) perspective of the practice of a concert pianist, dealing with issues such as practising, concert preparation and the actual performance situation. My impression of these parts of the text is one of openness and honesty, which adds to the value.

 

From a certain perspective, the most rewarding section in my opinion is ‘My technical expertise’. It is basically a demonstration of a way, or method, of practising the piano on a professional level. As such it is well made, and the combination of text and instructive video clips works well.

 

The exposition is practically all about the author’s own artistic practice. The question of ‘research orientation’ is more difficult to answer. In the introduction, the content of the exposition is described as ‘a private artistic experience’. The use of the word ‘private’ raises doubts about the character of the exposition as ‘research’. On the other hand, it becomes clear that the intention is not for the experience to remain ‘private’ but rather to expose, as far as possible, the ‘tacit knowledge’ of the author-pianist – certainly a legitimate purpose of artistic research. Perhaps ‘personal’ would be a better word here than ‘private’.

 

There are some quotes about experimentation in connection with artistic research, but not much of a discussion on in what way and to what extent this particular project is experimental in character. It is also difficult to see an experimental design here (as opposed to the previous project presented in Heimonen et al. 2018, in which the author participated), apart from a couple of minor deviations from the conventional concert setting: the presence of the performers on the stage already when the audience enters, and the limitation of applause to after the last piece. Otherwise the setting is an ‘ordinary’ duo concert, including preparations of different kinds.

 

Another concept, and one that is more relevant to the article’s purpose is that of ‘[artistic] excellence’. It appears in the concluding discussion, but could have been discussed more thoroughly and the author’s points could have been made clearer. The author takes exception to focusing on ‘my excellence’ but writes, a little later: ‘This expertise [the author’s own] stems from a four-decade long education, hundreds of piano lessons and thousands of hours of practicing. That is excellence, …’. But isn’t that also ‘my [the author’s own] excellence’? It is difficult to grasp exactly where the dividing line goes between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ excellence. This might have to do with a certain confusion between (desirable or undesirable) mental attitudes in the concert situation and the concept of artistic excellence as such.

 

From a research perspective, the strength of the exposition is the detailed account of the pianistic work, where (rightly, I would say) the technical aspects and their significance to the musical result are highlighted. On the other hand, the rather too brief treatment of theoretical aspects is a weakness. Somereferences to previous research on musical performance (e.g. by John Rink and Nicholas Cook), performance anxiety (e.g. by Aaron Williamson), and musical excellence (e.g. by K. Anders Ericsson) could have been in place.

 

This exposition is certainly of value to pianists (researchers or not). Some more general aspects, such as mental preparation and the question of excellence, should also be of interest to other musicians and performing artists.

 

The exposition does not initially present a specific research problem, but, especially in the concluding discussion, the question of artistic excellence (its ontology, desirability, and effect on the performance) comes to the fore. It could have been a good idea to formulate some kind of problem or question early on, instead of just taking the reader for a ‘walk’.

 

The element of actual innovation is not prominent, though the deviations from the conventional recital format may count as such.

 

The exposition touches on several issues relevant to other performing artists (see my comments on the ‘research orientation’ above). The theoretical contextualization is limited to the idea of experimentation in artistic research, whereas there are other aspects that are more relevant to the content of this article and could have been more developed theoretically. The author’s process in working with the Byrd piece (or parts of it) is well documented (it was probably wise to exclude the other pieces on the concert programme in order to allow a more detailed treatment of this piece).

 

Other artist-researchers are quoted, especially in the section ‘The experimentation by “Silence Ensemble”’ (which is actually about another, previous research project), but there is not much of a theoretical discussion.

 

One of the strengths of the exposition is the pedagogically useful account of the author’s work with one of the pieces played in the concert. It could be useful for students to have more accounts of what musicians actually do when rehearsing or practising, not only what they, as teachers, tell the students to do.

 

The method used is basically a straightforward account of parts of the preparations for a concert, especially (but not exclusively) those relating to the technical aspects of piano playing. On this descriptive level, it works well. As seen in some of my comments above, I think the analysis and discussion could have been more thorough. As to the ‘experimental’ part relating to the concert format, it would have been interesting to see an evaluation also by the audience (but that would perhaps fall outside the realm of ‘pure’ artistic research). It is also a bit strange that the collaboration with the violinist is hardly at all discussed. For instance, how did it affect the concert project that only the author/pianist and not the violinist participated in the previous project with the Silence Ensemble, especially in view of the author’s claim that there is a ‘clear connection between the two events’?

