https://louisschouhansen.net Louis Schou-Hansen Sun, 12 Mar 2023 08:25:48 +0000 https://louisschouhansen.net en https://louisschouhansen.net/Calendar Sun, 12 Mar 2023 08:25:48 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/Calendar 2027 THE COURT- KunstFestSpiele Herrenhausen, Hannover (DE) - dates tba THE COURT &nbsp;- Baltic Circle, Helsinki (FI) - dates tbaTHE COURT - MDT, Stockholm (SE) - dates tba THE COURT - DansiT, Trondheim (NO) - dates tba__________________________________________________________________ 2026 MIND EATER FESTIVAL - August 6-9 TRAGEDY - &nbsp;Ravnedans, Kristiansand (NO) - &nbsp;June 20 THE COURT -&nbsp;Biennale d’art performatif, Rouyn-Noranda (CA) - dates tba THE COURT - BIT, Bergen (NO) - dates tba THE COURT (working title) - Dansens Hus, Oslo (NO) - May 28-31 &nbsp; &nbsp;(premiere) More dates coming soon... __________________________________________________________________ 2025MIND EATER FESTIVAL - UKS, Oslo (NO) - August 8-10TRAGEDY - &nbsp;Roskilde Festival, Roskilde (DK) - July 4-5 TRAGEDY - Kistefos Museum , Kistefos (NO) - June 14 TRAGEDY - Revolve Festival/Köttinspektionen, Uppsala (SE) - May 23-24&nbsp;TRAGEDY - Mocvara Gallery, Zagreb (HR) - May 15Resident at the Norwegian Embassy’s artist residency in Berlin - March 7-15DIM (performance by Rosalind Goldberg) - Uferstudios, Berlin - October&nbsp; DIM (performance by Rosalind Goldberg) - Rosendahl Teater, Trondheim - May 22-23 DIM (performance by Rosalind Goldberg) - Black Box Teater, Oslo - Feb 27 - March 1DIM (performance by Rosalind Goldberg) - MDT, Stockholm - February 6-7 __________________________________________________________________ 2024 MEAN GIRL WRITING - (workshop) Bastard Blog, Copenhagen (DK) - November 6 TRAGEDY - (performance exhibition) PODIUM, Oslo (NO) -&nbsp;October 11 - November 10 DO YOU FEEL PLEASURE?&nbsp;- NADA - New Art Dealers Alliance, New York (US) -&nbsp;August 15 - 20DO YOU FEEL PLEASURE? - Centrale Fies, Dro (IT) - August 1 - 4 MIND EATER FESTIVAL - UKS Young Artists Society, Oslo (NO) - August 8 - 11AFTERLIFE - ICA Institute of Contemporary Arts, London (UK) - April 25 - 27AFTERLIFE - Dansehallerne, Copenhagen (DK) - March 16DANGEROUS FICTIONS - (lecture) ICA Institute of Contemporary Arts, London (UK) - August 26MESSING UP THE PERFORMANCE - (workshop) CONDITIONS Studio Programme, London (UK) - August 28 __________________________________________________________________ 2023 DO YOU FEEL PLEASURE - Iniziative ll / Another Studio, Rome (IT) - December 10AFTERLIFE - Femidomen, Nesodden (NO) - June 24AFTERLIFE - Suprainfinit Gallery, Bucharest (RO) - June 30 + July 1AFTERLIFE - Ravnedans, Kristiansand (NO) - July 8 - 9AFTERLIFE - Untitled, Tbilisi (GA) - September 26AFTERLIFE - Munch Museum, Oslo (NO) - November 11TRACES, SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS - (workshop) Ravnedans, Kristiansand (NO) - July 9SOMEWHERE NICE - Sandefjord Kunstforening (NO) (art prize exhibition) - March 24 - 25MEAN GIRL WRITING - (workshop) Oslo National Academy of the Arts, Oslo (NO) - December 2 - 3__________________________________________________________________2022AFTERLIFE - Palmera, Bergen (NO) - April 9-10 AFTERLIFE - Black Box Teater (NO) - March 12-19 https://louisschouhansen.net/En-utopisk-praksis Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:25:16 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/En-utopisk-praksis En utopisk praksis &nbsp; &nbsp; (publiseret i magasinet Dansekunst) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Harald Beharie og Louis Schou-Hansen Harald og Louis er begge dansere og koreografer basert i Oslo. De er venner, kolleger og har i de seneste år vært opptatt av spennet mellom dans, koreografi og identitetspolitikk. Gjennom en interseksjonell praksis har deres fokus vært å destabilisere generiske, kjønnslige narrativ og undersøke potensialet for alternative fremtider. &nbsp; Shine Utopians(SU*)var et fire-dagers program initiert og arrangert av Harald og Louis på Dansens Hus Oslo i november 2019. Shine Utopiansinkluderte en helaftens forestilling, seminarer, konserter og fester, samt andre sosiale arrangementer. Fremfor å annonsere og invitere publikum til en “konvensjonell” forestilling, ble de i stedet invitert som gjester til å besøke et nytt lille samfunn under tittelen “Shine Utopians - The Village Practice”. Dette ble gjort som et forsøk på å endre et typisk historisk narrativ i publikums møte med teateret, og gjennom dette forberede dem på en mindre passiv, mer deltakende og fri rolle. Under CoVid-19 og sosial isolasjon har Harald og Louis hatt en løpende mailkorrespondanse hvor de beskriver og reflekterer over den samfunnskritiske praksisen. The Village Practiceble utført av fire profesjonelle dansere og ni amatører, og bestod av en rekke konkrete fysiske praksiser, som strakk seg fra hverdagslige aktiviteter til umulige fysiske oppgaver som bl.a. “Symmetrisk Line Dance Ballet”, “Umulige balanser” og “Jazz Butoh” etc. De fleste av oppgavene var kollektive praksiser, hvor omsorg, samarbeid og forhandling var sentralt i arbeidet. LOUIS: 25/3 kl 21:09 Hey, Min motivation og inspiration er generelt lidt udfordret her under lock-down, og samtidig begynder jeg at føle rastløsheden og klaustrofobien snige sig ind. Måske det bare er bedst at begynde denne tråd nu, så ser vi hvor den fører os hen. Et emne der var mindre dominerende i diskussionen med publikum under SU-dagene på Dansens Hus var The Village Practice. Måske den er interessant at snakke lidt om. Specielt siden du og jeg med det samme gik videre ind i andre projekter, og egentligt ikke har haft tid til at bearbejde det vi brugte tiden på i processen med udøverne. Det hjælper sikkert at begynde lidt konkret. Kan du lægge ud med at skrive lidt om vores første dag med udøverne i Oslo på Rom For Dans? Eventuelt bare beskriv dagen som du husker den? HARALD: 27/3 kl 01:05 Hei! Wææ, sliter litt med samme motivasjon selv. Alt er så usikkert fremover og alle planer er utsatt eller avlyst. Det er på en måte fint at man blir tvunget til å ta et pust i bakken. Samtidig føler jeg det er så mange som er tusen ganger mer aktive nå enn før. Sett bort fra det ustabile økonomiske farvannet, er vel dette en mulighet til å endelig bruke litt tid på å reflektere og undre, uten å måtte produsere noe eller dele alt med alle?&nbsp; Uansett, ja! Den første dagen i studio med utøverne fra Oslo, eller statistene som vi kalte dem før vi møtte dem, var en nervepirrende dag. Det var første gang vi skulle prøve ut våre kroppslige idéer og praksiser på andre mennesker. I denne kontekst var de fleste uten dansetrening, amatører om du vil. Allerede fra vår åpne invitasjon gjennom Dansens Hus fikk vi så mange fine henvendelser. En invitasjon om å skape et nytt samfunn, hvor vi kunne utforske og bryte fysiske mønstre knyttet til binære forventninger som samfunnet og verden har om våre kropper. Sammen skulle vi skape en annen verden, en "queer kropp", en flytende kropp, og øke forståelsen av hvordan vi opererer, forstår, sanser og agerer. Tanker og idéer som lå de påmeldte tett till hjerte. Det føltes derfor som potensialet var stort for at prosjektet kunne bli fruktbart allerede før første møte i studio. Jeg har problemer med å skille alle dagene fra hverandre. Men jeg husker at sammensetningen av folk kjentes så utrolig rar og riktig. Det var en moms-advokat, en Qi gong-instruktør, studenter, en arkitekt, en Nav-arbeider, en massør med flere. Vi startet ganske “hands on”, med en rask oppvarming, og så inn i noen fysiske oppgaver. Metodene vi brukte i oppgavene var veldig åpne, men de var alltid konkrete, og besto ofte av en enkel handling, en utfordring eller et gjøremål. Samtidig kunne vi legge inn forstyrrende elementer eller “divergenter” som kunne forandre fokuset, og vri materialet og handlingen over til noe mer ukontrollerbart. For mange var den første oppgaven, «klatrestativet», allerede et forstyrrende og nytt element i seg selv. Oppgaven bestod av en kontinuerlig klatring på hverandre over en viss tid, til man fysisk ikke klarer mer. Noe jeg husker best var da vi gikk “walks” (en sakte rytmisk catwalk) for første gang sammen. Det var så utrolig teit og trivielt, men samtidig så sårt, fordi vi alle slet med å få det til. Jeg tror de første dagene handlet mest om å bryte ned barrierer og begrensinger, at alle fysiske utløp hadde verdi uansett om det var imponerende, bra, stygt eller mislykket.