What is the PA?
How does the PA work?
What can the PA do?
About the PA model for integration for participants to think of the education. There’s never been so little communication about what’s possible
A thing that sends information to the institution. Something that doesn’t work well Thinking together of Horizontal models of governance. What are the responsibilities, what enables horizontality, not poralise.
pa not creating something that is enclosed. with this comes research center.
ideas for contributions for next now
The Participants Assembly
What did the pa exist out of. There’s no place for participants to speak by themselves, without the institution. What happens after these meetings, how does it come back in?
How does it work? Generally every PA starts with understanding what PA is and what it can offer, because of the constant change of participants. Depending on the group (with each block it changes) it adjust to the need of the group. Always the question how the decision is made. So far, there was never a moment of strong disagreement. Why is there no strong disagreement, and could the space be open for strong disagreement. That remains a question. With every block there's very different approach to the budget and the needs of spending the budget.
This budget is curatorial so it's to think the curatorial. The focus is on how there's things that are not foreseen from the curatorial approach that could be contributed to the curatorial.
There's the thing of postponing €1000 to the next block. But mostly there's things in the moment that are important, but also things we want to organise but take more time. Mostly there's no time to plan and spend the money (€2000) in one block.
Sometimes it became a lot of talking about the budget, which could be okay, but then there was not really time to check in with how we are. First it was understood to be about the social aspect, whereas now it seems the PA is to distribute a budget.
If we find a way to communicate, it's not that the participants have to do everything now. It's more that there's an amount of money, there's space, time and people: how do we bring these things together in conversation with each other? What are things? With On Coloniality, sometimes it was late in communicating. When can we become a co-working? On Coloniality came out of the PA. The money of that block was dedicated to that proposal.
Some wonderful things have come out of the PA: * Trip to Charleroi * Party * Larp * Fascia workshop * On Coloniality
Who is speaking from the PA? To whom do we talk? Is it everything? Is the person rotating? It needs this. If this is not there, it becomes very difficult to make the connection. It needs communication for that.
Where lies for you the problem? What is exactly the thing that doesn't work well? I find it good gathering moments for only the participants to have an assemblee about what's going on. There was always the idea to invite the research center, but this was a bit forgotten. Where lies the problem for this gathering?
Problem is: what is the model in the institution and what does it evokes in terms of relationships in the institution. An example is when we get an email about transferring money to someone. There was no discussion, what about this or that,... It feels like there's something wrong in the way we are talking to each other.
We can talk about it. The beginning of this meeting was that we talk together. That we say what we want from each other. I'm manifesting what I feel that is there, but it's open. This kind of communication was unpleasant. How do we discuss. How do we put things on the table. So that we can add upon each other. With the research center we started the conversation together there. There was a seperation, how do we do this? How is the invitation set out to everyone?
Is it a need of clarity? Who did we communicate to? Like in the example of the email, there was no clarity where this email was coming from.
Now we are gathering together how we can have a dialogue between pa and the institute. The pa is a part of the institute. But pa is also a space where participants can talk without the institute.
There is a part about the curatiorial, there's a part what is a curriculum, and this part is causing trouble. For talking together, 'the institute' doesn't have to be there. How do we talk together about the curatiorial, not necessary that we have to be there all the time.
We don't have a practice of communicating. Maybe it's less of 'coming together', it's about the way. There's a bridge that needs to be done. Maybe there's places for questions.
In the air there's two or three bodies that we're mixing.
1. participants meeting to check in and talk, which comes from idea of Code of Conduct for participants to feel safe
2. curatorial aspect, maybe it should get a different name? Then we know what we are working on. PA can be something else, it can still be having tea together twice a block to check in. But maybe the main thing is to go for curatorial.
3. we've looked for ways to connect to research center. Felt difficult because our schedules weren't meeting. I think we tried to talk about it with Vladimir, but didn't lead to anything. But in the conversations it was clear that there was a need to be closer to the research center.
