Proposal for feedback: 30 min per presentation first everyone else than the researcher who presented (20-25 min) Reply or summary or feedback to the discussion from the researcher who presented: How is it digested, does it make sense or not. (5-10 min)
Adriano Myriam: Its really nice to read about the feminist practices and the principles for collaboration. You made that into a score in the hope that on the one hand the person can assume and distribute authority, from the understanding that difference is the key there. I think it would be really important as a debate, in what way it is helpful, and in what ways it can bring you to other pitfalls. There is probably something that it does and something that it undoes. I think personally that it is dangerous to base authority on competence and to skill. It might lead to a certain thinking and logic of efficiency. Constructing a team where one is good in that and another is good at that. People come with their luggage and profiles, but articulating them to clearly and using them as a motivation for work [lost that ] over all there is something happening in naming or articulating, then you have to decide whether you have to become more contractual with people. that you are specific or clear about what you are proposing, and how you feel about [Lost that]. Naming and the contractual place to start is predetermining what the process can and can't do, and it is denying or taking power away from the process. You could take that into account also. I had an immediate reaction to difference as competence or skill. You may valorize something but it can also be a cast or sterotype and stop transformation. Personally I have been happy for processes where I could discover something beyond my capital. There is something transformative in making something together. Vladimir said that there is a big premise, that people had a common goal in the feminist bookshop. What surprised me about the letter, was that he nearly only speak relationally, about relation in relation to the person that he is writing. But there is nothing substantially about, I am interested in straps or colour. Which is maybe the most open way to collaborate "I want to collaborate with you and we hat there is people that ill define what interest us". Things that only refer to relations, take the erotics out. What I really enjoy is the notion of entrustment. What does it imply to collaborate from a principle of trust. Does that enable alchemy. In what way would it help Adriano to assume authorship by working from clarifications of desires to work with these people. What is it then really to assume authorship.
Were you surprised that the letter didnt substantiate the interest or terrain.
Andrea: I was not so surprised. I wrote in a similar way. And hearing you I think about substantiation, I value that as well. I took the score of the in [lost this] The form of how do you write someone who is your friend, or who will become your friend, who is a collaborator, you employ them, structures of power will come in. Taking into account that every person is proliferating in collaboration, and how do you sustain energy if collaboration is so ambigious.
Myriam: He says that he is an imployer, its not that given the relationship, it [lost this] I think it really frees you to have other elements outside human relationalities.
Andrea: I in my letter wrote that I would like to invite someone and give a specific frame of time. Maybe
Myriam: It just doesnt have a ground to me. What can he say, if its just me and him in the collaboration, there is no third element. To do something in the interest of that and that. So it can be very claustrophobic, when you are caught in collaboration only. I choose this and for you. But its circular and can be very suffucating. Its the other element that can create dynamic or something else.
Andrea: Is it the fact that if I invite you I am the employer and you are the employee..
Lilia:
Why are we collaborating. I stumble in assuming, and linking it to assumption. And that seems to be a bit trapping. the idea of friendship was also a bit difficult to me. I didnt think about the substance itself. The contract became just the substance. And the question is what is that proposal. What is the expectation. As you say the employer can still be many different things. Authority and responsibility I stumble on. What are you responsible for and is that authority.
Tom: I was wondering why authority and not agency. What I do not understand is to think redistribution of power, along the notion of authority that implies power distribution. Authority is the power to make decisions and force obidience.
Vladimir: I dont know if I agree: authoring, authoring authority.
Nicolas: Eitherway I experience the term authority as a bit of the reduction of the problematic of collaboration. There is a lot of other problematics: togetherness, responsibility. It is a bit of a projection here that authority is the big problem. Either its a specific choice to work on this aspect of collaboration, if it is so I would have loved to have it more specific that this is what we are working on. In my letter I tried to avoid and expand.
Myriam: Maybe its a second step kind of letter, it can be written after discussing that this interest me, and I have this dream, and then you go, but we are friends. We will be friends, but I will also be your employer. Its a good casestudy, what to do when working with friends.
Nicolas: It definetely has a reason. If it is broken up, with other aspects of it. In collaboration you can play with distributing authority and responsibility. Its a playground I found. I am reacting to the way I read the text and what it launches to me, to reacting to the text. Another aspect: I appreciate something very much, maybe its related to the way of giving the paper. The concentration that was in the space, I appreciate it alot. Small gesture and huge concentration. Assuming that I am presenting now, with this gesture, its a very little thing that made me dive into the thing and go much longer.
Lilia: Maybe there are other elements, the fact that the substanse being one, maybe there are other things, that one could imagine that could set the agreement or the contract in other places, that could allow for disagreement for taking back and... Its always about forces, and its impossible to set a contract that... What would be strategies that can mediate a collaboration, without setting: you do this and this is what you do. Sometimes these things can expand to spaces that are not good anymore. Alot of assumptions, if you are friends even more. And where do the things we do unclear. In excess or not enough, or too informal or not enough. When does one call back to attention.
Vera:
I thought if there could be a way in the form that I made the invitation, that there could be a way of enabling this challenge. Can we think about ways where it is there already. Instead of you telling me and then me doing. And for me the nathaniel letter invited in different ways.
Vladimir:
Didnt the first letter achieve that somehow, inviting you to a research moment on authority, by giving authority.
Vera:
Ways that could challenge the [premise?]
Tulio:
Can the idea of writing different letters of giving authority be a way of discplacing authority. The process of writing the letters and then thinking that they could inform ways that Adriano might write letters. Then authority is already blurred. And does that make sense still? When its displaced from the relation.
Lilia:
The question is: why dont you want to have the authority? If I initiate something, there is an idea. It can still be authority, can still be co-work. Different than if we all decide "lets do something together". It depends what is the reason for that. And why authority has to be just a negative thing.
Myriam:
Yeah I also thinks it complicates a lot of things, the guild and not sure, and then authority is the quicksand, the unease with it. There is also some clichees about what it is to be an employer and to employ people. It hasnt been my experience at all: you are often in a rotating system, where sometimes you are the employer and sometimes you are the employee. In jazzbands they often say: I am the leader of the band because I am going to do all the shitty work. Sometimes I think that employing can be a serving relationship. You have authority and you have a lot of shit to make it possible. Its a much more relation where now I am the one in the hierarchy to you. Second of all I remember most of the meetings where I am testing if someone would like to work on a project. There is an excitetement, seduction and giving information and a lot of authority for people to say yes. So maybe we are overclouding the relationships with very constrained imaginaries: of work, production, conditions of labour.