&nbsp; Hvordan opplevde du at prosjektet utviklet seg i løpet av uken? Min følelse var at det skjedde en transformasjon i arbeidet. Prosjektet bestemte hva det skulle være, og fikk sin egen autonome motor, og vilje. LOUIS: 28/3 kl 00:37 Ja, jeg husker også den uge som transformerende. Det var vel egentlig der vi forstod at kernen i arbejdet og det der senere blev til The Village Practice, krævede at vi skulle lære en ny form for sameksistens på kort tid, dårlig plads og senere skabe rum for at inkludere gæster i det her underlige lille samfund. I den sammenhæng kan jeg godt lide at du nævner at det føltes sårbart. Den kollektive sårbarhed blev pludselig så essentiel i arbejdet. Det at arbejde med umulige fysiske opgaver som ingen kan eller vil mestre, tvang os ud af nogle mentale og kropslige mønstre som vi har brugt hele livet på at sætte os fast i. At nulstille vores kundskab som individ i en gruppe og opleve en fælles sårbarhed i relation til vores kolleger, åbnede op for en mere radikal, kollektiv forståelse af empati og solidaritet. Jeg savner generelt mere af det i feltet vi arbejder i. Mere empati og solidaritet. Jeg oplever at vi er gode til at ville det, men at praktisere det er en anden sag. Har nok også selv lidt at gå på der. Der er behov for flere rum til at teste og fejle, og at snakke om det at fejle som noget produktivt og positivt. Det mest vellykkede ved SU for mig var at vi formåede at fejle. Denne tilgang tillod os at begynde en dekonstruktion af det vi troede var egne valg og handlinger, og derefter sætte ting sammen på nyt. Ikke med et mål om noget ”autentisk”, men med en større grad af bevidsthed. Med det mener jeg ikke at SU fejlede, men at iscenesættelsen af det vi fysisk ikke formår var en stor del af projektet ogThe Village Practice. Giver det mening? HARALD: 31/3 kl 00:12 Er helt enig i det du skriver om empati og solidaritet. Det å tillate seg selv å feile er så viktig. Å tørre å stå i det som til tider kan oppleves som patetisk, det man ikke kan ta fatt i eller forstå ved første øyekast. SU utviklet seg som en storm som tok oss alle med, et felles momentum hvor den kollektive innsatsen i de forskjellige praksisene ga prosjektet betydning og gjorde det viktig for alle involverte. Selv om vi hadde helt forskjellige utgangspunkt i inngangen til arbeidet med våre egne kropper og erfaringer i å jobbe fysisk sammen med andre, opplevde jeg en ærlighet og transparenthet innad i gruppen, i alle valgene og forsøkene vi gjorde sammen i Village Practice. I prosessen med SU måtte vi alle gjennom en form for re-programmering av kroppen og vår egen vilje. Premissene for prosjektet var tydelige før vi begynte - vi skulle oppløse noe tillært - vi skulle alle bli "frigjort" fra en kjønnet og binær verden. Frigjøringen av kroppen endte for meg opp med å handle om en frigjøring av en kollektiv kropp, en kollektiv idé og tankegang rundt hvordan vi tar valg og forvalter kroppen. En dekonstruering av tanke-hierarkier knyttet til å jobbe med kroppen og hva vi gir verdi. Hvilke kropper vi gir verdi. Hvilken kroppslig kunnskap vi gir verdi. LOUIS: 1/4 kl 23:22 Der er noget interessant i det at snakke om det kollektive, en frigjort kropog hvad det betyder i denne kontekst. Jeg er en del af en kultur der har lært mig specifikke ting. I min kontekst er det en hvid, vestlig kultur og historie. Som en del af denne kultur, eller dette kulturelle kollektiv om man vil, er min krop og min forståelse af min krop blevet formet over tid og gennem mine erfaringer. På den måde kan man vel sige at jeg er en del af en kollektiv krop. Jeg tror aldrig at vi slipper udenom dette, og jeg tror heller ikke nødvendigvis at det ville være sundt. I så fald ville det betyde at jeg skulle ”skabe” mig selv, uden hjælp. For mig var en del af kernen i SU en læring i at navigere i forståelsen af os selv som en del af en kultur og et større økosystem. Problemet er at vores kulturelle læring ofte ignorere vores egne interesser, fysiske behov og drivkraft. Jeg vil lære at være bevidst, og jeg vil lære at navigere i den kulturelt kollektive struktur som jeg er en del af. Det betyder ikke at mit mål er at blive et autentisk menneske eller at jeg skal skabe noget originalt. Men det betyder at jeg vil forme min krop og min forståelse for bevægelse, med en større bevidsthed end det jeg blev tilladt i min opvækst, specielt i min træning som danser. For mig forsøgte vi i SU at omfavne ideen om os selv som en del af et større system, samtidig som projektet beder om en forøget individuel bevidsthed. Hvordan ræsonnerer det for dig? HARALD: 5/4 kl 13:05 Ja! Noe jeg synes var spennende i prosjektet, var hvordan vi brukte utopien som en metode for å jobbe mot denne “frigjorte” og kollektive kroppen. I en tradisjonell danse-kontekst jobber man allerede med utopier som metode til en viss grad. Utopien om én spesifikk trent kropp i den teknikken, sjangeren eller “ideologien” man praktiserer dans i. Mens i SU benyttet vi oss av utopien i et større perspektiv, ikke bare som et kroppslig mål, men som en kollektiv samfunnsutopi på et strukturelt nivå. Finnes det nye måter for samvær, nye måter å eksistere sammen, nye måter å anvende den individuelle og kollektive kroppen som ikke kan leses i et binært spekter? I en form for bevisst naivitet som benytter det umulige og uoppnåelige til å åpne opp for det mulige. Sammen erfarte vi at man kan rekonstruere egne tanker og bevegelsesmønstre gjennom å forløse og demontere våre egne forventninger til hvordan vi skal bevege oss, hvilken tilnærming vi har til bevegelse og hvilke kropper vi beveger oss sammen med. At vi for eksempel kunne skape en ny forståelse og handlingsmønstre ved å dekonstruere kjente komponenter og sette dem sammen igjen. Kombinere kjente dansestiler og skape hybride-sjangre som; «tai-chi-linedance» og «stripballet». En Rekonstruering av allerede velkjente bevegelser og aktiviteter på ulike og av og til banale vis ble en bærebjelke for alle praksisene i The Village Practice. Tine Semb fra Karmaklubb* som vi samarbeidet med på den diskursive delen av prosjektet snakker mye om det å skape hybride rom. Et udefinert rom som er i flyt, og som kan bevege seg mellom galleri, scenerom, samtale, klubb etc. Et rom hvor flere perspektiv og mennesker kan sameksistere. Hvordan opplever du at det aspektet knytter seg til vårt prosjekt? Er det en mangel på hybride rom i vårt eget felt? LOUIS: 5/4 kl 16:30 Hmm, jeg har spekuleret lidt over dette med at bruge hybride rumsom beskrivelse, da jeg ofte oplever at det sættes i relation til queer. I udgangspunktet forstår jeg intentionen bag den kobling, men samtidig føler jeg at en hybrid bærer et løfte om at noget ”nyt” skal defineres gennem sammensætningen af forskellige komponenter. For mig er queer et begreb som hele tiden forandres i relation til tid - altså noget der aldrig etablerer sig eller kan defineres som noget andet end en form for konstant bevægelse. På dette punkt havde jeg nok hellere beskrevet det som et behov for udefinerede rum. Altså rum som ikke er prædefinerede af en andens drivkraft, men som formes og tilpasses gennem den individuelle krops manifestation i en given kontekst. Her tænker jeg både i form af fysiske og diskursive rum. Og ja, det mener jeg at der er behov for. Vi forsøgte os jo med den strategi i SU som grundlag for vores møde med udøverne og for produktionen af de fysiske opgaver. Altså det med at invitere dem ind i et ikke defineret rum. Vi havde nogle løse ideer, men som sådan ikke en forhåndsbestemt agenda for dagen. Jeg oplevede specielt at dette var nervepirrende. Som at ikke føle sig forberedt. Vores tanke var jo at materialerne skulle udvikles på en måde hvor de kunne tilpasse sig hver enkelt udøver. En måde hvor de kunne lade sin krop manifestere sig, uden os som en slags koreografisk politi. HARALD: 6/4 kl 00:26 Det er noe jeg liker med hybride rom. Jeg synes det forklarer hva et eventuelt udefinerbart rom kan inneholde. Det trenger ikke være et helt nytt sted eller materiale, men en hybrid av allerede eksisterende elementer. Ved å