In a workshop with Chryssa Parkinson, we created "personal bibliographies." These were a way to make explicit the kinds of personal/historical points of reference we had for the exercises she gave us. The rubric was:
content / style / material / topic / method
I wondered how my work and the work of those around me fell within the spectrum. Of course, certain work is focused more on style and others on method. The rubric also calls attention to the many evaluative systems in dance, art, and writing that focus on one or more of these areas. Perhaps, the value of hitting all of these rubrics is itself a value (one of inclusion); I'm not sure this value of inclusion in the artistic process needs to be elevated above the embrace of a single one of these categories. All in all, the headings are useful, but I also wonder about such divisions, which tend to reinforce historical categories (i.e. form v. content). Even as a provisional measure, the categories, however, are useful toward finding ways to frame one's working process. I find it exciting to have a set of signposts to mark my way through the often murky territory of making something. Then again, I do enjoy getting lost.