Lilia:
We have to round it up.
Nicolas:
I am wondering about several terms, why they are not appearing, I wonder why leader ship is not put at stake. Leadership discourse, what does it mean to take on leadership, For yourself and for other. I miss the term of transparency in relation to trust. How to make positions and relationships clear. If they are clear a lot of problematics can be solved and played.
Myriam:
Maybe the confusing element is really money. Moneytary relations.
Kasia: Vladimir: can we make a miniscore of mentors and curators counting to ten, to level the field.
Myriam: Or that two participants speak after each mentor. Maybe its a monetary thing. We are overproducing because we are paid.
KASIA FV: I really liked the fragililty and the pathos of being lost in your own archive. The possiblity of turning your archive into a thing that can be held. Its a beautiful tool. In my experience not being able to fuly handle the tool, the drifting, being lost, lack of structre are all tools in themselves. As an advice: don't be afraid of being lost and drifting. How to share this methodlolgy, it can become a bubble.
Tulio: how much was the tool a decision made only for this context?
Myriam: this feedback works better if we dont talk to Kasia direcly
Lilia: I saw a person trying to link parts of text to images, without being certain if the images belong to the texts. They are all memories, or appear as memories. Some text were crumpled. What is the relationship to memory and to the appearing archive? The question was about extended writing.. but the question that stayed was what is the memory of the memory?
An: If I see Kasias presentation as methodology: I saw a camera obscura, an image of her looking into images and the light that allows the image to be seen. It all becoms a portal for observing images in the making. Bartes talk about photography and the spectators part in it. For me we were all included in the proposal. Power of one text being repeated. When the image is stil there when another text is being read, the image is being repeated in a different context. the image is multidimensional. There are collections in between. Kasia as a magnetic perfromer. Kentridge video: he is making the animation in the studio, the animator is animated
F: Power realtion between the image and the words: words become subjects of the image, their ruins. How to free the image
Tom: Picking something what Andrea said: Kasia being a magnetic perfromer. Framed as "I'm gonna share my practice" Did not see it as a performace. Letting go of my own desire for sense making. Aby Warburg Atlas was constructed over many years. How this procedure of sense making taking a lot of time. Imagination of Kasia in her own room talking to herself. The moment of before the atlas, of solipsism. the frame of the page the map of attention. What is the frame when one tries to communicate to onself what one saw.
Magda: "What strucks me" in polish was a key sentence for me. Image creation between image and words. How does the striking go through her, she also used the the word: penetrate. Traveling through a dense word/world. Repetition is like hitting. Exploring what and how something hits me.
N: Position of the text around image makes me thik about its origin. what came before what? If the image continues to repeat isself through time, but then there is an encounter when it hits you... An attempt to tie up one moment into an object. Not sure if the method was done, or performed. Appreciated the play with time.
Myriam: tend to disagree with what was said before. By presenting a practice we alos make it external. I dont value the presentation not only for presentation of method, but for attempt to make the interior practice exterior. The method to make exterior would be practicing performing. Displacement through perfroming has an epistemology. I see you sliding. between first presentation and this one, there is experimentation. It very quiet. It could go further. it could be riskier.
FV I saw a perfromance of her archive, this time was on the dance floor. I can t stop seenig crhis marker the black between two images. The black space between the images allows her to meve. But there was alomost no space between the images. The black space between the images can be a tool for movement. So we can se her drift and journey.
Vladimir:
Tulio there is transformation in the text, but not in the image.
Myriam: there is potential in the searchlight, that the moon became the searchlight. There was something in the gesture that had the potential to make the image move, but might have not gone far enough. Idea there would be something in how the images can speak and live.
FV The movement was one directional, fro text to image
Ad: a form of triangulation, as a method of finding out where one is. There ws a desire to dissolve and cross boutndaries, now there was a desire to undestand something existential. it was a Movememt to figure out where one is. Because we cold move I was daling with triangulation of also my body in this constellation. This could be apotential for a specific spectatorship to enter the constellation.
N: sensemaking was challenging. I saw a method of trying to draw us to the margins of sensemaking. connectino being arbitrary challenged me to go beyond sense making. challenged me to search to the margin of the sense making connection. Interesting match of method and content between presentation and smarginatura topic of research.
Kasia: was looking to present methodology. choose a black sheet of paper (not dance floor) was not my aim to be too busy with the perfromative questions of presentation. Wanted to shar the fragmentarity of the research. less strorytellign this time. Text were chosen in a random way. Good questions remain. not archive, rather a collection of traces. a detective adventure.
[Break] We start again.
Tom: Myriam, vladimir and I smoked a cigarette and talked about the previous feedback round and thought it would be interesting to introduce another step in the score. We would like the person who presented to make a statement about the methodology that was proposed. That we dont go immediately into the interpretation, that could maybe clarify questions.
Myriam: A second element was that the score can really be a conversation for us to establish a community for people thinking together, and build a conversation of thoughts that are listened in on. That we are careful not just to add, add add, but that we compose conversation with these interventions. We are a community that is looking into these propositions and methodologies and practice conversation, to break a bit the horizontality of pure juxtaposition. And you reveal yourself through it, what are your obsessions, so its also revealing for you as a community.
Tulio: I should start talking then. So as I mentioned briefly, what I read even though it gained a kind of format that could be percieved as something closed, it emerged as a part of a process, and I still understand it as a kind of process even though it might have different qualities. Going back to methodology, or to this set of practices or experiments. I started from analizing a video. This video has an inherent quality of violence, or talks about violence, and the way I approach this violence is by abstracting it. And that could be a way to review; what is there. So the text becomes a way to stu[Lost that]. It might trigger question in the way that the process was carried out. There are qualities in how it is carried out. But I want to offer the text, even though the qualities might inform the conversation, I dont want to use them to talk about that, but as a more generous way than sitting in a circle and reading.
Fede V: I wasnt here on the opening days, so I missed Tulios presentation, I wasnt here in settlement either, so this is the first time I have a view into Tulios work. For me it was hard to follow. I was very happy to be there and have the other objects. There were things I could look at sometimes and travel with them. The first thing was the oral description of images, and the very tough analyzis, the way he described how he was analizing the images, with patterns and arrows[?]. The images dealt with colonialism. I relate that initself to colonialism with taking an image and extracting things for it. In the same time the freedom he gave us to listen to his voice by looking at the objects, this I enjoyed and I thought this is the way.