plassere forskjellige sammensetninger på et sted, kan man skape en “queering” av rom, gruppe og tankemønster. En strategi hvor vi ikke trenger å tenke så radikalt for å forandre oppfatninger eller skape en ny verden. Vi kan stokke om på biter og fragmenter som allerede eksisterer, og dermed skape potensialet for noe annet. En ny kropp, et nytt tanke- og handlingsmønster – en queer og skeiv kropp. For meg handlet det “udefinerte” i materialet om intensjonen vi hadde i vår inngang til oppgavene. En praktisk, handlingsbasert tilnærming som ikke skulle lede til en større dramaturgisk utvikling eller en “spennende” dynamikk. Hvis jeg skal støvsuge leiligheten, så vil handlingen være å støvsuge. Fysisk kan jeg støvsuge raskt, hardt, mykt eller sakte etter behov, men jeg vil fortsatt støvsuge. Når jeg er ferdig vil jeg slutte, skru av støvsugeren og gjøre noe annet. Banalt forklart var dette metoden vi brukte i det meste av arbeidet, og som et biprodukt skapte det materialer som ikke "gikk noe sted" eller som ikke nødvendigvis hadde en transformativ kraft og utvikling. Jeg opplever at det resulterte i en forsterket følelse av forestillingen som et arbeidsrom. Et fellesskap hvor vi som gruppe jobbet konsekvent med våre ulike praksiser. Et arbeid som ikke bare ble utført for å demonstrere noe performativt eller entransformasjon av kroppen for tilskuerne, men et kollektivt rom som publikum fikk ta del i, observere og erfare: altså de ulike praksisene som var viktige for oss. Et sted hvor også det fysiske rommet åpnet opp for en nedbrytning av hierarkiet mellom tilskuer og utøver. Et scenerom, et åpent landskap, som var malt hvitt, taklys på, og fritt frem for å gå dit man ønsket, med forskjellige sitte- og liggestasjoner. LOUIS: 6/4 kl 18:46 Ja, og for at skabe potentialet for noget andet, tænker jeg at det var essentielt at vi blev i “arbejdsrummet” hele vejen. At vi insisterede på at forestillingen ikke skulle cementere sig som bare ét resultat. Men at vores praksis blev “forestillingen”, i stedet for en forestilling som et resultat af en praksis. Dette tillod en mere flydende form i relation til strukturelle og koreografiske ændringer fra dag til dag. Det kan man jo selvfølgelig diskutere om vi klarede eller ikke. Haha, det er et fint eksempel med støvsugeren. SU tog jo form som en (næsten) helt fri struktur for hver enkelt udøver. Der var mange guidelines, fælles projekter og enkelte holdepunkter i relation til musikken og tid. Men muligheden for at afvige fra disse var altid tilstedeværende, og en fast del af samtalen. Personligt oplevede jeg at disse metoder og strategier åbnede op for en arbejdskultur og nogen koreografiske og sociale strukturer der gik mig som udøver mere i møde, og ikke bare blev endnu et sted hvor jeg måtte tilpasse mig omgivelserne. Et af vores store ønsker var jo at få teateret til at føles mere inkluderende. At skabe et mindre formelt rum hvor ting tager form efter dagen, personerne og kroppene der okkuperer rummet. Jeg tænker ikke at vores strategier og metoder i SU skal ses som konkluderende eller som en generel løsning på noget. For mig handlede SU mere om at teste alternative arbejdsstrukturer og at undersøge andre tilstande for produktion, specielt indenfor institutionelle rammer. HARALD: 7/4 kl 15:11 Enig, enig! Håper vi får jobbet mer med gruppen. Savner dem! https://louisschouhansen.net/Antonio-Cataldo Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:03:21 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/Antonio-Cataldo Gender, I’m in Trouble - Antonio Cataldo Studying the genealogy and historicity of gender should be a mandatory step for scholars and students, of any age, who are convinced that the first task on humanity’s agenda is emancipation from and finding alternatives to a capitalist society. Such claims were prominent among Marxist intellectuals in the 1960s and ’70s as they sought to uncover untouched ground of exploitation and resistance, by revising claims of why and how gender categories had become valuable to the political economy, and what these categories had really been directed towards. Why shit, the anus, perversion and polymorphism related to the body and sexuality – elements not serving reproduction, which under capitalism means not serving reproduction of the labour force for the market – were secluded and hidden, together with death, in the reign of moral evil. In order to rethink the ethics of social change leading to different congregations of communities or societies, one cannot but discuss the body as the primary site leading to such a change. That is to say, one cannot underestimate the influence that a motivated notion of “normal” sexuality, with its stereotyped gender impositions and divisions, has had on specific forms of economic governance and the consequent imparting of regulatory frameworks upon bodies under customs of educational systems supported by alleged scientific claims. When I met Harald&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Louis in October 2019, they had only recently graduated from the academy, and they were genuinely worried about gender stereotypes continuing to be cast upon the students’ body (an individualisation working both on the student body as a whole and on the singular body of each individual student). They claimed that there was no reason in dance, for instance, for the body to be gendered, for enduring the imposition of such biological divisions, coming from the Enlightenment and continuing on into the everyday lives of students today, not only in the way their bodies were trained, modelled, but also in the way their bodies were thought, in order to almost and literally fulfil a representational task of society that they thought they would have escaped by entering a free space of appearance such as that of academia – a space for research which should not be monist or unitarian. The “space of appearance,” a term coined by philosopher Hannah Arendt, is, according to her, created anew wherever individuals gather together politically. It is the space of the polis, where political decisions are being made by an encounter among equals.[1]Not all social spaces can be classified as spaces of appearance. One could argue that in certain corners of the internet and among certain sexual subcultures, invisibility shapes subjectivity and enables various forms of power; some forms of power depend mostly on inequalities in the distribution of certain resources rather than on the visibility of those who either exercise power or are subjected to it. Still, appearance occurs in a great number of the spaces where the activity we normally call “politics” takes place – for example, within state institutions, at workplaces and behind street barricades. As this space of appearance is highly fragile and exists only when actualised through the performance of deeds or the utterance of words, wherever people assemble, it’s potentially always there, Arendt argues. Gender theorist Judith Butler later questioned and complexified such a claim about the space of appearance – that is, being democratic and sufficient to create equality – through introducing the idea of the right to appear, because Arendt’s formulation assumes that such space is always there and publicly accessible, meaning everyone is already equal. Not everyone has equal rights, especially when it comes to the right to appear (one could think about citizenship as the most obvious example). Butler argues that, instead, our current systems determine how certain lives are deemed worth living, while others are not; such mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion from such a space are not “natural,” as we are made to believe, but rather they are determined by a lack of applicability of rights, by a lack of proper systemic recognition of a right to have rights which is universal and not contextual. She shows us the other side of the coin to reveal how it is the very system of public accessibility that denies the equality of positions. Such a system of unrecognition is equally gender based, and makes it so that certain lives are more vulnerable than others – precarious lives that at times encounter precarious genders.