Flavio asks Muslin brothers Flavio answers on behalf of Adriano to a question asked by Sina
Magda asks Lilia Magda answers on behalf of Deborah to a question asked by Lucia and Piero
Rui asks Lucia and Piero Rui answers on behalf of Magda to a question asked by Kasia
Chloé asks Kasia Chloé answers on behalf of Sina to a question asked by Muslin Brothers
Lilia asks Rui Lilia answers on behalf of Chloé to a question asked by Adriano
Lucia and Piero asks Deborah Lucia and Piero answers on behalf of Kasia a question asked by Chloé
Muslin asks Sina Muslin answers on behalf of Anapaula a question asked by Deborah
Anapaula asks Flavio Anapaula answers on behalf of Muslin Bros to a question asked by Flavio
Sina asks Adriano Sina answers on behalf of Lilia to a question asked by Magda
Adriano asks Chloé Adriano answers on behalf of Flavio to a question asked by Anapaula
Kasia asks Magda Kasia answers on behalf of Lucia and Piero a question asked by Rui
Deborah asks Anapaula Deborah answers on behalf of Rui to a question asked by Lilia
mimetic curiosity (state of allertness? ) shifting,or in repetition with difference) naiveity (related to freshness, something expereiced anew, to revisist the 'same') fresheness versus history / knowledge (not project on it > to make the stone stony, historical knowledge as obtacle. gaze --> Viktor Shklovsky - Art as Technique (to make the stone stony) Bruce Nauman (...) Future anthropology / Progressive phenomenology (speculation, imaginary worlds, fictions) fiction-ing (imaginarry architectures, places, the projected difference, the somewhere else thing, ) projection for the viewer dialogues with non-human entities (angels, mice, walls, birds, atmospheres, etc. scars) proximities (bringing things closer and further away, new proximities, from wall to vast spaces to sky and to an open arm) Frames (in the video, on the floor, etc. concentric fixed frame mode of problem-making, there is a clear in/out focus on spot.) pattern (going out of pattern, something more complicated [than frame], patterns of movement, of observation, patterns can be "re-patterned", frame can be "broken") here-there choreograhpy (not neutral, distance not to be objective - keep subjectivity ) un-repulssive drive (negative of connective tissue or attracting...) facilitation (small gesture of bringing in) subtraction of perceptioal range (just touch, listening in dark, etc.) intensity (...) density perspective and vertcality of imagination (fictions)
Adriano asking Chloe, Lilia answering on behalf of Chloe:
Dear presentation of Chloe on september 17th. You made a strange entanglement of spacial architectures visible to me: architectures of Chloes body, of my gaze, of the room... Sliding backwards as forwards as backwards through and between them. On the spot but moving “maybe, maybe” from “here, here” to “and there, and there”. It made me feel enveloped by space as a dynamic, yet structuring agent. I want to ask you about time, is there as many times entangled as spaces? and if so is there a way to make these entanglements graspable the way you to me made different kinds of architecture visible? Yours truly, A
Rui asking Lucia and Piero, Kasia answers on behalf of Lucia and Piero
In the video, there are treetops framing the sky with clouds and the birds’ flight (frame inside the frame). There are dialogues between 2 non-visible characters (A and B) written on the surface of the image (these characters are around, in a place out of the frame but close to the borders, or not)? There are sounds of things out of the frame, but these things belong to that environment (a sound of something out of the frame could be from what is around or not). Is this set of things made for us to see the birds and the sky in a proper way or to see something else? The strength of your frame is centripetal (to the documented objects, even if it is multicenter) or centrifugal (there is an idea of whole, “from here_to_there”)? Is the documentation about something in the frame… or something around… or something else?
Kasia asking Magda, Rui answering on behalf of Magda:
Can one go wherever s/he images and wants to go? Is there a path leading to each place touched by a thought? Is there a kind of darkness that one can't explore?
Sina asks Adriano, Flavio will answer on behalf of Adriano
I saw a kind of a free-and-easy flow of a sensory-motor casual-ness (not necessarily an explicit “purposeful schema” nor an explicit “communicative schema”), keeping its own spatial continuity, and running on its own inner fule. I saw, let’s call it, “inner life of syntax” that is not in conflict (or doubtful), and is not hooked on anything (particular) as well. If that was a form of “talking,” then I couldn’t guess what was the situational perspective of that talking subject (what is it seeing, or noticing, that makes it make those signs). That means, it was (generally) difficult for me to know “who” is talking, and therefore “whom” is being addressed. Therefore, status of a conscious observer hard to defined (or not directly addressed). But maybe that was not wanted (the question of address, let's say). So I go back to the movement itself, thinking about perceptions and associated actions involved in the performance: the flow (continues spatially-malleable dance-impro). Does personality needs to be able to flow in order to move past anything that establishes itself firmly? To put it differently (if you like), is metamorphosis (a form of continuity obtained by a certain type of [sometimes painful] discontinuity) possible?