Adriano: the abstraction in the procedures: Im curious: the description of pexels and centimeters. The description itslef is an abstruction. Can we map out how the froms of abstraction worked differntly from each other. How do they all relate?
Lilia: for me it is very present, everything that can be counted the numbers of images, animals, real archives as strategies of evidence that is put upon a document that is not evident at all. This is what I understand as method in a way. Through this I saw things appearing, some letters, letters of portuguese kind. Sometimes the film opens to other stories. so this is the possibility to tell the story otherwise. But in a more affective way. Less graspable, less as evidence of truth. The analysis of this, it could legitimize the film, but through this the intention of the film crumbles again.
[Technicality convo]
Nathan: For me it was hard to connect to the numbers, and I wondered why I was hearing those numbers and what they are doing. For some people they are really tangible, but they are not for me. [lost something] The personal connection was really interesting to me. A relative who was connected to the film in a different context. Being called in this way and these materials being sourced in a different way, materials being taken, how will they be used, a conversation with a relative. And how it is relating to these numbers in this process of abstraction. What I really came out with the most is the numbers.
Fede V: I also wondered about the numbers is it about objectivity, about fact.
Vera: The numbers and the level of precision, with which he describes the whole process, as a way to abstract from the violence of the image. To me it opened up a possibility of [fiction?]. Coming from a real image and then what would be yours? My question was also: why to abstract violence, what does that mean politically. Anaesthecia, if you are exposed so much to mediation of violence, then in the end you dont feel anything. Would we need the opposite, go more violence, or emotional. Saturation could be another methodology[?] for me.
Myriam: The numbers made me think about conceptual art. The poetics of numbers. The installation form.. The frame without the screen.. Conceptual art meeting the trouble of colonialism. I very quickly lost interest in the text. Because of how it was delivered. Something was obstructive in the delivery, I would love to read it again. But what saved the experience, was the objects, how you said it Fede, was the objects. Might be way to far: but I had to think the grid, a window that you divide into a grid. is the basic tool of western perspective, you can analize an image through this tool. But here the grid wasnt were it normally should be. It was displaced. And the image had no surface to appear. And it made me think about anamorphopious[?]. There is a scull and you can only see it from a specific angle, not in front, but from the side, it will reveal itself as the scull. So maybe more than the text, the images and numbers, there is another way, to look for this anamorphosious: this thing that you need to step in another angle to see horror appear or something else.
Nathan:
At first my experience was that I was kind of outside of it, but then I moved close to hearing.
Fede: Its true that some of us looked down and some looked out.
Lilia:
I heard it very well. And I liked the text, and I think that the numbers are very violent. And that is the way that there is a repression[?] coming into perception. The numbers were creating an inaccesibility to something that was terrible. Colonizing the fucking movie.
Myriam:
Do you think that was done on purpose. A reenactment of violence.
Fede: There was a violence, but omg this guy went through a very tedious process. So I thought that his methodology is also about digging in.
Vladimir:
I had a feeling that it was staged like a trial. Staging a courttrial or a deposition.
Vera:
Somthing interesting, to show what remains. What did this process of abstracting it so much.
Adriano: two possible definitions what is abstraction in this case: Reza Negaristani: "Torture concrete" about violence of abstraction: abstraction is a taking of determination from something. From Fred Moten: Abstraction is about looking very closely at something and thereby distorting the figure.
Nicolas: Rimbaud introducing deregulation to abstract language, to depict powerful language that makes content. Depict, and deregulating language. But the term was then after taken over by economy, that thought that this is a good idea, because it frees up stuff. Because it was used by economy for another colonial [?] practice. I saw a pile of cardboard in front of me. And the grid, the very strong grid, and I wondered how it came. I have a feeling that there is a certain consciousness of dealing with the violence. There are two methodology: the letter and the abstraction. and both are super violent. Both try to objectify and strip emotion away. To see something..
Fede V: The big question for me in the end: Should we apply colonial method to colonial things.
Tulio: Most of what was identified was intentioned, except some elements in the space. But the applying of the colonial methodology, was named in settlement, but by naming it I realized that I have used it before, and now I try to do that very consciously. It is super intentional and it gives me pleasure to know that it botters or that it produces violences. "Realizing violence" - Nicolas in mentoring. The uneasiness is something super interesting. There is a lot of question about the text, the reading, but the text itself as something that [lost that].
Federico Vladimir Statement: presentation was about tools to become a figure. ( a giant). collaborative tools. The reason to go through them again, because I have some predjudices with that myself. To understand if I want to put the audience through that.
Vladimir: at some point between 5 and 6 I couldnt walk that bridge, in terms of method. There were two parts, but in terms of methodology it would be so interesting - there was biographical imagination, and suddenly the giant appear.
N: I saw the show, the spinning waorked really well. Liftet it into outer space, or like in a video game. The question if we can see the personal inside the giant is hard to answer. I would need to see the giant in a broader context.
Myriam: I did not expect for the steps to serve in the creation of the character. They were exercises in subjectivity construction. They can all provide some practice. I was wondering: Is FV busy with charachter being convincing? Do the pieces of the puzzle need to fit well together for FV? Presentation showed that there is a lot of work in gaming and stroy telling that goes into charachter creation. But what is this construction of subjectivity for if not for story telling? And the giant really got to story telling. There is a consitenncy to the creature, but it was also consistent inhow it was told.
T: it is also the moment where the giant start to live with other elements. How much constuction of the self do you need to think relations? How one realtes is more interesting than how one thinks oneself.
N: character contruction is making of outwards relations possible.
Tu: HIV strory troubles the building of a "perfect" character.
To: do you think that you need to render your self to build and intersting charachter.
Tu: my tendency would be to build a favorabe interesting representation of my self in a game
Tom: The point of departure could be the desire to build a giant. How much of the self is needed to build this fiction?
N: biography gives us the tool of vulnerability and insight towards the charecterof the giant.
A: the framing as a workshop was valuable to me. It is a way to play with self idenification. To see you struggle with reality towards a release into ficiton is inspiring to ask myslef what I could become.
Ad: I see it between a showcase and a ritual. We gather around to hear the story of how all the different biographical parts of the body can be slowly transformed into a myth. We can treat the biographical and political entanglements of the body ina public way, as a public ritual.