[2]If the academy is a space whose function is to generate a community of memory, both to open up and to preserve the words and deeds of a polis, of its citizens, from oblivion and the ravages of time, to leave a testament for future generations, isn’t its task also to create the utopic – what we long for but have not yet reached – to aspire, to create the structures to serve equal rights, including the right to the image? Why, then, are some bodies encapsulated within a “male” label, Harald &amp; Louis pondered, and why do they remain a structural support for a labelled “female” body – one presupposed to be strong, the other delicate, one masculine, the other feminine, one strong and virile, the other vulnerable – without the possibility for the two to be confounded or simply intertangled, instead associated with evolutionist organic principles and biological claims, which, forcibly marked on a student card (similar to a passport in replicating structures of surveillance and power), stand as an economic and governance determination as to which subjectivity one can be? The frustration and violence they felt in submitting their bodies to these ongoing labels, replicated through an educational system promising a free space for thought, and their uncertainty about what possibilities existed to remove the gendered body from such a constitution of the self, was still one of the main ongoing struggles they had with academia, which, in turn, they thought – with great fear – they were likely to bring into the outside world as professional choreographers and dancers. Shouldn’t instead such change start from the academy, as the space of the thinkable and possible (which in turn means a space where one can think the unthinkable and the impossible, the utopic, the equal)? And that’s what this text is perhaps about: Should we not further analyse the institutions we create, their borders and thresholds, and how they belong not only to the sphere of thought but also to the sphere of politics, effecting deeds and actions, the right to look, the right to the image and to image, the sphere of aesthetics – in short, a world of perception heavily affecting in turn the space of appearance, “where I appear to others as others appear to me,” not merely like other living or inanimate things, but, in the words of Arendt, explicitly?[3] As a cultural producer not specialised in dance, I was quite surprised to be called into such a conversation by Harald &amp; Louis. I came to understand only later their silent claim. Dance certainly exacerbates something that perhaps is liquefied in other visual art forms (most often such an aspect is cast in a higher degree of invisibility, in the work itself; thus, in fields other than dance, one’s body does not immediately encounter gendered prejudice when it enters through the academy’s institutional doors). The effect of this liquification is that, in most visual arts fields, we can’t claim gender divisions as something immediately visible and discriminatory (or incriminatory: accusing, charging, calling to account with regard to a cause), as the site of ideological thinking about which we are not immediately conscious – yet not meaning that it’s in fact less present or less normalised. A residue in the space of academia Harald &amp; Louis identify is that, though one doesn’t need to discuss it every time one enters a room, one is immediately divided and identified for how one will biologically perform (yes, for the possible, in the future tense) based on one’s immediate biological appearance – not a reclaimed presence (“explicitly,” for Arendt) but rather a prejudicial narrative. I don’t come together with others in an act of speech and action to gain a subjectivity. I’m not performing. I’m being choreographed. This is an act of interpellation which is at once incriminatory and discriminatory, because it expresses something more formal and more grave: it conveys a destination or a goal of motion determined not by one’s will to perform, not by a coming as an equal into a space of appearance, but rather by someone else who has decided a priori not only who am I and what I represent, but also my future – that is, how my subjectivity will perform – based solely on how my body is read. (In following such a formulation, one could go as far as to say “my body” is considered, in such an instance, a public property, in the sense of “publicly labelled for a publicly determined use.”) There is no construction of a subject if I’m not shaping the perception of myself as an equal with others. In the extended art field, we have been taught to look at the work first, to its aesthetic claim, separated from the artist that is the producer of its meaning (Immanuel Kant).[4]The artwork, the oeuvre, should speak for itself, have an end in itself. What surrounds the oeuvre, if the oeuvre is not autonomous, is considered at times not only superfluous but a failure of the work itself. It is in this separation between the artist (the human) and the artwork (the object), in this ideological make-believe independent life of one from the other, that a false pretence is built for the work to appear genderless and classless, universal; yet in this assumption and reprojection onto the word, there is an intrinsic impediment to raising a critique on gender politics. It is in this purported abstraction that gender makes its utmost incriminatory and unconscious mark. As philosopher Michel Foucault has remarked, “geometry alone must be taught in oligarchies, since it demonstrates the proportions within inequality.”[5]Because if we were to rethink such a claim from education, such a division within the oeuvre’s autonomy (including from the artist), upon seeking and establishing its situated perspective (the one coming from the producer), would cause us to unveil and oblige us to uncover a whole biography behind the work itself: the genealogy of its author(s) as a constitutive part of the work that is, on many levels and at the same time in its particular and universal claims, situatedness. At once we would understand that no separation really exists between the two, the oeuvre and the producer, one being a higher reflection of the other and their common will, only to create further degrees of readability and transcendentality, but grounding us in a somewhere, where that somewhere, that particular view, is a constitutive part of what I’m looking at: at how someone is looking at the world, and at what is being claimed, that is, speech and action in the space of appearance. We would gain some form of equality because I would have a consciousness of the other’s perspective. The work is the centre of such a politically motivated gathering, and of struggles for equality. This has also been an important struggle of feminist strategies in reclaiming a different materiality and autonomy outside and within the art world, to address how gender politics risk being frozen in universalist claims within the white cube’s predicament, granting a past tense to the artwork and its current validity, and at the same time legitimising struggles in the past while preventing the recognition of inequity as a condition in the present.[6]Impeding the ability to continue to reflect on why and how the artwork arrives into a container, to project within it a popularised and universal life – the structures of power behind which are ongoing sites of negotiation. Why are some artworks brought inside a space and provided time and context for reflection, while others are cut out, abandoned to a more precarious life? These may seem to be minor issues if one thinks about such positions not affecting other spaces of appearance, the polis. That is, if one doesn’t see such a space of representation as having real effects outside the space of the academy or the particular educational institution. And it is for this reason one should ask: Is such a space of appearance only possible for non-living beings (the object) or for the temporarily performed, or are certain bodies (material and immaterial) entering and being granted citizenship as an indelible right – some artefacts gaining the right to speak and the right to appear – while others remain precarious bodies, becoming lives which are notgrievable? For Butler, the right to have rights is one that depends on no existing particular political organisation or institution. Its legitimacy is exercised every time people come together. Such a right predates and precedes any political institution that might codify or seek to guarantee that right, and at the same time it is derived from no natural set of laws. That right comes into being when it is exerted by those who act in concert, in alliance.