Clarity for what we're talking about.
Whole curatorial comes out of emotional (checking in with each other), what kind of things 'could be'. What things are surfacing. And maybe these things are translateable to a curatorial proposition.
Maybe it's an idea to spend a next block devoded to it. When it only happens twice a block that we have a meeting, there's no...
How many more meetings can we have within some block that are full with a lot of great content. Like last block was a lot. How much more would have been able to meet timewise. I get to think to see the PA as part of the institute, then an institute is also created by formal roles. You do specific tasks that are given to you. You have roles within that institute. In the PA we don't have roles. There's no one in charge of budget, or communication. If this is what is necessary for things to get more transparant and clear, then let's look at this as 'work'. And divide tasks like communication, budget,... Then we need to institutionalise the PA a bit more, because it gets vague. But vague bodies move slower. And it can become unclear at times.
The first assemblee we did, we had elected someone to do the communication. Did this work better?
Yes, it does work better! But it's also nice to rotate. When there's things to discuss, to also discuss them.
If PA has clear roles, it's for people in the institutional roles can 'perform' their roles.
How do we speak as a collective, and what is there. And there needs to be communication between them. There is participants. Nice to bring two groups together and decide on a person to bring in that bring two groups together. What would also be nice is to know what are the thematics for the rest of the year. To know what is going to be there. It could be a more direct response.
I don't know if a more formal structure of the PA, solves the feeling of the divide. It is good that there is a space is there's a severe problem. The PA is more about the curatorial aspect. 'Let's talk about if anything is 'wrong'', then you can start finding these things, because it's a place to talk about things that is wrong. Question is: does it get solved by making the structures more clear?
For me it's weird in this curatorial questions to seperate you from us. If the invitation is to create the programme together then I don't see why you are not there. It assumes there's a 'you' and an 'us'. But people change and come back. In the meeting, we don't agree on things.
What we could imagine, is that this budget and curatorial approach we talk together, and the other one we don't talk. Something like this. So we know there's a budget and the conversation comes from putting everything on the table. This we can try.
What I sense in between the lines: you need to talk before you make decisions, but also before propositions. You can also talk about propositions among each other, and have conversation about decisions to institution.
It was quite unclear how the choice for the 'care week' was decided. Okay, we sit here with you, and we decide together. All of a sudden it was decided and I wasn't there. That gave me this feeling that I wanted to be part of the curatorial work, and all of a sudden I can't be part of it. It's exciting to be able to thing of this, without someone all of a sudden decide.
You talk about the care. I talked about it with Lilia, the decision is also in that case.
How does it end up being decided. Who's part of formulating it. How does it go around?
Even for me, it wasn't clear. There was a proposition to use the budget, and then it changed.
Can this be more of a shared process? So that it's clear how the decision is made. 'This is the meeting in which we talk what the participants contribution for the next block is'. This should be a clear meeting. And people can take up responsibility.
Could for example keep the same moments (opening week, HWD, and end week) and for example in HWD we decide on what's the participations contribution for the next block and we invite the research people. Then it becomes really a part of the programme.
It's part of the institute. So everyone has a role. It's good for the PA to have a role, to talk together and form together this institution. What is lacking now is a moment to come together with Kristof, Joke, Lilia and Steven. To talk about the propositions. It can shift. Another thing, not to seperate the curatorial from the pa, but that the focus on the budget is a curatorial focus.
I think what you're saying is, having one representative, usually there's a note but the programme is full, we are running with what apass offers.
Now it's empty because it was full. These things are processes again, what does it do: you tell.
It's an extra thing that I don't wanna focus on now. To have one representative of the group is what prolonges the process, there's a meeting, then I come to Joke, Joke goes to Lilia, and then all the way back. It takes time, because we're still busy with so many things. That's why I think seperating these things, the idea of thinking of the curatorial together, to have time for it. We tried it, but it doesn't seem to work. There needs to be another moment devoted in between mandatory weeks.