L: I was wondering how to extend it away from oneself. It probably happens more when it is a collective process.
M by taking the wokshop one would be more implicated and more exiting. Really touched by the giant. What is the differnce between symbol and allegory here? The giant is not symbolic but an allegory, it can represent situations of our existence. It becomes a scene. Maybe now we can go back from the giant to the grandfather and understand him better.
N: We did not really talk about research, and about stagin himself as his own research object
M: he was so transparent with his methodology. it is easier if one has already been transmitting.
Tom: how does he tap into existing methodologies of creating characters?
Federico Vladimir I did not start as a giant, I did not know that I would become a giant when I started with my gradfather. The process is about becoming ones own charachter, not a beautiful character. In D&D one becomes quite attached to ones character. Its about making MY figure, and its only me that can make it and play (with) it. It shifted from charachter to figure, it is not an illustration of me. I use it sometimes to talk about myself. The images of illness and body come from susan sonntag. this is very usefull to me to talk about my illness. In game you construct this new image one your self within a group. There are negotiations involved in that.
M: really important to us all: if the score just serves the enactment of the score it is not intersting. A method is a way to something.
Myriam: I feel a lot of confusion about the task: what is method and what is methodology. How have you as organizers prepared the terrain. Because it seems like a leap for people to adress the question, and therefore also for us relating to that.
Vladimir: We spend monday discussing it.
Myriam:
Good to know, because I also felt very lost by the end of the day.
Magda:
for me its interesting, we had this discussion and I found it very useful, I felt it naming many thing.
But its super hard to talk about it, not in an abstract conceptual way, but in work.
Vladimir:
That is also the limit of introducing it, how we introduced it monday, at some point we have to go back to the work, but the feedback sessions is also a process. i dont assume that there is a clarity of what it is, but in the conversation we can try to see where it fits [methodology].
Myriam:
So its good that we all agree that we all dont really know.
Lilia
I think the focus of HWD is how people do what they do and how this relates to the desire of the research.
Nicolas:
Maybe you are adressing another point. How we talk about it. Searching for it... What kind of perspective, how do we speak about it. A suggestion I hear is that we try to analyze what the methodology is. Yesterday I felt that we talked alot about practice, experience... If the focus is methodology, then maybe we can try to find it in what we see as methodology.
Myriam:
What is it to have a conversation together, to think together something that is useful for something else. This is a real skill in a group. I find it really difficult what you ask.
Lilia: Maybe we can speak from there. What is the way of doing actually bringing.
Vera:
As somebody who is only on the side. For me it was difficult to approach this format, I felt i rigid for what it is ´methodology´, only 30 minutes. could be interesting that we get to explore... could be interesting if this was a continuation of the settlement.
Lilia:
we could think about it for the end week.
Nathaniel:
I felt a tension between presenting the method and the question of what do we want out of it, by showing the method. there is another thing going on: I am experimenting tactics [lost that] I am not just showing the method I am also asking another question. An extra tension, which changes what my method is by doing it here.
Nicolas:
Would it be different for you to think about sharing methodology rather than presenting.
Federico: There is a freedom in how you share and how you present, so I just ignored some parts. Maybe it will become clear or maybe..
Lilia: Exersicing and creating frames, and these are not truth, but they are possibilities for one to see relating to what is put. This allows probably also to change format. This is not truth, methodology will be shown in half an hour and we should be clear about it. The format permits, squeezes something. An attempt to look a bit closer, like a microscope. And of course this can not show everything. And its impossible to create an environment where everyone feels that this was perfect for me. I see a lot, I dont see it all. But I am able to grab a certain part of it.
Vera:
What Nathaniel said, the confusion between doing and presenting it.
Lilia:
You can look at it as a problem, which is a potential for something.
Nathaniel:
It meantime changes it, it is not really my methodology so far.
Lilia:
What is the thing that is bothering you at the moment: that thing maybe need to be smaller than the whole.
Myriam:
Would you say that sharing a practice, is one step in showing the method in action. Less intimidating than doing and presenting. By presenting something, in sharing.
Lilia:
How do you practice and what does it do. How can others practice it and how does it inform the way you work.
Nicolas:
Another useful term might be applying the methodology. Applying the methodology. And it all happened in different kinds of mixes.
Lilia:
Squeeze and extend. I think these moments are for squeezing.
Fede V:
For example I was frustrated because I didnt manage everything. But then I did get something.
Lilia:
Shall we start?
Si.
Rui
I gave you the paper, maybe its useful. I want to thank Lilia and Andrea, because without them its not possible. And it depends on how they work also. And I want you to feel free to say whatever you want. And also I was thinking that we were talking about the [lost that] sometimes I think I should be more specific about the vocabolary I use. With Tom we talked about the camera as psychoanalysis. And this thing helped me in thinking the work.
Vladimir:
In the spirit of method. I think that if I look at the whole thing. What is striking is that you produce a conflict in the performer, by overlaying different instructions, and that conflict plays out in the performance. This I would describe as production of conflict, and the capture on camera as method. The production of conflict also reaches into the medium itself. Not just the performer is conflicted, but the film itself is conflicted about what kind of representation and images it expose. It would be nice to propose something in the film, to be able to break away from something in the film and not only in relation to other films.
Magda: I also dont know what you mean.
Tulio: You mentioned two kinds of conflict.
Vladimir: Yes in the medium, can the medium itself be conflicted. One kind of film and then another kind of film in the same film.
Tulio: Does this respond to the film or to how the film is made. What you invoke is something which is outside and which might be percieved in how we watch it.
Vladimir:
Its two things but we try
Tulio : so you mean the medium is the method?