[7]Those who are excluded from existing political polities, who belong to no nation state or other contemporary state formation, may be deemed unreal only by those who seek to monopolise the terms of reality. And yet even after the public sphere has been defined through their exclusion, they act whether they are banned to precarity or left out through systemic negligence. Doesn’t this representational space, the right to have rights, start from here, from the very place where we learn about the thinkable and the possible (and with it the unthinkable and the impossible, the utopia of equality, of education), from the container, from the educational structure that should provide an idea of the right to have rights, independently from citizenship, implied in the concerted action of acting together? If one looks at academia through these lenses, one can easily see how gender roles are a constitutive part of the very institutional choreography of education, in the humanities as much as in the scientific fields, because before one even learns about form, one is captured by its divisive container, whereas behaviour is segregated and propagated as departing from biological constrictions reinforced by contended Darwinian truths of evolutionary reproducibility (the arts have their own Darwinian truths). Representation continues to be dual and polarised at best, if not simply the assumption of one single dominating gaze and point of view – unitarian and totalitarian, biologically determined. I’m not speaking in this context as an expert of dance, but as a witness of the societal partitions built around a gendered identity and body normativity that foster ideas of function constructed around, in my case, a penis, as an allegedly active reproductive machine, interconnected to a shame for its malfunctioning if it does not fulfil its ultimate evolutionist credo – whose only aspiration in the age of capital is the systematic breeding of a nuclear family: the one and only accepted, smallest working atom of a Westernised view of a globalised world and society. Under the idea of a global condition, we are made to believe there is one world, one paradigm and one systemic law. Shame, in my educational world, as apprehended from the age of four, when I moved to the south of Italy with its heavily patriarchal and immovable divisions casting inescapable shadows – a feeling reinforced through religious injunctions – made it clear that no escapades were ever going to be possible, not even regarding ideas of an afterlife, and especially not in a small society whose centuries of exploitative powers reproduced no other but the pauperism of the poverty of experience (guided by a domineering middle class). Such a ruling petite bourgeoisie didn’t necessarily take down or open up existing barriers following the feudalist reach that came from the city aristocrats in the post-war period, but only cemented its structures by delaying a future redistribution of the wealth of experience – something that could be achieved only by following the unrooting of ancient practices and traditions, including the final eradication of the world of magic with its witches and warlocks under the imperative to modernise (meaning “normalise”), through reproductive machines regulated by the new impending state apparatus, centralised in the north and slowly de-plebeicising the south by deeming it retrograde (read: “unindustrialised”). Gendering has been therefore key in projecting, reproducing and maintaining such a class system, and has operated as a functional machine whereby social mobility is to be sought or achieved only if fitting the new standards of the family nucleus, with smaller and larger loans and so on and so forth, in a series of policies reinforcing one ideology and assimilations – of language, habits, traditions and even memories (or memorabilia, the arts). Education served primarily such molecular systems; it was firstly instrumental in creating an idea of a nation. These are the historical processes whose formation one only suddenly understands, but where antagonism in the face of them is still not always thinkable as a social demand or right, but only as an individual choice at best, or at the cost of exile – meaning leaving your immediate society behind – at worst. The latter is not only my migratory choice, but a more widespread phenomenon proved by the depopulation of small- and medium-sized towns, not only in the south of Italy but just as much as in the non-urban centres of the rest of continental Europe. The role of reproduction work in demarcating gendered social spheres (public and private: such a division is still at work), together with the economic definitions of productivity and unproductivity transferred to biological conditions, as such valued as market forms according to biological assignations institutionalised under the state’s control, is part of banning the desiring body. The biologically based criminalisation of our bodies is part of a hidden social contract, part of the untold. Focus on your penis and not your anus. Don’t have sex, or otherwise maintain high sexual desire for the sole purpose of reproduction; be virile and monogamous; refuse other forms of sexuality; don’t masturbate; don’t acknowledge other forms of desire; don’t go against the reproductive self of “nature,” of what’s “natural” (the unnatural belonging to the realm of the laughable, most often presented as the monstrous). As if nature’s only purpose is reproducing itself; as if nature, which we have learned to separate from culture, is aimed only at self-preservation through simple reproduction. This still remains to a certain extent the belief of an ideological scientific view. Such is the setting around a body treated as public property, turning it into a commodity serving the interest of a higher aim – that is, to succumb to the capitalist modes of production. The body can’t be used for anything other than an alleged origin&nbsp;reconductedto a presumed Mother Nature. In fact, we have learned that there are only families, and families constituted by fathers and mothers, and nothing else in between. The in-betweenness is unfit, a remainder, that which does not fit into what’s supposed to be productive. Drawing from Karl Marx, feminist scholar Silvia Federici has spoken about a fundamental rule allowing such a gendered exploitation to be possible – that is, primitive accumulation – upon which capitalism designed a violent division of bodies according to their gendered assignations. Federici reconducts the formation of capital from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries as being gendered on a central axis of social organisation and control, demonstrating how violence against women, for instance, is congenital to capitalism’s formulation. A return of the most violent aspects of primitive accumulation – which has accompanied every phase of capitalist globalisation, including the present one – demonstrates that the degradation of gender is a necessary condition for the existence of capitalism in all times.