If it's around this time, it's good. It's feedback. What's missing, how do we continu? Curatiorial come from there, also talking about timespans...
If you would have told us, that next block HWD from the 15 - 17 and you would add a day. So it's also about communication. But also, how do we prepare for things. There's two days before mandatory moments, they are not so strict.
It's also about how much time people can dedicate to this.
What's the outcome of a meeting? I take the example of On Coloniality, clear outcome 'this is the PA budget and how they will contribute', from there I can easily sit down and organise with CAT. But the outcome of the meeting was clear up front. Budget was clear for this event. I sense, that the outcome of the talk about the care wasn't concrete enough to already do the next step. There's necessity for a clear outcome. What will it cost? When you have a clear outcome, then you can continue. If it doesn't, it evaporates. This happened with the care. We need to be able to make steps.
Are we talking about care now?
It's an experiment, apass is the space where you can propose structures or propositions that are maybe clear but maybe not following certain frames, or that are challenging the frame.
It's about that. The task is to think about possible structures. This is not the problem.
The problem is more on accessibility. In this space of experiment, how can there be a basis of accessibility and mode of participation that is clear. Because otherwise there's no structure that holds it together.
We need to summen up a bit and it's repetitive. There's need for more structure, but there's no willingness to have one representative. To make a pool, when are we going to meet?
Or is it something repetetitive? every day before HWD and day before going to PAF. That's for curatorial.
But there's also part about feelings. Maybe this needs also a person that pushes it. So far, I don't feel responsibility to do it. I don't want to take it. If there's a changing role, I could sign up and put it into my calendar. I don't get how researches are invited in this. Are they in this sharing moment with us?
For research center, I don't really see this thing happening with seperation between curatorial and emotional. I take this as a very good moment to meet. Care, very interesting to see it in the programme that we're doing. How we are organised questions care.
Suggestion: it would be great that by the middle of the block, the next block curatorial propositions are made. We start sharing ideas about what we would like. By the end of the block there's a meeting again with the research center where it's decided. I think there has to be two. Maybe opening week and HWD. I need to let things simmer. You are told something and then the idea starts to come. First one is sharing ideas, second is saying 'it's this' and the roles are divided into who's doing what...
Let's speak about next block. There will be a score, one day week: thursdays. And then there's two weeks in Zinne Artlab and there's Goda who's alumni working on historic figures mainly ones that weren't very recognised. The idea is to bring these historical figures to the table. Not just ourselves, but we also invite the ones that should be around here. Basis is scores, writing. Then around Zinne, we would like to focus on autotheory, theory being based on the things people do, how do we experience life instead of coming from a meta discourse. These two weeks can be curated. I would like to invite Maggie Nelson and just go high (nothing to loose anymore) and also I would like to invite the alumni that have been writing: Pia Louwerens, Chloe Chigell, Eleonor Weber, and many more. This because it's again 'the end', to bring people together that have developed this. How do we recycle the people that have been in the programme, in the programme. There are also mentors: how do we relate to writing in artistic practice. How is writing a support practice for our artistic practice. Is writing a way of communicating, a bridge with outside world? Mentors: Kristien Vandenbrande, Elodie Mugrefya and Goda PALEKAITĖ. Two weeks in Zinne, not super exposed but it's large. We can think about several things: workshops, lectures, performances, booklaunches. Voila, this is next block.
In the fall: idea of care and institutions and bridge with the outside. Then the curators are possibly mentors. It's like the block curated by the first research center cycle. Heike Langsdorf, Myriam Gode, Simon XXX, they have a house: Radical house. Public/Private. What kind of rules are there. What's the economy this place is proposing. Then there's Florent Delval who's doing a work on the commune of Anderlecht together with Complot? They had 'Open School', brings people in touch with people offering workshops and bridge them with people wanting to learn things. They are now in Anderlecht trying to focus on pedagogy outside educational institutions. Is gathering... Anarchism? Metier, What kind of education is given to people in this neighbourhood. (There's a project in Saint-Gilles, Université XXX) Maybe more projections can be done in the future.