 

To sum up: the emphasis of this exposition is on the author’s practical work as a pianist. To get a picture of the relationship between this practice and artistic research, one should also read the exposition on the ‘Silence Ensemble’ project, which apparently gave the impetus to the present submission and has a clearer orientation towards [experimental] research. On the other hand, the present submission adds to the ‘Silence’ project in that it, unlike the latter, deals with public performance, which after all is the goal of the work of professional performing artists.

 

I have no objections to the design from the perspective of legibility and relationship to the contents. The possibilities offered by the Research Catalogue are not fully exploited (apart from the video clips, the exposition could have passed as an ordinary journal article) but this is, of course, not an end in itself. The referencing is correct, as far as I can see, but some of the publications included in the reference list are not mentioned in the text. The text is understandable but the English needs some revision.

 

Since the music played (William Byrd) is copyright-free, the music example taken from IMSLP and almost all of the videos only feature the author herself (I assume that the violinist has given her permission to publish the last video clip), I see no ethical or legal problems.

 

Strengths:

  • The descriptions of the author’s work including the detailed account of the work with the Byrd piece are lucid and valuable, not least from a pedagogical perspective.

  • In describing even problematic aspects of her work as a pianist, the author shows honesty and courage.

  • The text brings up important issues related to musical performance

 

Weaknesses:

  • The relevance of the quotations on experimentation in artistic research is not obvious, and they follow upon each other without any real discussion

  • Too brief and not quite clear discussion of issues such as excellence (and on the other hand, rather too much space given to the previous ‘Silence’ project, the publication on which the reader can anyway easily access)

  • The relationship between the ‘Silence’ project and the present submission should be more clearly established, but limited to those aspects that are really relevant to the present submission (for instance, the ‘ontological question’ is only relevant to that particular project, not to the present one). It seems strange that one of the two ‘threads’ mentioned in the Introduction actually concerns another project, the results of which have already been published.

  • Very few references are given concerning aspects central to the present project.

 

Recommendation for improvement:

 

The author should consider reducing the section on the ‘Silence’ project, leaving only those aspects that are discussed in, or relevant to, the present submission. Perhaps this section could be included in the Introduction, since the previous project undoubtedly forms an important part of the background to the present one.

 

The discussion of the problem of ‘excellence’ should be extended and clarified.

 

The text would benefit from references to previous international research, not only on artistic research but more specifically on musical performance.

 

Long quotations should not follow upon each other without comment.

 

Since ‘breathing’ figures so prominently in the title of the submission that it might be assumed to be central to the exposition as a whole, the concept could have been developed in the Introduction.

 

To conclude, I would like to say that, despite the critical comments offered in the course of this review, I have read (and listened to) the submission with interest. The problems discussed are relevant to any [keyboard] performer and my sincere hope is that the exposition will, upon revision, be published.

Tuomas Mali 21/05/2019 at 12:21

Seuraava vertaisarvio esitettiin tekijälle prosessin aikana ja on vaikuttanut lopulliseen ekspositioon. Se esitetään tässä hiukan editoituna.

 

Tuomas Mali:

 

Ekspositio ankkuroituu kirjoittajan omaan pianistiseen kokemukseen selkeästi ja perustellusti. Yksittäisen tapahtumaketjun kautta onnistutaan avaamaan yleisempiä taiteelliseen kokeiluun ja musiikin esittämiseen liittyviä kysymyksiä. Eksposition rakenne on toimiva, teksti soljuvaa ja julkaisualustaa hyödynnetään oivaltavasti.

 

Taiteen tekemisen prosessi on eksposition kovinta ydintä, mutta tutkimuksellisuus on jo siihen itseensä sisään rakennettuna. Juuri tämä on eksposition vahvin puoli: taiteen tekeminen ja tutkiminen ovat tässä yhtä. Aihe ja menettelytavat ovat luonteeltaan tutkimuksellisia taiteen tekemiselle ja taiteelliselle tutkimukselle ominaisella tavalla.