Lilia: now the work of instructions became the camera man, the camera became a player. it provokes something else in the film.
tom: the camera was not part of the game yet before?
lilia: yes, it used to be outside. and now the camera also moves as another performer. I think is more transparent now. the mechanism of the conflict.
fede v: i feel a lot of tension, the performance, the script, the camera and what we see in the end is a film. then there is the editing, when i see the work, you think of a method, and i feel a really wanna see the making off. i experience a frustration with not experiencing the score or the method.
tom: yes is true, because what is actually at hand, is tat you have the envoronment, a built cinema, the work itself, the scroe, all the elements. And one thing that is missing is the editing, what is the scale of choices that were made, what motivates a decision. I was watching some of the raw footage with rui and that a whole different feel to it. Inflicting violence and so comes with teh editing cut as well, is in the word. and is something is not spoken about yet.
fede v: i always wonder when i watch a film , ahhh how is this made? I would love to see this life!
myryam: i tend to really agree now that i hear you say it. when i was there i was really fascinated with the intricate methid of instructions, and how each performer was unaware of each other. I saw it produces somethinkg unique. Something that many filmmakes are looking for in the relation to collaborating with actors, a real situateed way of acting and also including camera. I didnt understand very well what they were saying but the way one could see relationaliy emerge with very little conventional tricks, one look, one cut, you could nearly start presupposing they way she looked there and then she did that. Interaction and relationailty is really hard to reconstruct. And here it emerged as an incredible entaglement of directions, looks, being with, of being spectators. I am really struck by the beauty of presences, especially because i didnt understand what they were saying. His editing, I beleive he can work, but here you have a mixture of fluidity and i thought that was very successful, and inclusive enviornment, while his presence didnt work as an intruder. it is truly magical, and he found something. I want to take a workshop in that. And then the conflict, when I saw the instructions, it was impossible to know what they produce. this can be a life mission. how does he develop an understanding of what he needs, and how is he evaluating that. in terms of what he is looking for. because it is a recipe. art combining re-combining, im not sure about conflict. I thought the first image was really splattering. So what does it produce?
Nathaniel: a measure of uncertainty, i didnt now exactly what it would produce. i felt actions and interventions that had pattterns in time and it was always unpredictable and it kept me curious.
Myriam: and secrecy?
vera: what i like is the instruction you give are fitting and suggesting a story, but sometimes it was not fitting, this moment with andrea and the other girl, and at certain moments .the instrucions sometimes were allowing for a story to emerge and other times they were not connected
Andrea: Maybe its related to somehting I spoke with Rui about before, because we are busy with our score there is a conflict of not being able to respond emotionally, so tht was violent, to perform care, cause I couldnt, but I know that Lilias story she was just reading it. But we also have to perform for half an hour longer, so should I just hold that[?]
Myriam: Thats pretty tough then, isnt it? Would you recommend it as an ethical method. You have actors tallking to eachother, or dancers, like when you work for this person its really..[bad?] how would you...
Andrea: Sometimes reading the news I dont know what to do with them. So I dont know if its unethical, also because I trust Rui. I recommend.
Lilia:
Me too. It does bring about things that are not very pleasant. this resistance is the hardest because you are not in real life, but it could be, so its also rehearsing distancing, sustaining. Its a good way to dismantle complexities. Violence is not always where its seen. It allows to understand many things about yourself.
Myriam:
is there a chillout after? How do you come out of it. There is a lot of intentional non-communication before. you dont know eachothers instruction. So then after, what happens there?
Lilia: I could have more discussions afterwards. But we are here and we see the film and then its done, but there is an intention that we will talk.
Tom:
You did many.
Lilia:
yes maybe 10. With other instructions. And the work has been to see what kind of instructions.. and I think Rui is getting more crafted in it. They are consice but precise, and they create what you want. And the biggest movie is the movie of the camera. It was veyr problematic in the beginning, [to have it outside] but now its more in. Its a huge movement. you see where is he, how is he.
Andrea:
I am still interested in the question of Myriam, in this case its a succesful work. And the methodology is very clear. But is there something that we are keeping, how do you value your choices, now you chose a new score and the position of the camera. But what is he following and what is he after. Again with the question of methodology, to not make the holy space that inspiration is intangible.
Nathaniel:
I dont know what Rui was after exactly, but it produce the place between the scripted and the real. Which is also were potentially it can be unethical. When you are inside and you dont know whats what anymore. Is it actually real right now? Which in performance is something, being authentic by activating the schizm between real and scripted. I find it really productive.
Vladimir:
I have questions: Where does it live. How can it leave the film. Is this method for filming, or does it touch on some other issues, that are somehow located between us, or between us and the outside. One thing that you are saying, if you are saying the real and the scripted. For me its also: the appearance of the real and the appearance of the scripted. Is it just or surface or is it the whole thing. By going deeper into the folds, its possible to connect this method to other discourses.
Andrea:
Adriano: thinking of a wuationg between kasias presentation and navigating some elements of this work. How the work of performing is described as a re-navigation that happens because of the score and we never really know where the performers are. I see a resonance between methods.
Vladimir: what is errupting and what is the film criticising?
Lilia: that conflict is actually..i thingk is about uneasyness and misunderstandings...they are real and part of daily life and suddenly they appear, the want to come, they are not hidden. I feel uneasy doing it and uneasy watching it - maybe becuase im in it, but hoever i thik there is unc¡easynes, which is not pure violence, nothing is pure, i think if dor that, the thing with cinema, what would be the editing, and what would be steps to take in relation to editing.
Tulio: Its interesting to think, what are the things that are interesting for filming, for editing and presenting etc. It might be different scores that are structured by different rules.
Rui: Thank you, very helpful. As you were all asking about the editing. The editing is a second/third step. I tried to create a sensation or rythm of a drama, but without the drama. so a sensation of time passing by. I try to cut everything that is very understandable. I cut everything that I think: this I understand. so the frustration is part of the goal. There is something I assume that the editing is something I hide. But maybe I have to think about it.
Myriam: There is a specific appreciation of little event, of detail, that particular moment. I have a feeling that as a maker, where you get most excited is in detail. Probably that could interest me in a dialogue with you. Microevents. A detail here or that particular, draws it. You have a secretive nature about how you set it up.
Federico: fed
Kasia: very intrigued by choice for hypnotic pracice. How can it be (if the instruction is open as it was) ( I was in the stroy, but not deep enough), how can the immersion be enhanced. What is the realation between the setting adnthe narrative that is unfolded? Between the way we were there and what the story offered. How can that be more intense. There is of course also perfromance involved in the hypnotic experience.
Nathaniel: If hypnosis is the method, I was not quite convinced that F wanted to hypnotise me, it was a very polite hypnotism.
Nicolas: It was very coherent to adress fashion through hypnotic practices. Fashion is hypnotisation of the society. To penetrate through clothes deeper in to the inner, its not a counter method, its an amplification of the method of the fashion industry. There is a beauty to adress fashion from the naked side
Myriam: its a utopian practice, if it fell into wrong hands, it could colonise us. Interesting when it is eluding application when fashion can enter somatic practices. Great inspiration for somatic practices, deeping the experiance through dreamin. In the other direction im really scared about commodifying this seduction. in the place wehre you are most vulnerable.