And then there two more blocks in 2023, what do we do all together in 2023. Maybe in PAF we can start thinking about that together.
'School' is questioned through art practices nowadays. There was also an issue of Etcetera on 'School'.
Okay meetings before can be organised by Lilia. We still need to figure out, what are decision making processes? Do we decide with the people that are there. So that it doesn't linger. It can be partly here, partly by mail. This we need to figure out. Is it before HWD. Do we put a deadline for suggestions? Then I can propose a meeting between HWD and PAF. Paf is too late to make decisions.
We're proposing more things for the last blocks?
From all this discussion, we're still lacking basic agreement. To at least have some rules or agreements that we see it functioning. Is it a minimal of people to agree? What does the communication person do?
Team meet, once there's something to say you can come to teammeet on Tuesday morning. 'We would like to come with a subject'. Again, someone needs to do it.
Problem is that there's no structure in PA. Maybe if we have 2 or 3 rules can enable the PA to function. Because otherwise in two months we have the same discussion. This for things that pop up suddenly.
If we could decide on a date, someone is responsible for this meeting and connects points for the meeting. Then that person is responsible for communication also that month. And next month it's somebody else. Responsible people are setting the agenda and communicate towards team. And agenda can be decided by this people themselves. No more cardboard! We need two responsibles for each month. If these people want to experiment with decision making it's up to them, or if they want to talk about only curatorial things that's possible.
Every first monday of each month. They remind people up front.
It's just participants. And then we communicate to the staff afterwards.
It's good to set three dates. Half the work is finding a date. Do the last Monday and not the first.
If it's two people, you do it once a block. Not even. Communication then, maybe next staff meeting they can even go there and talk to staff meeting. Have also this scheduled in.
It was supposed to be like that anyhow?
Maybe it's just a matter of time, and insisting.
First meeting would be in two weeks. 28th of February and go to team meet 29th 28th of March and go to team meet 29th (or this is in PAF)
On first meeting talk about basic agreements. Some kind of protocol.
Idea is all decisions we do together. There's something in the word PA, it's coming to the limb. As if the things we decide. Gary had fun, the PA has ... We can't come from the PA saying 'we've decided this'.
If we commit every month to have a bit of time with the staff, decision making will be different. Decision making process will be close with staff.
Communication, of saying PA made a 'decision'.
It's a bit like personal mentors, it's the same thing. If it's not a good idea, how do we (staff) see this.
It's also about the email. It's also the form of email. So it's good to keep talking.
Coming to the team meet is a good idea therefore. Every tuesday morning they're there. It's interesting to see how we work as an organisation.
Covid situation, so we decided to do the PA online. That changes a lot the dynamics. I think it's just really important we are in touch. When there's a problem on how to use the budget, that we can talk about it. There's always space for negotiation. What's important that we meet on a good ground. That we don't assume there's a problem, when there's not a problem.
Then, how do we do it?
We're questioning everything. Now we want to more include the RC. Which is beautiful.
But there's two things added: 1think about curatorial 2attend the team meet on Tuesday
We often need an immediate response.
Budget also goes down to €1500 because money is going down.
We do it on Monday because then we can go immediately to the team meet on Tuesday.
Martina can do it and Vera.
Do the people in the RC want to be part of the PA? You can't expect from everyone the same commitment. To know that not everyone from the RC is coming, that we get disencouraged. Maybe not everyone wants to be in the PA. Or I participate once in a while...
Meet around 2 pm on the 28th of February.
Questions on the notes: Lilia will share the link with the people who were not here.
Where to meet? Easy if it's in apass then we can stay here afterwards and work. When it gets warmer we can meet outside. People who organise can decide.
Martina proposed to meet at the place where she's doing the residency. Martina and Vera will send the information.