Yaen and Tamar ask Sina , Chloe will answer Can you describe the place where catastrophe meets you research ? @tamar and Yaen--- can you tell me what you mean with Catastrophe?- chloe @chloe In Sina’s 5 min, he was reading Cinderella’s story, one of us didn’t really remembered the scene to recognize it, and so we were having a conversation about the seen (scene) and the unseen (un scene) information that was transported by Sina, we left with this notion, as two people having same dialog for two different things; the encounter of one’s nightmare and one’s fairytale clashed to a catastrophe
Magda asks Lilia, Sina answers on behalf of Lilia to a question asked by Magda
The proposed practice made me wonder if the collective body that is generated through it is a manifestation of our social body or a potential one, speculative.
How the art practice can be the place of practicing the potential collectivity radically (so that it does not just represent the social structures of power or personalities that are present in a group but enters the speculative space) and how the practice can create conditions for not settling down in one recognition (gaining one group identity, creating own history that becomes a reference for development) but facilitate continuous forgetting (so stay focused on practicing the potentialities)? How the practice can be the space of an ongoing rebirthing of common? How the practice can be constructed to facilitate it?
Chloé asks Kasia, Lucia and Piero answers on behalf of Kasia I start thinking with the eyes: the gaze that pours out of one curious enough to see, and the movement of that gaze as the curious one wanders. Wandering, a kind of movement that holds no ambition for coming to know that which it moves through, but rather coming to experience something. I think about the figure of the flaneur, the one who gets to observe, who thinks they can see in passing and who does this seeing for pleasure. I thought to write my question through a kind of thinking that feels like wandering, slow, patient, maybe something of interest will pass and maybe it will not, this is the risk the flaneur takes.) I am reminded of the surface you filmed, the glass building, I wonder what kind of wandering would have been possible if your view point was a little higher, and it was not clouds but you in the reflection. Could you gaze at yourself like you do at the clouds, at the workers, at the architecture of a rebuilt city. Would you permit yourself the space of not knowing in order to see differently, that is, would you engage in temporary alienation? ( ... that is not the question I pose to you, it is a question in passing, enroute to another question... it might take me a moment... ) The movement of the gaze, the movement of the gaze, the movement of the gaze, something I wrote a few lines ago, and now I wrote it three times again. There seems to be a prologation of perception (I would not say a suspension) but a slowing of habituated perception in order for something else to slide between what you see and what you know. What we know is important, I think it is, what we see is also important, and it is maybe more important to understand the spaces in which they do not coincide. Where am I going, ah yes, wandering. —deep wandering... forgeting that I am wandering at all, just understanding myself as moving, then realising if I am moving I must be moving somewhere, but there seems to be a lack of orientating devices, even those for desire, it could be anywhere, then I remember this is something, it is wandering, and I surface from the breath steamed room, to a space no more defined, but a little less humid.— The gaze, transformation, the observer. A composite of agencies. What is possible with my gaze, when I see you seeing differently? Is empathetic transformation possible?
Flavio asks Muslin Brothers, Ana Paula will answer on behalf of Muslin Brothers Hello dear Muslin Bros, in the midst of my ignorance of your fashion universe, I tried to dive right into the experience of the colors and patterns we lived with you, I was very interested in how the repetition of the experience with these colors gave birth to other colors so magically . I know it sounds naive, but I was mesmerized by the reaction of my eyes to this mix of light and color and time. What intrigues me most is how we can think of stripes in other scopes: - How can we transform this structure of stripes and make it a transition from a flat surface to a 3D perspective? - Or even, how to think of the stripes within the fictional narrative? - Or, how do stripes guide the creation of body movement?
Lilia asks Rui Deborah answer in behalf of Rui
a glimpse of a moment. a framed encounter. edited cuts in the filmed a situation. people relating without a cause, figuring out, negotiating cuts, power, feelings. no character development. no script. several ontologies. continuous interactions or could they be intra- actions? The camera and the filmed as part of the same game. Experimentation.