Rui: penetration and identity: the soudn made me think about a train. it opened my imagination. In the end the song had a lot of information for me. There my imagination stopped.
Nicolas: inviting us to a journey reminded me of a catwalk.
Myriam: is the catwalk a jouney for you?
N: if the task is to go with me onto my inner stage, an immaterial catwalk inside myself.
tom: combining those views, bringing back fashion is not therating at all there is a lot of space for that. could also be like fashion meditation. not with a finality, looking for a foal experience, more like that could lead into something. Hypnosis or visualization techniques could feed back into production process. Specialy in this realm that is so much about the stress of production, and i wonder how can it enter the realm of critique. Until we are maybe plugued into the Matrix we ares till wearing fashion , how can inmatierial practices feedback into material applications.
Vladimir: try to des-ambiguate between things like ideology, trend, discourse, because they also travel as fashions in an inmaterial way, and the proposal of fashion, what is it playing with if it does not want to mimic again ideological processes.
Tom: this is very interesting, maybe because fashion is not about clothes but more about hypnotich practices.
Vladimir: hypnosis is already a propagation.
Lilia: what are the roles of metaphores in hypnosis, what do they produce or how the images travel. Travels, holes, nature, Alice in Wonderland, going to the world and going into another world. Just that, what is the attention of that as a critial tool? Does that contain my criticality?
Kasia: he said clothes became home, you have this hypnothic trip and a trip of naming what is happening to you. you take liberty to name it, you take liberty to all what you wear is your home, like a shield .that could be another potential of fashion, what appears, it becomes a place of belonging.
adriano: dont most fashion emerge in marginalis communities, there is the industry and the emergence of fashion as a tool of resistance.
Fede V: why are we judging this as fashion, is not when Kasia is doing this research on writing and we talk about fashion, i wonder if this is useful. i felt trap in reading it as fashion.
tom:but arent we already experts in fashion, we do dress every day, and so that is something that is so generative about the proposal, indeed it points at the construction of a hole, you wear a pain, you wear the wind, the world.
adriano: there is a propsal to think alon inmaterial fashion, but we could also name it from different angles.
lilia: maybe at the end is more of a critical tool and how that materialises.
vladimir: to critique fashion is to move beyond materiality and to use hypnosis is to affirm the hynothic quality of fashion. we follow this failures of criticality and we go deep enough. What is the actual critical point of method. for me it happened with the suitcase.
federico:
was very nice to hear about it and funny to not intervene. nice return moment from the method itself. borrowing from methis of fashion and being aware. what is important is that fashion is a phenomenon, as vladimir says is trends, is a constant renewal of something somehow, people will try to define the word fashion, is difficult because there is the aspcet of dressing and then there is the world of identification and appearance, that goes into production that never really came into a study or phenomenon that is constantly happening. i thought was interesting why are we even talking about fashion now? this answers the proximity we have with fashion and getting dressed and this is a constant presence in everyone, and is difficult to create this distance. and i think thats whay there is this moment of naming fashion. i think the point of already existing fashion and the metaphors is a point i want to look into. i would love to try this into an educational context.
lilia and vlad: you did!
federico: i think the fashion designer is a dictator, and there is a following and an irony for me , i create a person and ideology and what does this person fo in the evening or wear in the morning, and if i would construct this persons half yeras lifestyle and then people wanting those exact clothes, is very dictating, and brutal. and then egain there is this aspect of the performance and the performer, who is also a dictator in a way.
Andrea: I just want to say that the band practice recording you heard was with nathaniel, vladimir, rui and vera. That was the part that I did not introduce so much as methodology, but the way we came together, jumping into situation together is something I am looking for as a methodology aswell.
Tom: What I found really beautiful in all of the nature is the intrinsic dialogical nature of what is proposed, always about coming together, singing together, preperation together, someone showing: thats how I do it, now I want you to do it, I am going to leave you there, by experience of that, by doing it there is a proximity [?] in relation to methods, it was also in the letter, that [?] one grapples with. That there can be so much joy and lightness in relation to solving that riddle.
Federico: To me I really love the thing, Andrea mentioned it on monday "the method will show itself" now with the method itself [?] the method is like a shy kid. Methodology as something that can shy away. And I also agree that there is a very beautiful way of proximity, in how the things were proposed. A natural inviting. a certain softness that I think it super important and beautiful. To engage with a practice.
Myriam: I had to think about the band. and binding. Thinking the song of PJ harvey, hoping that we can temporarily bind or band. Even though its very short, and not everyone feels so rock and roll. Also the drawing in french you say bande de [de]signe. A strip. Something is connected. And then it ended with a band, which feels promising. And its best, you draw from energy and pleasure and joy and singularities. I hear that, I heard it in the music. In terms of a method, I see it as step by step of naming, and someone says no, but not to the extend that you are no longer in the game and but say maybe this. This is.. Its a way of showing. A way of creating a context for emergence of meaning and significance and continously defering, deferal. Yes you could see it in it, but also this and also that. It is a great workshop tool for. Its hard to be critical once you are in the band. By becoming by being hypnotized, by following and by playing, I can't go to that metalevel. It invites more play more desire. It somehow, kills my critical...
Fede V: Taking it from there.. .thats something that is very enjoyable, the fact of doing it together, its hard to take it on a mental level, but there is a joy of going somewhere together. That is the thing. It is a super powerful method. The method works great. I would love to be in this method for longer. Everything was like, I want to be I want to dance. Maybe the more critical thing can be...
Tulio: As you say, its a kind of caracteristic of the method that appears in the different elements. There is a certain idea of just trying, not trying to be correct, but to keep trying. Trying to think methodology, as something that comes from practice.
Lilia:
I had to think about pretending. You can try, but you can not just put your self on top of it. Trying and expertise, there is a bit of a clown, I know everything but I know nothing. But I can advance to.. It is commical. not just fun or nice.
Vladimir:
I was missing a bit, in the three practices, a kind of... whats the thing that brings them together. But I also know that its the question of love as a practice, and from there I can read.. but for me its like guess work, how they connect, how they contribute to the overall guesswork of love practices.
Lilia:
I was not so attached to the love.
Vladimir: If you say its working well, then its also working well for me, but what is the criteria for that.
