[Silent Moves was a dance-theatre performance by Frank Van de Ven, Sarah Cullity and Andrew Robinson. Nexus Theatre, Janurary 1997. Co-ordination and design: Serge Tampalini.]

“…aesthetic perception too opens up a new spatiality, that the picture as a work of art is not in the space which it inhabits as a physical thing and as a coloured canvas. That the dance evolves in an aimless and unorientated space, that it is a suspension of our history, that in the dance the subject and his world are no longer in opposition, no longer stand out one against the background of the other, that in consequence the parts of the body are no longer thrown into relief as in natural experience: the trunk is no longer the ground from which movements arise and to which they sink back once per­formed; it now governs the dance –the movements of the limbs are its auxiliaries.”
[Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. The Phenomenology of Perception, [Trans. Colin Smith], Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974. p. 287.]

The second work in the trilogy was Silent Moves.

For this work P[R] was joined by the Dutch dancer and teacher, Frank Van de Ven.

Silent Moves. [1997]. Performers: Frank Van de Van, Sarah Cullity and Andrew Robinson. Co-ordination and design: Serge Tampalini.

Silent Moves was an assemblage of ideas and performances opened up during two weeks of collaborative workshopping that gathered around speculations about internal and external corporeal modalities. Attention was given to differentiating between impetus –seen as the motivator for the internal body, and stimulus –seen as the catalyst for the external body. The difference between impetus and stimulus is clarified later in this section. It was thought conceivable that in the crossing from the internal body to the external body, yet unmarked bodies were to be discovered. It was found that in so doing the performers were able to experience “shadow bodies”; bodies found under the surface of conscious awareness and perception.

Silent Moves. [1997]. Performers: Frank Van de Van, Sarah Cullity and Andrew Robinson. Co-ordination and design: Serge Tampalini.

These shadow bodies were accepted and explored as tangents to the work and always returned the performer back to it. Like a strange attractor the work reproduced these tangents as fractal narratives whose meaning escaped the central narrative of the work but always travelled parallel to it.
[Strange attractor: A term borrowed from Chaos Theory that attempts to explain unpredictable motion, often called chaotic motion.  Weather scientists recognize this characteristic of chaos when they argue that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can drastically alter the weather in New York. Scientists try to describe this phenomenon with models called strange attractors. For more information see: Gleick, James. Chaos, Cardinal, London, 1988, and Briggs, John. The Turbulent Mirror, Harper Collins, London, 1990.]

“Our own body, then, is the one we have and the history of the ones we've lost. Our body is both internal and external, invisible and visible, living and dead. Noncontinuous, full of jerks and rears, the body moves, like an awkward dancer trying to partner someone she can never see or lay hold of.”
[Grosz, Elizabeth. Volatile Bodies. Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana University Press, Bloomington; and Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1994.]