All this made me think of Karen Barad and her discourse upon ‘agencial realism’. Both quotes underneath refer to her thoughts on how we (humans, non-humans, apparatuses, nature, culture constitute each other) and are part of the following article: Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding ofHow Matter Comes to Matter
I would be interested in understanding what do you think about this and how it manifests in your protocol.
“On an agential realist account, it is once again possible to acknowledge nature, the body, and materiality in the fullness of their becoming without resorting to the optics of transparency or opacity, the geometries of absolute exteriority or interiority, and that theoretization of the human as either pure cause or pure effect while at the same time remaining resolutely accountable for the role “we” play in the intertwined practices of knowing and becoming.”
“…apparatuses are constituted through particular practices that are perpetually open to rearrangements, re-articulations, and other re-workings. This is part of the creativity and difficulty of doing science: getting the instrumentation to work in a particular way for a particular purpose (which is always open to the possibility of being changed during the experiment as different insights are gained). Furthermore, any particular apparatus is always in the process of intra-acting with other apparatuses, and the enfolding of locally stabilized phenomena (which may be traded across laboratories, cultures, or geopolitical spaces only to find themselves differently materializing) into subsequent iterations of particular practices constitutes important shifts in the particular apparatus in question and therefore in the nature of the intra-actions that result in the production of new phenomena, and so on. Boundaries do not sit still.”
“A crucial part of the performative account that I have proposed is are thinking of the notions of discursive practices and material phenomena and the relationship between them. On an agential realist account, discursive practices are not human-based activities but rather specific material (re)configurings of the world through which local determinations of boundaries, properties, and meanings are differentially enacted.”
Lucia and piero asking to deborah; magda will answer on behalf of deborah
In your presentation we perceived two contrasting vectors: on the one hand a tendency towards making the presents feel welcome and confortable; on the other hand a strong distancing between the public and you (physical and vocal presence, display of knowledge, dynamic of the space....). Is this a precise decision on how you want your research to encounter us? What are the desires you want to nourish in us by meeting your research?
Deborah asking Anapaula, via Muslin Brothers
While you were moving with the cardboard in the video, steadying it when it was about to fall, moving back from it, in a sort of minimally-intrusive dance, I was thinking: what kind of relation can the body have to the object, if the body is not to be a subject?
If we are to understand everything as totally-but-mostly-obliquely-connected (a fabric, a weave, as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would say), we still must choose to understand in specific ways: it cannot be all ways, it must be at least one way. Our understanding must be concrete.
There are many ways it could be. Maybe we have a choice, maybe it is given to us. They could be religious and singular ways, non-religious and polymorphous, philosophical, unconscious, physical, embodied, non-linguistic. The list goes on.
Anapaula, it seemed like you were creating a caring relation to the object, when you would reach out your hand to steady it, as you would move to keep it upright.
As though you didn't want to let it fall.
I am interested in what you are discovering in the relation to the object—is it something about you (about us), or about the object, or about the relation? Are they the same?
Here are two references, a quote from Mario Perniola's Sex Appeal of the Inorganic (2004) and some notes and quotes around/of Karen Barad from Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007).
"Having exhausted the great historical task of comparing man to God and to the animal, which in the West began with the Greeks, what claims our attention now and raises the most urgent questions is the thing. It has become the focus of both our preoccupations and the promise of happiness. The play of resemblances and differences, affinities and divergences, correspondences and disparities that has characterised the comparison between God and man, and between man and animal, has concluded in a tie. Man is an almost God and an almost animal. God and the animal are almost man. But who has the courage or the desperation to say that man is an almost thing and the thing an almost man?"
Bohr’s nuanced account of prediction and objectivity entails a reworking of our classical understanding of physical reality: “The feeling of volition and the demand for causality are equally indispensable elements in the relation between subject and object which forms the core of the problem of knowledge” (Bohr, 1963a, 117).
Barad: “How reality is understood matters. There are risks entailed in putting forward an ontology: making metaphysical assumptions explicit exposes the exclusions on which any given conception of reality is based. But the political potential of deconstructive analysis lies not in simply recognising the inevitability of exclusions but in insisting on accountability for the particular exclusions that are enacted and in taking up the responsibility to perpetually contest and rework the boundaries.” (205)
tenderness, D <3
Anapaula asks Flavio Adriano answers on behalf of Flavio what context do you have to construct in order for your different 'selves' to be manifiest?