Monday Feedback discussion
Amy: how do you feel when you are in it? how do you feel after? interest in 'emotion'? not on level of like-unlike. rather on the level between opinion and emotion. also physical response. working on confusion and annoyance = good place to learn and experience.where does it open up and where does it shut down communication?
Chloe: 1. confused by research question, find some clarity. different ways of perceiving research, find out what i want to get out. 2. method: interested in what happens: is there connection through exercise with content: does it mean sth to you? working with specific community, does that translate to a.pass community? 3. formats of feedback: personal feedback 1-to-1, not overload of opinions. closed context. 4. buddy pairs: linked to one other person, forced into buddy construction. what are your fears? what do you want to get out of it? through action/research you get in buddy pairs where you look at what happened. entering through question put by the facilitator. then share in bigger group. helps to share with one person, and then bring it optionally to big group through you or your buddy. 5. reenactment as feedback: do it again with someone else as me.
Lilia: create discussions, debate, opening up to references outside. make it exciting by opening up, spark/desire of discussion. also 1-to-1 to go in depth, change gears from technical to emotional...
Nathaniel: 1. idea for form of feedback, long form/ wandering / feedback of getting distracted: people giving opinion/experience, tracking back to different stories. f.e. reminds me of this story, reminds me of what my father told me about this and that.... influenced by indigeneous talks, never about the thing itself, but expanding. both frustrating and messing up temporality. bayo activist: becoming lost is about straying away of the patterns that produce the same. away from criticality. 2. feedback as extension of presentation itself. In feedback ghosting actual presentation, expansion, fleshing it out. future: ghosts from past exchanges entering into the conversation. 3. purposeful talking, forgetting and returning to it. 4. philosopher feedback: pretend to be philosophers and feedback in this form. 5. form of feedback that focusses on what is not said. what is redrawn but never to be competely expressed. question: how as non-specialists we feedback to specialists?
Federico Proto: 1. different stages of feedback need different feedback. open feedback can feel like sentence or punishment. this process quite nice, time to look at individual needs. open feedback can work if collective engagement, but not always the case. 2. feedback is form of publication, another page in our research notebooks. what does it do to our notebook? 3. written feedback, collectively writing. researcher gives set of words or sentence to come back in the feedback. individual writing
Andrea: 2 forms of feedback: -love letter to the subject at work: presentation, research or person doing presentation. -feedback as if you were my mother. can be also feedback that is not protecting you 'sorry but i have to tell you what noone dares to tell you'. -reenactment with feedback included.
Tullio: sth feedback does not so much allow but block communication. the way you talk to a colleague that is part of the work, opens up freedom to speak, trust, encouragement. building place of trust where we can speak from different positions. how to feedback to specific work? last HWD tlaking about the work indirectly. would direct fb not be more direct and helping the work on? if question was addressed to me would help me further, than guessing what it is about. way of speaking more relaxed.
Vladimir: Question - what do we actually mean by feedback? 1. integration We can not think feedback outside of community - in artistic production feedback can be traumatizing by entering into foreign language. brings sth unthought into the community. community tries to integrate or reject. feedback related to policing, not in worst possible sense, in ranciere sense: what is what, integrate foreign utterance into existing network. we can not distinguish politics of community from politics of feedback: how do we treat the outside. 2. different from idea of feedbak as sth that extracts experience from someone else, in order to understand your own work. 3. modes of feedback is then about policing the policing: formalise that process of integration, and agree what are good methods of integration. integration does not dissolve the individual research process.
federico p.: rather how does group dealing with proposal? lilia: what is community? this little one? artistic sector? art critique? what is the specific work we can do here? what is policy of that community?
vladimir: what are we here for? what is the feedback for?
nathaniel: friend asked me last week for feedback, wanting affirmation. maybe not looking for that, but desire for affirmative support, how does feedback act unto that?
Elke: Feedback as feeding back, nurturing. Work as a community building or questioning process, if nothing is given - where does communciation stop? where do boundaries appear? - Is it because it is too personal, the language is not understood, there are too many deviating integrations that block people from being able to feedback? Conciously avoiding feedback, deviating from it yourself, this stops the flow.
Experiment in sharing, what is mine and what is ours? What am I ready to put on the table, and what not. Collective Body Mind through the gifts of everyone. Travel into the space of the other, through the words, the use of space, the energy, the invitation. How can we be aware of that? Setting up the possibility of being together, or the boundaries of being together. Above all, feedback is an exercise of listening, and letting go of expectation. Every sharing allows a way to give back, and blocks some ways of giving back. How can we collectively take care of not leaving too many blind spots? By taking various positions and understanding that these positions make possible, and impossible, different ways of meeting. Elke's methods will focus on this, methodologies to make visible our own boundaries.
Lilia responds: Feedback is not only for yourself. It is the cultivation of openness.