 

Ekspositio pysyttelee johdonmukaisesti taiteellisen tutkimuksen alueella. Se tarjoaa kiinnostavan näkökulman musiikin esittäjyyteen ja taidemusiikin esittämisen käytäntöön. Ekspositioon on helppo tarttua, sillä se ankkuroituu niin voimakkaasti konkreettiseen taiteellis-tutkimukselliseen prosessiin. Toisaalta moniteemainen teksti ei ehdi porautua kovin syvälle mihinkään teemaan, ja lähtökohdiltaan erittäin oivaltava ja mielenkiintoinen aihe uhkaa siksi jäädä käsittelyltään paikoin hieman pinnalliseksi.

 

Tutkimuskysymys on esitetty heti eksposition johdannon alussa, joskin sitä olisi voinut eritellä, yksityiskohdittaa ja käsitellä laajemmin jo tässä. Kysymys ja sen avaama teema on tutkimuskysymyksenä hyvä: se on kaikille alan käytäntöä tunteville ymmärrettävä, mutta ei kuitenkaan itsestään selvä tai liian tuttu. Kuvattu taiteellis-tutkimuksellinen prosessi on siten tunnistettava, mutta omaperäinen ja kiinnostava. Teemat kontekstualisoidaan riittävässä määrin, sekä tutkimuskirjallisuuden että taiteellisen käytännön suuntaan. Aina ei kirjallisuudesta siteerattu tunnu aivan luontevasti liittyvän kokemukselliseen prosessiin – siltoja kirjallisuuden ja kokemuksellisuuden välillä voi vielä kehittää. Taiteellisen kokeilun teemaa on taidemusiikin esittämisen piirissä kuvattu ja analysoitu varsin vähän. Ekspositiossa kuvataan kokeilevien toimintatapojen merkitystä huolellisesti ja yksityiskohtaisesti, uusia tulkintoja ja oivalluksia tuottavalla tavalla. Kuvausten yksityiskohtaisuus ja perusteellisuus, eksposition ankkuroituminen selkeästi rajattuun prosessiin, kirjoittajan avoin oman kokemuksellisuuden kuvaaminen ja analysointi sekä kuvatun suhteuttaminen tutkimuskirjallisuuteen rakentavat eksposition luotettavuuden moitteettomasti.

 

Eksposition rakenne on yksinkertaisen selkeä, ja luettavuus on korkealla tasolla. Kappaleet ovat sopivan mittaisia ja ilmaisu on huolellista. Videoklipit tukevat tekstiä ihanteellisesti. Olematta natiivi englannin kielen puhuja uskallan ehdottaa kieliasun hiomista edelleen; englannin kieli ei mielestäni ole joka kohdassa luontevaa ja idiomaattista. Mielestäni kielentarkastus olisi hyvä tehdä, vaikka tarve ei olekaan huutava.

 

Eksposition aihe on kiinnostava, tärkeä ja omintakeinen. Ekspositio on rakenteeltaan selkeä ja yksinkertainen. Teksti on helppolukuista. Kokemuksellisuus tulee avoimesti ja selkeästi esiin, sitä on kuvattu yksityiskohtaisesti ja siitä on pystytty tekemään analyyttisiä huomioita. Eksposition aihe ja sinä kuvattu kokemuksellinen prosessi on kytketty tutkimuskirjallisuudessa esitettyyn asianmukaisesti. Kiinnostavassa kokonaisuudessa on useita teemoja, joiden muodostaman kokonaisuuden hallinta on erityisen vaikea kysymys – ja jättää siksi tilaa myös joillekin kriittisemmille huomioille.

 

Johdantotekstiltä jäin kaipaamaan eksposition rakenteen ja teemojen esittelyä ja perustelua; miten kokonaisuus osittuu, mitä teemoja tullaan käsittelemään ja miksi juuri tällaiset osiot ovat tarpeen. Nyt joudun ihmettelemään esimerkiksi sitä, että otsikon ”Byrd’s challenge” alla edetään varsin nopeasti ”anticipatory gesture” -teeman esittelyyn, joka mielestäni kuuluisi pikemminkin ”My technical expertise” -otsikon alle.

 

Eksposition johdannossa on kolme piirustusta, joiden funktiota ei avata lukijalle, eikä niihin eksposition muissa osissa viitata lainkaan. Piirustuksissa on tiettyä humoristisuutta, joka ei tunnu liittyvän tekstiin ja on jopa ristiriidassa eksposition vakavan yleissävyn kanssa. Mielestäni eksposition johdanto toimisi paremmin, jos tutkimuskysymysten ja -teemojen tarkastelua laajennettaisiin ja yksityiskohtaistettaisiin ja irrallisiksi jäävät kuvat poistettaisiin. Johdannon viimeisessä kappaleessa mainittu teknisen vaativuuden teema tuntuu nyt hieman irralliselta, kun monista muista eksposition teemoista ei ole mitään mainintaa. Jos puheen pianonsoiton teknisestä vaativuudesta on tarkoitus nostaa pohdinnassa tarkemmin analysoitu ”ekspertiisi” esiin yhtenä keskeisenä teemana, se tulisi tehdä selkeämmin ja isommin.

