Conversation between Mean Time Between Failures and Kerstin Schroth about DOWN BEAT

Could you tell us about the background and starting point of your performance?

DOWN BEAT emerged during one of our conversations when we were trying to define our practice as the Mean Time Between Failures duo. It was then, when we realized that our performances so far had always included movement, soundscape, a reference(s) to past or present artists, humour and an embodied relationship to some kind of material object. We had discussed earlier that we want to include a very physical and cool dance work with beats in our repertoire (also we wanted to stay in shape in the midst of all the computer work). And we knew that we would again work with Oula Rytkönen, a sound designer and our long-term collaborator who makes amazing sounds. Then we were listing material objects that one can have an embodied relationship with (mainly through somatic consumption) and we came up with chewing gum (earlier we had made a performance with potatoes, for example). We immediately thought that there surely must have been an artist in the past who worked with chewing gum, and we bumped into the work S.O.S (Starification Object Series) by Hannah Wilke from the 1974-82. In this way the conceptual, referential and wider framework for DOWN BEAT was born. However, the choreography began to shape as we spent days in the studio chewing the gum and moving to the beat while Oula was improvising with the beats. The deeper meanings of the work also came later. It was different from our previous works where we always started with a strong conceptual base.

While moving and chewing till our jaws hurt, we began to think about waste and consumption in a post-optimistic world, as well as about failure because the taste of the gum always went bland. We discussed how the same movement registered uniquely in our bodies brought a range of emotions, and was perceived differently from the outside, reflecting our diverse individual backgrounds. We also explored how the gum might enable embodied experiences of togetherness and intimacy, both among us and in relation to the audience. The work draws us into an odd kind of closeness – chewing together, moving together – while balancing on the edge of collapse. It’s both intimate and precarious, but also absurd.

There’s something ridiculous about dancing and chewing like it’s urgent, like it means something… or maybe nothing at all. It gestures towards the kind of precarity many artists are feeling right now: let’s perform like there’s no tomorrow – seriously, but also… really?

How do you situate your artistic work within the Finnish performing arts landscape?

We do identify mainly as performance artists, even though we both have strong backgrounds in dance. Thus, we believe that whatever we do in the Finnish performing arts landscape, aims to extend, align and be aware of the legacy of performance art, specifically. We have worked in galleries, black box theatres, public and other random spaces, and therefore we are also aware of the various kinds of production structures that exist out there. This wide range of contexts is mainly a positive thing. It expands our practice and challenges us each time to rethink questions around art making.

To be more specific, we consider Mean Time Between Failures as a performing and choreographic entity that creates both pedagogical and performance practices which operate somehow in the metaphysical core of humour. This for us does not mean that we would always make funny shows; but that humour informs our thinking of dramaturgy, concepts and aesthetic registers and is always present in the background of our making.

We also believe that the Mean Time Between Failures duo offers an example within the Finnish performing arts landscape of a sustained collaboration between two politically distinct bodies and artists. Who, despite their different positioning and urgencies in Finland, continue to find ways to work and create together.