[8] Something is unavoidably missing: bodies coming together in alliance; bodies that have nothing to share except being together. When bodies come together, they bring alliance beyond representation, beyond politics, beyond other forms of determined aggregation, simply demanding space for a different mode of being, a different kind of society – a society less based on segregated structures, one standing for love, solidarity – and to occupy space and time outside any immanent need, citizenship without the constriction of land. The question is, therefore, how can we reach a space of equality under these given conditions? How can we move from repressive technologies of power to recognising more mobile forms of interdependency connecting varied bodies and their reciprocal need for subsistence, maintenance and life in general? How might it be possible to formulate equality on the basis of such relations that define our enduring social existence as living creatures? How can we make a collective claim on society through which we could image freedom and justice? How might it be possible to reclaim a different presence for bodies and objects that supports a space of appearance, a space for not assimilating, not being subsumed, not being consumed and discarded before our bodies awaken a conscious subjectivity? I think that’s the question behind Harald &amp;&nbsp;Louis’s piece Shine Utopians, which was presented, following our initial discussions, in November 2019 at Dansens Hus in Oslo, where they gathered a number of bodies in a place, to possibly gain a space of appearance, literally, by coming together and becoming visible. The stripped-down theatre revealed its maintenance structure in full, whereby windows regained their role as transparent membranes to the outside; the stage returned to being a floor; and no distinction was made between the audience, the performers or the people charged with the theatre’s upkeep and providing food and beverage to performers and audience alike. Finally, a branching platform invited the display of the body of the audience as a living object, as the central act on stage equal to the act itself. Initially Harald&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Louis had not wanted to schedule a time for the performance but rather to simply take over the theatre space for the overall period allotted to them, a month or so, and for the performance to be ongoing, open to constant visitation, so that there would be no rehearsal and no show, but instead the piece, the oeuvre, would be in a sort of perennial preparation, inviting over and over, or over and again, bodies to come in, to congregate, to join a molecular movement, in an attempt to find both synergy as well as forms of aggression and antagonism. Upon entering Shining Utopians, one found that the usually dark cube of the ready-for-the-magic-to-happen theatre space was stripped bare to its reverse: pure light. Imaging is not created in darkness, but by the persistence of movement on the retina; an aggregation of colour produced by body movement. Your untrained body lays down, stands, sits. Nothing is about to come; everything is already there. You are part of an aggregation from beginning to end. You are intertangled into the conjoinedness, within which you need to recognise that you are performing, that you have an active role, even if simply standing still or sitting. You become aware of your own potentiality, because usually you’re simply called in to testify, in darkness, to the event that is about to happen. Such is the role of the spectator. Standing in a grey zone. I’m here, but I’m not participating. Here, as performers shape themselves into different aggregations, as they push themselves to find new forms of being together without exhausting themselves; you’re not the object, but you are a participating subject. You are a body in an entangled multispecies future. I figured, during the performance, that if I ever were to have witnessed paradise by following the Christian tenets imposed on me – one of the unfortunate utopias of equality – I would have seen something similar. Pure light, subtle and unexpected movements; nothing happening, yet something constantly changing; as in Dante’s vision, one follows an arresting light, and one moves together with other bodies though standing still, equidistant. When I started looking into the history of dance, and the formation of its institutions, I found, unsurprisingly, that its dictates come from Louis XIV. The Sun King established the Académie Royale de Danse in Paris in March 1661, the first of many royal academies later founded throughout Europe, in order to “improve” artistic standards. The story goes that thirteen experts met regularly to deliberate, to be emulated and to test and teach skills, while being encouraged to invent a notation system that codified positions of feet, arms and the body. Penalties were introduced if procedures were not followed, and fines were given to practitioners to prevent attempts at deviations from the academy’s professional standards. The thirteen academicians were the legislators as well as the adjudicators of their own system. The king required that they pass aesthetic judgment upon every weekly choreographed dance, both social and theatrical, before it could be either taught or performed in Paris or in the suburbs. This extraordinary provision, apparently unique in the history of dance, would appear to reflect an attempted censorship – not necessarily of content, but of form alone, leading theoreticians to read into these encoded questions a control over pleasure, representation and accessibility.[9]By studying this period during the seventeen and eighteen centuries, we can also learn that few states were as obsessed as France with the body, to the point that body metaphors entered the general language and the political discourse. “Corporation,” “body,” “head” and “member” all came to be prolifically used in legislation, public speeches and more. Dance similarly occupied a large role at Versailles. Everyone danced. This was part of a “technique of power,” attests Foucault, one of the scholars of the period, as part of, in his words, “discipling bodies.” What’s more obscure, apparently, is Louis XIV’s reasoning for performing regularly between 1651 and 1668 as an androgynous figure. As dance represented order, as well as power over representation, the body of the king stood for its terrain and divine duality, with the individual and society merging together within such a figure, where the prosperity of the person reflected the prosperity of the nation and, correspondingly, “his” and its fertility. Dance and its high performativity should not be considered a marginal space of entertainment but clearly a space of politics, where politics are played, in the space of representation. For representation to work as power, the visible should be readable and should, reciprocally, be read as an image.[10] Paraphrasing Mark Franko, a “war” of positions was at stake with the establishment of the Académie Royale de Danse. Franko is concerned with the intrinsic royal ostracism of burlesque ballets, a form of dance in court ballet popular in the 1620s that was openly political and disruptive of traditions. Here bodies did not move geometrically according to patterns and proportions or follow symbols of social stability and political harmony; instead, they engaged in play, were open to chance. Whereas choreography is a plan, performance is unpredictable. Franko addresses how burlesque ballets contested – even put at stake – monarchical power by questioning its ordered representation. For him, the letters patent coming to dictate the newly established academy of dance addressed how people should be trained and how they should move. This educational diktat was, for Franko, a measure meant to prevent the unsettling return of burlesque performance. It is both aesthetic and ideological power.[11]Power exists only as a representation. Cross-dressing was a regular feature of burlesque ballets. They were self-conscious, structurally open ended and politically allusive and, as such, disrupted prior court ballet traditions, all of which had been characterised by composite spectacle. Yet the burlesque moment was short lived. At the time of Louis XIV, there were no longer any obviously burlesque ballets. So, one could speculate that even when Louis XIV performed a cross-dressed role, he may have done so at the intersection of several appropriations. He was not subverting stereotypes but, in reality, only emphasising the self-sufficiency of the king’s body, its absolutism. There is an enormous difference in cross-dressing as a way of examining gender constructs as a result of religious and moral teachings, versus cross-dressing in sharp contraposition to defined attributes assigned to gender conformation based on the contemporaneous medical knowledge and understanding of physiology, versus cross-dressing based on transgressing codes of food consumption that conform to the societal prescriptions of the masculine and the feminine paradigms studied elsewhere.