‘Limitations’ — Tegan Peacock
What is your project about?
I started this piece with the idea of limitations. Everyone has limitations that are opposed on them in some way. Whether it is more a physical thing, where you are in an area where you don’t have access to education, as supposed to a limitation that could be more one of mental limitation,
so the intangible thing, like when you’re growing up and your parents are saying you need to be married, education is not important to them and so on. So you don’t actually see the importance of the things that aren’t there. Likewise with people who do have money, this idea that you have to have a certain job, a certain amount of money, to live a certain kind of life…
…which can also be a kind of limitation.
Yes. Whether you want to or not, that’s the kind of life that you are living, and you cannot step beyond that. And I think a lot of people don’t even venture. Because it’s there, you think, this is the way of how you are supposed to live. But the thoughts of being anything beyond that either is a kind of ignorance. You are either not able to live differently because you’re so conditioned to think that this is right, this is what is good. Or the thought of anything beyond this is quite a frightening concept, because it doesn’t fit in to what is considered good. So how would you survive, how would you work, how would you do that? And the idea then how can you say which is bigger to someone? That kind of ignorance, or that one which is a more tangible one, where I don’t have access to this, or I don’t have access to that. Which is easier to be changed.
That is where I’ve started the whole thing. I started to work in this piece with my other collaborators, we did a ten minute piece on what happens when these worlds collide in different cultures, different upbringings. So this is an extension of that, this is carried on from that, and then with this idea of limitations. At one point I was also wanting to use sand and to do it on the beach, as the sand, it is also the poorest things, as you move, it starts to disappear, you can’t keep it, but at the same time it can be packed. But also just because of time, and because I had started with chalk, to carry on with that, time wise it didn’t make sense to go into something else with it. So I’m sticking with the chalk for the moment. But it is still used with the idea of making something visible that might not be visible.
Chalk is either something you would associate with school, chalk board, and learning, writing, so the chalk you have in your hand, and you put your idea onto another material. In the means of writing, or designing, drawing…
…and becoming an extension of self, I think.
…yes. Or then it can also be a children’s game, to write on the street etc. But what is it for you, what is the role of the chalk, for the performers?
I think it’s a number of things. I think it can be a source of power, so the person who is doing the kind of drawing, the incasing, or those kind of things, has a source of power. But at the same time every person in the piece has their own chalk, so how you wield it, how you use it to reinforce. I do think it is an extension of your conscious, your conscious mind as to how you react to things.
Is the drawing with the chalk also a transformation of the movement? The performers are both creating their own identities as in movement, parallel, next to each other. And then they draw — one circle and one triangle — around them, right? So I was wondering about what is the difference between them moving first and then putting the chalk or first drawing the circle and then moving in that defined space. Being there with your body first, or being the chalk to be first and have the body come after. I think you tried both, so what is the difference for you?
When you’re little, when you’re small, there are no limitations. You say what you want, you do what you want. It is only once you start growing up, that these outside things start coming in, sometimes from society, sometimes from yourself.
The idea is, that your space ends up getting smaller and smaller and you get confined to it, you are told that this is the life you’re living, the rules that you will apply to your life within this context. And that’s how you end up in the shape. So then working within that, you can choose to expand it or maybe even become comfortable but then what happens if you meet something that is not the same anymore — because inevitably you will meet, is it an abstraction, or something new, something different. And how do you respond to that? Is it a treat to have nothing to do with it, or is it going to change your own shape, or makes it all incompassing, or …? So that is what they are supposed to represent, at the moment.
When you talk about going beyond your ignorance — how are you able to do that?
I don’t think this is what I meant. Because you are keeping the same idea, it is just that you are working within it, so your world becomes bigger. So it is about how far do you go, how far outside of your comforting space do you go.
I think the most interesting part of your piece is the point of intersection, where the two meet, and what happens in the confrontation.
We are still working on this, it hasn’t been decided or finalized anywhere, because I think there are so many options when this happens.
There is the idea that one has to become dominant over the other. That to me would be a more interesting idea, the other possibility would be that it becomes a consensual thing, but that would imply some kind of happiness, and I don’t know yet where I want to go…
Hannah Pfurtscheller, March 15, 2016 — Beer Hall