DISCUSSION: nathaniel: what systems of feedback have already been practiced this morning? what codes are naturalized in this environment? what systems are already happening? what does geography of this space look like? f.e. since this is an academic environment, that comes with certain discourses. new people have not necessarily been exposed to these specific codes. education and past education as molding the possibility of giving feedback. not feeling comfortable, ...
amy: not being able to give feedback because you lack the language? or lacking specialization training?
n: restraint = what i think is not valuable to this group. i do not have the academic capital?
vladimir: what makes us not give feedback?
amy: hesitant to give feedback, scared of upsetting people. scared to send someone completely different direction. do not want to control other person's practice. // responsibility
chloe: hesitant when i don't understand completely. not keep on asking for clarification. fb when i feel i have an experience i can speak from.
lilia: what is responsibility of feedbacker? what is trust that allows for ignorance/ displacement/ disagreement/ misunderstanding. you will never be right. what is my contribution? we need to hear from everyone? how can we encourage speaking, even if 'wrong'? disagreement is very important?
nathaniel: last HWD hard to get feedback. why? impatient, in more superficial place, not seeing what is happening in the room. mabye because of insecurity, scared, not in a state of being able to give feedback. when checked out, i can not give fb. also when not sure if my contribution will be valued, not trusting.
federico p.: state of engagement. not fb when i feel detached. not one direction giving fb, needs engagement. also no fb when feeling not interested. works are closed. mutual respect thing important.
andrea: no fb if not sure about commitment to each other. is there commitment to grow together. what is support engagement, continuous dialogue. no fb if i am not sure about this, seems unspoken agreement, but underlying dialogue we care for. conversation beforehand. or never spoke 1-to-1 about problems, fears, insecurities.
tullio: engagement with the work necessary for fb. commitment yes. ability of the other to listen. being smart or not. kind of talks outside of the 'official' circle often nice, not smart or fruitful. space for fb as work, intervention needs to be productive, other things escape and show up in other spaces. prevents some kind of fb in some contexts.
elke: moment where the space is exhausted, how do we deal with that? lets figure out together or when researches become monomanic/tunnel-vision/ understanding, where is entrance of the tunnel??
vladimir: because of position always fb. what is the point of formalizing fb? if apass is long-form conversation why do we need specific arena setting? why public or formal? productive small conversations round sigaret .
andrea/lilia informal happening because of formal constructions? collectively in touch with viewpoints that are not mine to build social tissue. everything that is here is valid and interesting, and i have sth to say.
tullio: space to speak. more space for people in specific position, maybe less for others.
from feedback to debate: other things are said than in friendship setting maybe about care, feeling into the other, taking care of what can be taken in. you understand when you can be harsh. and when not. it is a relation that happens. being
is there trust without friendship? is there a 'professional' way to give fb?
trust? nathaniel: do you feel it now in the space?
tulio: what is needed for trust is this commitment. Im thinking about feedbacks where I didnt dare to say or gave my opinion, that I abandon, or the trust didnt appear, is when there is no commitment to sometimes even understand the work, engagment with it.
amy: it is nice this comes up becaus ein the weekend i talke to chloe, that I dont feel trust. I dont understand what am I committing to, none of us know where to put the commitment.
chloe: i think it is also about where to put the collective commitment, and when is not clear, go to the individual commitment, then there are more people connected to their personal research and the collective gets lost. what are the parameters of commiting to the collective.
amy: this is when we spoke about the "body pairing".
chloe: i can say for myself, for me has to do when I don´t understand. That can be for many reasons that I dont understand, but if I know is ok to address to someone personally, then I would feel more comfortable to share it. The Monday sessions - when you would ask if you have questions to address, I did not feel trust that together with the others I would find a collective talk. Then I saw friends and talking about apass, and realised this is how I feel about trust. I don´t feel the trust when I don´t know what I am feeling.
Elke. what about delayed reaction, when you have revisited with a friend?
fede: i want to react to that, i question if trust is ever changing and if its always new. I am now realising, going through different proposals and creations and you develop your tools to navigate, and that gives a liberty to work but also to dettach somehow.
lilia: do you feel threatened?
fede prrr: no
lilia: is different trust, or being always on your toes. everyone is a bit on their toes, maybe is anxiety, maybe this doesnt have to do with trust. this covid is not very positive. Being together, and being in the same room. These separations are very difficult, is a lot about not being there, and that question is lacking. the investement in the space is quiet important because it accumulates rather than segregates.
Nathaniel: an act of distrust, in general, why someone is doing what they are doing in relation to their powere position and if they are getting payed. There is something being imposed, for example this block is the tecnology of tantra, and because of a relational thing to the "curator", I dont know how to show this distrust. There is this form of imposition. Which is also affecting people to relate to each other.
Elke: you can always ask what you do and why you do it? when you come to an institute and then you dont want the institute...
Elke. I am no imposing, I invite you, if you don´t want it, then don´t do it. To take that on the instituion I find it painful, and how much we try to not do that.
Lilia; in a way this is the commitment to the people. and the commitment to verbalise it. I chose for something, I take you as a similar.
collective lecture first really embarassed, appreciated development of ideas, for a research topic that ws difficult to grasp, amy way happy about how many important points were touched. proposal not entirly clear, could be smoother could be working clearly on topics, choosing them before compositional elements could be added possibility to come in a couple times, to have a more responsive structure notion of perfroming and perfromativity is a bit disturbing, how to make it easier could be more listening more attentive hwo can this be a form of feedback, is any of this useful? talking from ones own knowledge is made explicit should I adress what happened splinter bomb, everyone takes a spliner, or can it be more smooth, and flow from each other can it be done in two rounds, one is prepared the other is reactive? can it be more fluid with time, so it can be more fluid timeframe is not really helpful, shoudl not be so tight can there be a strucutre, that helps to consturct the lecture while diviating within ones contribution perfromativity ? helpful? the researcher chooses the direction?
FtheF everybody was nice, that was weird was also interested in her own fundamental beliefs, so maybe FtheF is not right choice entry point were given for more personal feedback likes the judgemental feedback, was not enough of that
Friday collective evaluation round