Lilia:
Expertise and pretending. And how these two create attention of impossibility to go through. I see the work being done. I also see a lot of skill and randomness. There is an engagement with life, which is whats there in front of you, more than love there is the life. This is what I saw as a binding or as a radical collaboration.
Adriano: I wonder if there is some kinf of a tactical spirituality at work. I was invited to look at the room and I saw methodology as animist presense in the objects in the room.
Lilia: I think about childhood like this. We can do something before we say no. But then I have to think about what this generates, and then I have to think about what is here. And I have to think about how these paintings are made. What is the intention to pick up something an paint?
Vera:
Thats a question to me. I have been seeing Andrea do so many different things, and talking about love, but I miss the connetion between the different things. Today I could see a line passing. I can project, I can make a story. Love wants to expand and have all these manifestations.
Nicolas:
I enjoyed the lightness as an attitude, and this attitude is made into methodology. Another aspect which probably relates to that, to me it was expressed in the letter. The letter has an attitude that the method is not there, the method has to emerge, be evoked. This acknowledgement. That in my own practice is very clear, to try and formulate in our field something which is actually not yet there. to expose that as a research practice, not as a methodology, there is a difference appearing. For me there was a nice method to adress that problem, to awaken it, if we talk about spiritual practices. Not having the method at the beginning, but rather as a goal, but a way to go to. not as a starting point.
Vladimir:
I think we should try to disagree more, especially because it was pleasant.
Myriam:
Thats what I say, in the aftermath of the play, I am numb in that sense.
Fede V:
I was looking at the drawings, and I thought, yes, the method is this, and we all enjoy. But when you end with finding out what it is. Then its like a vacumcleaner.
Myriam:
Its about this, a never ending fantasy.
Fede V:
The method was not there yet, thats a method.
Magda:
I am not sure that there is an attempt for the method to appear or this kind of line that we are looking or curious or wish for. I am not sure that there is an attempt for it to appear. I wonder if resisting the recognition of the method is the method. So it might always be the randomness, or driven by coincidence or circumstance.
Lilia:
Things are never good in the end. At the end its dead, but its not. things don't get to this place where... They get to the end, but the end is... There is a process of getting all the time to never.... you achieve.... a bit, but you are in the process somehow.
Fede V: I wonder if the idea of love, love is such a big idea, so its a bit of an umbrella, its a bit of a joker than can fit everything.
Vladimir:
If these are love practices, not adressing the limitations of love can go the easy way. Not whatever appears, please love me, and thats fine. If so than its not adressing its own limitations, what can it do and what can't it do. There is a lot of potential. But would you buy the record.
Adriano: Can we distinguish the charisma, skill, personality, playfulness of the performer/artist/researcher, from a methodology, and if not, what is the politics of that. And what is the assumptions behind this question?
Rui something about hierachy, the thing of being together, does not matter the skills. there is a collaps of hierarchy. In the band, vladimir was not the curator of the block in the band. It is in Andrea, in the sense that there is an ethic in everthing she is doing.
adriano How can we extract methodlolgy here, but maybe we cant..
Lilia: in this sense its maybe another image of the artist, in the sense that can we detach anything, and in this case I would think its not possible. Like Salvador Dali, In the sense that the art and artist and life is the same thing.
Vladimir:
Thats an artist not a research.
Lilia:
I would say the life of these people is a constant research. Its a constant producing of a life and a person and a lifestyle.
Rui:
And the context here, there is a context of collectivity, how we behave, how we do things together, its also related to how she is an artist and how she does things.
Lilia:
Maybe the researcher, crafting situations, ways of approaching...
Vladimir:
Thats a super wide definitions of research, she didnt start like that. Isnt that also the easy way out. In order not to define a framework, you say "all my life is a research".
Fede V:
Andrea doesnt lock the laboratory and goes home to do research.
Lilia:
a negative thing about it could be the non-production of things, the way one see's life and the way one does things. It could be a meta discourse, but its not.
Fede V:
She invites you to think about an object that you have trouble with... and then in the end.
Andrea:
Thank you, its very generous, to think, try to figure out all of this together with me. Now I hear you, and I see you in me. So you mention many things taht I ask myself. It was very hard to chose for 30 minutes something, but I realize that when I give workshops, I also dont know exactly what we are going to do, but I have an idea of how to lead from one thing to the next. As a way of invoking or calling things, as an approximation. This thing of the band as something that binds things is new. And its very nice to hear how it comes together with the question of what is binding all these practices. Because I came to apass with the question of how to name the research and how it comes together. But then it was very beautiful how from the word band to bind, to coming together. By doing 30 min not speaking about love.. for me love practice came from enjoying life together, of having a moment of some kind of play and discovery together. And so why not the work could be having capsules of time that can examplify life and open it up. give possibility to that. Then I thought maybe I could frame this through radical openness (if I work through this). Its interesting to hear that you can't say where I end in relation to what I do. Or if that cannot be seperated. That helps me to set agency of that, and be able to talk about it with more tools. I am doing my wedpage, and I dont know how to write about it. Its nice to hear how people speak about it. Of course there is interest in things, then [?] If its love thats binding it, then what are the politics of that. And if it needs me to be the which in that, then I need to assume the implications of that. How can I put all of it in full light, and dare to...
Vera Andrea: I was very happy to be given the time to see Vera, doing it repeatedly and learn from her patience, as a viewer. there is something in the sound and the meditative state, that reminded me how hurried I was. It gives me a faraway horizon, that I dont need to catch to soon. I trust that it will eventually come.
Vladimir: I kept wondering, if the method originated by engaging with an artist whos work originate in choreography and video, if that is already a given, if it is such a smooth transistion to take that method and travel to other places. And Ian Kaler. If you keep using that one tool.
Nathaniel: I had the same thought, and when you said that, in the later Ian Kaler, if that was actually with two later videos a mixutre with Ian Kaler and [?] Nan Hoover is embedded within Veras approach.
Tulio: if this to happen the elements present within the work of Nan Hoover, has to be observed within the other works. What I see had much more to do with repitition and engaging the movement.