[12]Here the body politics impersonated by the king are still reproductive. He stands on his own, unabashedly, unapologetically self-sufficient, as if he doesn’t need any other, as if he never depended upon parents or any familial relations or upon social institutions in order to survive and grow, to have sex,&nbsp;to have food, or upon any of the other innumerable material and immaterial structures supporting his very possibility of having a liveable life.&nbsp;As if that individual has, from birth, already been casting an agenda, but not via a social assignment, but rather as a self-sufficient individual outside the world, without the need of a material existence. Such is the fiction we have been taught through the sphere of representation. Of course, we have also come to know that the revolutionary republicans despised these monarchical rites and abolished them, though they created new rituals in which bodies played just as important as a role. How state power inscribed itself onto the body of the new national subjects through performance, ritual and text forms and gives shape to a genealogy and legacy of our contemporary body politics, in which such mechanisms continue to still be at play. Within the arts, ideas of the public sphere converge in such an unresolved category. Accessibility to the arts for all is today thought to be a given, at times because institutions are publicly funded, or self-define themselves as public, or because entry is given in exchange for a small fee. However, in the arts, as in the sphere of politics, the public sphere can emerge only under certain conditions. For Arendt, there is no space for freedom if we do not create the democratic conditions for experiencing freedom. Freedom of the mind is an illusion for her, revealing a totalitarian state unleashing itself over bodies. That space of freedom needs to be built.[13]If, as we have seen, dance functioned, and still continues to do so, as part of the organisation of a public sphere of representation, we should be able to analyse how it can open and make space, and structure support for what’s cut out, what’s unacknowledged. Exclusion from such a public sphere is justified and “naturalised” through a social space of representation presented as a substantial unity that must be protected from conflict. This was the take of Louis XIV, which continues to arrive diluted in our own times. Performance, as Harald &amp; Louis demonstrate, is more intrinsically “burlesque” in the sense of tactical confrontation, approximation and irony towards “naturalised” choreography. As does urban space, choreography still pursues a spatial organisation presented as the naturalproduct of the biological, social or technological order of an apparently “organic” (though unitary) society. It is exactly these concepts of natural, biological, social and evolutionary modernities that are in need of being deconstructed as affecting our understanding of individuals – only functional to produce a marginality, of what does not fit into these constructed categories, where some lives become grievable and some others remain ungrievable. The asymmetry and proliferation of differences in advanced industrial societies magnifies a surplus of meaning of the social – that there exists something more in such a pretended unity – thus making it difficult to attempt to In presenting a theatrical space stripped of its spectacular constructions,Shine Utopiansopens up the possibility of beginning to think again of institutions as a bare space, a space of potential, a space where we can deal with the unknown, more than cement the known. A space for learning new tactics for training – to untrain more than to train the body. This is why, in Harald&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Louis’s&nbsp;piece, simple gestures repeated over and again find new concatenations of meaning. They hint at the potential of our bodies as molecular transitions of form, meaning and encounter, in constant movement, pushing determined boundaries. A cultural determination is broken apart, by re-engaging these bodies in collective and individual movements. By performing collective movements, the trained body provokes the untrained body, the educated body demands a negotiation. Antagonism. Uneasiness. They invite us to rethink the ethics of gestures through constantly reidentifying the borders of the body. Not only is the body of the dancer put in question, but also the body of the institution. The dancer’s body as well as the institutional body is in its potentiality, that is, in its inoperative mode; it doesn’t long to reach the perfect gesture alone, but instead it shows what gestures in an assembly can lead to. A revolutionary potential is embedded in these orgiastic bodies, whose lustful demands are together put forward for an audience ready to participate.&nbsp;Then a question arises effortlessly: Can freedom and equality be taught? Proof reader -&nbsp;Jacklyn Arndt [1]See: Hannah Arendt(1958),The HumanCondition,Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [2]Judith Butler (2020). The Force of Non-Violence. An ethico-political bind. Verso: London &amp; New York, NY. [3]Hannah Arendt(1958).The Human Condition.Op. Cit.pp.198-199. [4]The autonomy of art has entered the common art vocabulary as a view on works of art that are devoid of any practical function and thus devoid of instrumental value. This view is traditionally traced back to Kant’s Critique of Judgement. See: Immanuel Kant (1914). Critique of Judgement. London: Macmillan. [5]Michel Foucault (1971). “The Order of Discourse,” In: RobertYoung&nbsp;(ed.) Untying the TextA Post-Structuralist Reader, London: Routledge,p.55. [6]Angela Dimitrakaki &amp; Lara Perry (2013), “How to Be Seen: An Introduction To Feminist Politics, Exhibition Cultures In Curatorial Transgressions,” In: Ib.(eds.), Politics in a Glass Case. Feminism, Exhibition Cultures and Curatorial Transgressions, pp.1–21.&nbsp; [7]Judith Butler(2011), “Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street,” transversal textshttps://transversal.at/transversal/1011/butler/en(accessed 5 February 2021) [8]See: Silvia Federici (2004). Caliban and the Witch. New York: Autonomedia. [9]Georgia J. Cowart (2008), The Triumph of Pleasure: Louis XIV and the Politics of Spectacle. &nbsp;Chicago, IL &amp; London: University of Chicago Press, pp.47–48. [10]See: Louis Marin (1988), Portrait of the King,Minneapolis, IL: University of Minnesota Press. [11]Mark Franko, “Double Bodies: Androgyny and Power in the Performances of Louis XIV,” The Drama Review, Winter, 1994, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 71-82. [12]See: Sylvie&nbsp; Steinberg(2001), La confusion des sexes: Le travestissement de la Renaissance à la Révolution, Paris: Fayard. [13]Hannah Arendt, “What is Freedom?” (1968). In: Ib. Between past and future; eight exercises in political thought, New York, NY, Viking Press, pp.143–171 https://louisschouhansen.net/Shine-Utopians Sun, 26 Apr 2020 09:10:33 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/Shine-Utopians <img width="1343" height="802" width_o="1343" height_o="802" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/44efc5df0e33be7ffc770e4f4cad726cc2260b53db137f87c943dad0a60ff562/34.png" data-mid="137854940" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/1000/i/44efc5df0e33be7ffc770e4f4cad726cc2260b53db137f87c943dad0a60ff562/34.png" /> SHINE UTOPIANS&nbsp;Shine Utopians is a large-scale performance, a festival, and a temporary utopian village which received a nomination for performance of the year by the Norwegian Critics Association in 2020. Audiences enter a space as if they are guests visiting a strange community, nothing in the space is hidden, everything is already there and visible. Slowly, the 13 performers inhabiting the theater, engages in ways of practicing weird intimacies, navigating dances and everyday gestures, all while trying to perform a collective care for each other, the space, and their visitors. The project explores queer(er) ways of