 

“My technical expertise” – osion alla (ja edellisessä osiossa) olevat kuvaukset ja videot muistuttavat hieman liikaa pianonsoiton oppaista tuttuja perusasioita. Kenen tahansa pianistin teknisen ekspertiisin perusasiat tulevat toki esitettyä, mutta ollakseen tutkimuksellisesti kiinnostava kirjoittaja olisi voinut hakea persoonallisempia, tuoreempia ja erityisempiä näkökulmia.

Paikoin kirjoittaja tuntuu esittelevän turhan paljon sellaisia henkilökohtaisia kokemuksiaan/tunteitaan, joilla ei ole käsiteltäviin teemoihin liittyvää yleistä mielenkiintoa. Rajanveto on toki vaikeaa, mutta mielestäni esim. omien tunnesuhteiden (tässä esim. kuvaukset siitä, mitä harjoittelutapoja kirjoittaja rakastaa), omaan henkilöhistoriaan liittyvien tulkintojen (tässä esim. kuvaus siitä, miten rytmi on ollut kirjoittajan ”blind spot”) ja muiden melko merkityksettömiltä vaikuttavien seikkojen karsiminen nostaisi tekstin tutkimuksellista vakuuttavuutta.

 

Pohdinnassa voisi olla hyvä kerätä vielä selkeämmin yhteen eksposition monet teemat ja tuoda tiivistetysti esiin, mitä niistä on tässä ekspositiossa saatu irti. Nyt pohdinnan ansiokkaat ”excellence”-analyysit tulevat ikään kuin hieman ”puun takaa”, kun teemaa ei ole johdannossa (riittävän selkeästi) esitelty eikä muissa osioissa eksplisiittisesti keskeiseksi teemaksi nostettu. Samalla jää tunne siitä, että jotkut langanpäät jäävät yhteen sitomatta.

Comments are only available for registered users.
join the research catalogue
Portals The research catalogue serves:
Journal for Artistic Research
a peer-reviewed international journal for all art disciplines
KC Research Portal
Research Portal of the Royal Conservatoire, The Hague
Norwegian Artistic Research Programme
The portal of the Norwegian Artistic Research Programme
RUUKKU - Studies in Artistic Research
Taiteellisen tutkimuksen kausijulkaisu / Studies in Artistic Research
University of Applied Arts Vienna
RC portal of the University of Applied Arts Vienna
Journal of Sonic Studies
A peer-reviewed, international journal on sound studies and auditory culture
Academy of Creative and Performing Arts
Portal of the Academy of Creative and Performing Arts, Leiden University
Faculty of Fine Art, Music and Design, University of Bergen
Portal of Faculty of Fine Art, Music and Design
Polifonia
Polifonia
Codarts
Portal of Codarts, University of the Arts, Rotterdam
Stockholm University of the Arts (SKH)
Stockholm University of the Arts (SKH) provides education and conducts research in the fields of choreography, film & media, opera and performing arts.
University of the Arts Helsinki
University of the Arts Helsinki was launched in 2013 upon the merging of the Finnish Academy of Fine Arts, Sibelius Academy, and Theatre Academy Helsinki.
Norwegian Academy of Music
The artistic research portal of the Norwegian Academy of Music.
The Danish National School of Performing Arts
This portal is a platform for distribution of knowledge produced through artistic research at the Danish National School of Performing Arts.
VIS – Nordic Journal for Artistic Research
VIS – Nordic Journal for Artistic Research
Rhythmic Music Conservatory Copenhagen
The portal of Rhythmic Music Conservatory Copenhagen
Konstfack – University of Arts, Crafts and Design
Konstfack – University of Arts, Crafts and Design, Stockholm
NTNU
UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Description to be implemented
DMARC University of Derby
DMARC is the portal of the Digital and Material Artistic Research Centre at the University of Derby (UK).
The Research Catalogue server is operated at
KTH's IT-department