Adriano: there is an Essay on appropriation and ontology: idea: in appropriation one is invocing ghosts, learning to live with gosts. it is an Invocation. In the repetition Veras body becomes support for Nans body. There is the practice of dancioke: like caraoke for dance. because Vera: "what kind of voice can be articulated throuhgh other peoples work". this method deals with getting permission to dance and therefor getting a voice. Is it about ways to have something to say or ways to disapproporiate the voice, a distributed voice, diluting ones own voice. ghost: hauntology. derrida. http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v1n2/verwoert.html https://www.ofakollektivet.se/projekt-2/ofa-danceoke
Myriam. Nan Hoover is dead. When I saw anne theresa I thougt how this video will survive her. Everything seemd to be about people who potentially will die. I thought about something in Veras energy. something really sad, that comes across as a sad energy. If there is something relating to what one can write about Melancholia, Freud wrote about Melancholia as trau arbeit, and when someone is dead. That one could erect a relic. There was something very melanchilic and spectral. It seems closer to grief and mourning than vitality and life and selfaffirming. So if she is looking for her own voice. Then she may need to focus more at looking on desire. Finding your voice as an artist is often linked to "what is my desire". Finding a way to deal with desire.
Fede V: Its not sadnes, but I had an issue. There was this red alert already when we did the thing. Esther Salamon, did a piece where the performers copy, and then perform life. Its beautiful, but the dances become an empty vessel. Its super problematic, there is something dead. In a fear way. [sorry got lost again] I think art can be transmitted, but transmitting is not copying. I am not a fan of ATDK, but I understand that she can transmit to younger generations to perform Rosas danst Rosas. but Nan Hoover is dead.
Lilia: The subject changed, there is the video, as something that is transmitted from the artist. What is the labour of reproduction, what is the role of the museum in this. The problematic of what I was seeing was there. You copy for what. Why would you copy if you can see. I miss what is this for. Is it critical. Dance is a medium of transmission for centuries. So when it shifts to video, that is where the problematic appears. The two things, the choreography and the video.
Tulio: The reproduction in itself is not a goal. I understand the question in transmission. [sorry tired head lost a lot] There is an interest in transformation and letting things emerge. So I dont think its not only repitition that is here. In the work of Nan Hoover, there is a choreographic appropriation of a choreographic appropriation of a work of video. Maybe with Anne Teresa you could appriate through light.
Fede V: Which we kind of did on tuesday. we misunderstood the instruction, we were doing more things than copying.
Myriam: There is a reiteration of method explaining. saying it, doing it, having the text...
Vladimir: Maybe the thing is about sampling, and not necessarily about copying or appropriation. I feel like if she was a musician we would have a very different relation. What kind of dances could be produced by assembling other words.
Federico:
There is also not copying taking place. There is also a screening of the video.
Andrea:
I see it more as an honoring another artist. Vera becomes a museum or archive of Nan Hoovers work, through a person. Including her own presentation. So by honoring another work she also also enters into ecology. Creating a lineage.
Myriam:
That works differently for me with Nan Hoover and with Anne Theresa. The clip she showed exemplified the thing of emergent compositions. And maybe through repition something appears. Anne Theresa dancing in the sand and revealing the pathway. With Nan Hoover I feel something, that I can not describe or name, I feel an intrigue or resonance. I really go for it. And when it started moving to the other artists.. It became a method that you apply. Maybe that is more interesting, in the particularity of the relationship in projecting or working. It just did'nt happen in the same way as it did with Nan Hoover.
Nicolas: I think I read it in a different way. I read it as a method to question the position of an artist. Really quite critical to the position of Nan Hoover, I read it when I saw the pixels of the video, in relation to the VHS quality of the archive that is behind. There is again a kind of archive of the position, a multiplication of the experience of her. Ghostly things, became a question of virtuality, and merging with that practice from the 70'ties. And it happens with a living artist now aswell. And potentially undermining her position, by multiplying. Herself not assuming her own position as an artist. But only assuming trying to become something else, or trying to make something to you. Trying to find ways of undermining the singular position of the artist. Applying a certain kind of virtuality, even if it was staged.
Fede V:
Do you think that is Veras desire to question authorship or position.
Nicolas:
I think yes, but I think it also as a critique. [lost something] why does she not ask yet Anne teresa, to collaborate.
Fede V:
I had to remind myself always that we are seing a method, not an outcome. If it was an outcome it would be problematic but as a method..
Nathaniel: I am curious after reading the document how the method will translate into materials that are not dancebased. What will come out, when they are not constructed by another moving body on the screen. What will the method look like.
Lilia:
I am thinking about embodiment, what happens to embodiment. What happens to embodiment with [lost somehthing] why not asking Anne Theresa for her to transmit the work.
Vladimir:
It feels like method looking for a new home.
Tom:
I agree with you, and I was thinking about technique, and wether that is something you can strip from the image and apply to yourself, I dont think thats the case, often techniques takes years to develop, and then a piece or painting is an expression of a technique, a glimpse from a rooted practice, something that has soil, and meaning. so I wonder, if dealing with that surface of the projection, does it mean that embodiment become superficial. What does that mean. In relation to Esther Salamon, what do we do with that, how should I read it, how can I introduce meaning to it. As a spectator, convincing dance often happens because it feels necessary or urgent at that specific time.
Vladimir:
What can we say about constructing research from repeating method in different methods. There is a bit of a red flag for me. I keep thinking of tic toc. In terms of framing it in an existing, dominant technology, of video repetition, pop cultural multiplication. Across that background, what do you do there.
Vera: this is really interesting. Some things I am really wauw. and there is somethin[?]
This was my attempt to show what emergence and multiplicity in my work is. I will not reproduce video. What I do is reinterpret other peoples work. And I wanted to show the method. I wanted to show how for me, I have been doing it with Nan Hoover. I will have different ways. There is something about desire. And the sadness of being lost. But also you have to really let go of your desire in a way, to enter into someone elses work. To me this has a lot to do with ecology, recycling, cracking open what creative act is. In the end we are always doing this anyhow, by appropriating with the direct original, I invoke the ghost and we deal directly with property and ownership. My work is about finding my voice. Maybe rescuing the desire, which was maybe lost. Maybe not the method can change and rescue desire in that sense.
Vladimir:
Why do you want to keep the general method of finding your voice through entering works of others. Because you have done it already to such a large extent and to great danger to your voice.
Vera:
There is a learning process which I really enjoy. There was the huge learning process with Nan Hoover, I think its important in relation to legacy and how we do it. I relate it to Urgency. What is urgency to express?
I am still very immersed in the process, I am very slow and can do it for the rest of my life. To me to put other artists in the mix cracks open what has happened between me and Nan Hoover.
Federico:
I think what you did on tuesday, was really joyful. How can you transmit that its really fun also.