spending time together, village-making, and distorted desires. Apart from the performance, the four days of occupying Dansens Hus in Oslo consisted of a seminar, a concert, parties, screenings, and workshops. Initiated and made together with Harald Beharie and Karoline Bakken Lund. Trailer︎︎︎ DATES 2019PUBLICS - Today Is Our Tomorrow, Helsinki (FI) &nbsp; &nbsp;Dansens Hus, Oslo (NO) &nbsp; premiere, Nov 7-11 RAS, Sandnes (NO) &nbsp; Nov 14 CONCEPT/CHOREOGRAPHY&nbsp;Harald Beharie &amp; Louis Schou-Hansen&nbsp;| PERFORMERS&nbsp;Irene Theisen, Amie Mbye, Elise Nohr Nystad, Hans-Petter Rode, Magnus Spaarsaas, Christin B. Jørstad, Anne Panda Gjems Rudi, Heidi Steen Jensen, Torbjørn Kolbeinsen, Davvet Bruun-Solbakk, Guro Ørbech Olsen, Harald Beharie &amp; Louis Schou-Hansen | COSTUME/SCENOGRAPHY&nbsp;Karoline Bakken Lund&nbsp; | PRODUCER&nbsp;Margrethe Nandrup Rylander &nbsp;| &nbsp;SOUND&nbsp;TECH&nbsp;Jens Ole Bjerkan | COMPOSITION&nbsp;Torbjørn Kolbeinsen &nbsp;| CO. PRODUCTION&nbsp;Dansens Hus, Oslo &amp;&nbsp;RAS, SandnesFUNDED BYArts Council NorwayFond For Lyd og BildeFFUKOslo KommuneSandnes KommuneDanseinformasjonen<img width="2048" height="1192" width_o="2048" height_o="1192" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/09846880dd79f3775e0ac4f86fbfad60d2e8efa1f4270651415a6c48a4dbdf42/6-kopi.png" data-mid="68630841" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/1000/i/09846880dd79f3775e0ac4f86fbfad60d2e8efa1f4270651415a6c48a4dbdf42/6-kopi.png" /><img width="1214" height="804" width_o="1214" height_o="804" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/3888a0fcd4dbe0c3f6be8a246b81a536820a963f57b452367c9f736a3d15d99a/2.png" data-mid="100646972" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/1000/i/3888a0fcd4dbe0c3f6be8a246b81a536820a963f57b452367c9f736a3d15d99a/2.png" /> https://louisschouhansen.net/AFTERLIFE Thu, 10 Feb 2022 17:20:53 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/AFTERLIFE <img width="3626" height="2432" width_o="3626" height_o="2432" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/af7585fee0149b666caa2ceec1c4330aee8551a4d907c7220d88519d65fa3571/R1-00093-027A-kopi.JPG" data-mid="137852365" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/1000/i/af7585fee0149b666caa2ceec1c4330aee8551a4d907c7220d88519d65fa3571/R1-00093-027A-kopi.JPG" /> AFTERLIFEAfterlife, is a paranoid playground, a site for speculative futurities, and derailed interpretations of a renaissance that never really happened. While the performance dives into some of the ghostly materials from western high culture dance history, it moves through a series of twisted dances from the late Italian Renaissance and early French Baroque. Only, to explode into weird pop-cultural landscapes, where subtle traces from Britney’s banger, hit me baby one more time, Andrzej Zulawski’s subway scene from Possession, and distorted yoga-mom inspired materials come to life.Carried out by three performers, signifying bodies historically deemed unfit to partake in the development of Euro-centric dance history, Afterlife reconstructs a sequence of choreographies hijacked from the early modern archive. DATES 2024 ICA - Institute of Contemporary Arts, London (UK) - April 26 + 27 Dansehallerne, Copenhagen (DK) &nbsp;- &nbsp;March 16 2023 The Munch Museum, Oslo (NO) &nbsp;- &nbsp;November 11 Untitled, Tbilisi (GA) &nbsp;- &nbsp;September 28 Ravnedans, Kristiansand (NO)&nbsp; - &nbsp;July 8 Suprainfinit Gallery, Bucharest (RO) &nbsp; - &nbsp;June 30+July 1 Femidomen, Nesodden (NO) &nbsp;-&nbsp; June 24 2022 My Wild Flag, Stockholm (SE) &nbsp; &nbsp;- &nbsp;Sep 3+4 Palmera, Bergen (NO) &nbsp; - &nbsp;April 9+10Black Box Teater, Oslo&nbsp;(NO) &nbsp;-&nbsp; March 12-19 CHOREOGRAPHY &amp; DIRECTION&nbsp;Louis Schou-Hansen&nbsp;|&nbsp;COSTUMES AND SCULPTURAL WOR&nbsp;Karoline Bakken Lund&nbsp;|&nbsp;CO-MAKING PERFORMERS&nbsp;Amie Mbye, Elise Nohr Nystad, Georgiana Dobre&nbsp;|&nbsp;MUSI&nbsp;Peachlyfe / Petra&nbsp;Skibsted&nbsp;|&nbsp;ARTISTIC ADVISOR&nbsp;Sebastian De Line&nbsp;|&nbsp;RECONSTRUCTION OF RENAISSANCE DANCES&nbsp;Elizabeth Svarstad |&nbsp;HAIR&nbsp;Anna Lübeck&nbsp;|&nbsp;PHOTOS Chai Saeidi&nbsp;|&nbsp;CO. PRODUCTION&nbsp;Black Box Teater Oslo, Mimosa Studio, and Palmera Bergen FUNDED BYArts Council NorwayFond For Lyd og BildeFFUKFritt OrdOslo Kommune Performing Arts Hub Norway <img width="2312" height="3104" width_o="2312" height_o="3104" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/69fe4c412eac0ea7fcb9cbcdab0e9812c3e1847c374f5b635387d6f4cfe359b8/R1-00092-0014-kopi.jpg" data-mid="137853858" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/1000/i/69fe4c412eac0ea7fcb9cbcdab0e9812c3e1847c374f5b635387d6f4cfe359b8/R1-00092-0014-kopi.jpg" /> &nbsp; https://louisschouhansen.net/Texts-and-Press Sun, 26 Apr 2020 08:04:39 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/Texts-and-Press SOME INTERVIEWS https://www.hausmania.org/nyheter/kroppen-er-ekte-men-hva-vi-tenker-om-den-er-fiksjon https://2022.oitf.no/article/louis-schou-hansen-in-conversation-with-runa-borch-skolseg/ SOME PRESS &nbsp;THE COURT https://scenekunst.no/artikler/kongen-danser https://www.shakespearetidsskrift.no/anmeldelser/a-demontere-gjenferd/267555https://scenekunst.no/artikler/kongen-danser TRA GEDYhttps://artsoftheworkingclass.org/text/the-tragic-subject-weeps-and-cries-but-sheds-no-tears https://www.c-print.se/post/it-s-a-tragedy https://klassekampen.no/artikkel/2024-10-30/sjeneros-kunst-i-en-gjerrig-tidhttps://iscene.dk/2025/07/04/roskilde-2025-art-activism-minianmeldelser-af-performances/https://ravel-review.hotglue.me/?talts/ &nbsp; AFTERLIFE &nbsp; https://shakespearetidsskrift.no/2022/12/arets-forestilling-2022&nbsp; https://scenekunst.no/sak/det-krevende-kollektivet/ SHINE UTOPIANS &nbsp; https://shakespearetidsskrift.no/2019/11/shine-utopians-shine Essay by Antonio Cataldo - Gender, I’m in Trouble ‘ &nbsp;WRITINGS https://www.situations.us/new-page-5 https://scenekunst.no/sak/noen-forestillinger-trenger-ikke-flere-anmeldelser/ https://louisschouhansen.net/About Sun, 26 Apr 2020 08:03:16 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/About Louis Schou-Hansen (b. 1992, Denmark) is a choreographer, curator and dancer currently based in Oslo. Their work explores the human body as a vulnerable and disobedient site of fiction, often shaped by desire, mortality, and self-destruction. Schou-Hansen frequently turns to history and counter-history—particularly the political mess of early modern Europe—as an atempt to trace ghostly figures in contemporary culture and reanimate unresolved narratives. Since 2024, they initiate and curate the annual, parasite performance festival Mind Eater, together with Runa Borch Skolseg.&nbsp; Schou-Hansen’s work has been shortlisted for the Norwegian Critics’ Award (Shine Utopians, 2020) and Sandefjord Kunstforening’s Art Prize together with Harald Beharie (2023). &nbsp;Since 2015 they have collaborated on and performed in the works of Ingri Fiksdal, Rosalind Goldberg, Roza Moshtaghi, Janne Camilla Lyster, Edhem Jesenkovic, Pedro Gomez Egana, Goro Tronsmo and Runa Borch Skolseg to name some. They hold a BA in dance from Oslo National Academy of the Arts (KHIO) and an MA from the Dutch Art Institute (DAI).Their work has been shown at venues across Europe and the US including &nbsp;ICA – Institute of Contemporary Arts (London); Dansehallerne (Copenhagen); Dansens Hus (Oslo); NADA – New Art Dealers Alliance (New York); Centrale Fies (Dro); Kistefos Museet (Kistefos); Black Box Teater (Oslo); Roskilde Festival (Roskilde); Mocvara Gallery (Zagreb); Copenhagen Contemporary (Copenhagen); PODIUM (Oslo), Suprainfinit Gallery (Bucharest); My Wild Flag (Stockholm); MUNCH museet (Oslo); PAF – Performing Arts Forum (St. Erme); Ravnedans (Kristiansand); Galleri Entree (Bergen); Revolve Festival (Uppsala); IPAF - Warehouse9 (Copenhagen); Iniziative ll - Una Notte Sola (Rome); among others. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; https://louisschouhansen.net/Work-1 Sat, 25 Apr 2020 20:34:43 +0000 Louis Schou-Hansen https://louisschouhansen.net/Work-1 ︎︎︎THE COURT&nbsp; ︎︎︎TRAGEDY&nbsp; ︎︎︎DO YOU FEEL PLEASURE?&nbsp; ︎︎︎AFTERLIFE&nbsp;︎︎︎SHINE UTOPIANS&nbsp;︎︎︎SOMEWHERE NICE︎︎︎MIND EATER&nbsp;