Postscript

Back to Cairo and wondering about singularities, processes and space. I keep thinking of all the poignant statements everyone revealed at some point:

• "I work with restrictions"

• "My work is about negotiating the "I""

• "The easiest way to create connections is to ask people to do things for you"

• "The most exciting thing about creating/initiating a process is exploring its possibilities with the audience"

Then what someone told me about history. The burden of history that all of us (Egyptians?) have to carry. And I begin to think of how singular is personal history and whether the object, that is the history, can dissolve in the process of performance.
No it can't.
There is so much at risk of being silenced for the sake of conformity to Western history and aesthetics. Even if one does immerse his/herself in this history and aesthetics one is always an "out-sider", out and on the side of it by his/her own sense of what this history and these aesthetics mean or signify for its subject.
So we are back to subjectivities again. The subject, what constitutes a subject and how much does a subject transform from one context to another. How can a subject's history, personal narrative dissolve (transform?) in performance?
How can a subject identify with two or more contexts at the same time, maybe something like "multiple overlapping identifications", which I am sure there is a more meaningful word for it in German.
So how can one reconcile these multiple identification without falling into the absurd or annihilation of one them.
Or maybe falling into the absurd is the solution. It is the way to bring these different identifications together.

Day (11) - K (2) General Run-through/Open Lab

The last day in the lab, and its beginning to feel like a never ending process. A never ending process of negotiation.
Poor Eleonora is still sick. And she is sorely missed. And for some reason Nora could not show up either. The speculations remain why she did though.
Thomas and Shawn created an interesting little chamber in the middle from table boards. And the space where my corner was is now a very cozy pile of cushions in it.
Then Matthew came up with the brilliant idea that I should blog live, and I should use the white table boards as a space to write my text. And my text can move as Hooman moves the table boards. I instantly embarked on a search in quest of white board marker to try it out!
Lillibeth had to go pick her parents up, Tania was left without her partner so Matthew volunteered to take over and they both engaged in an interesting live duet.
Lillibeth arrived later then and she and Tania sat opposite each other at the table in the little chamber that was constructed by Shawn and Thomas.
Hooman came along and told Tania and Lillibeth that he is going to deconstruct the chamber.
Thomas then put his hood on along with a pair of sunglasses. A very compelling image.
Then the question was raised, what do you need to be a man? The answer came from Hooman as "A Third Testicle". To which Shawn suggested that should be the name of the performance.
With Hooman keep repeating that its all about "the third testicle".
Everyone then decided it was time for a run through. I volunteered to take place in Lillibeth's research and take over Tania, who had to leave for a meeting.
Hooman, Loan and Matthew started dismantling the space around us, and putting cushions everywhere.
While Shawn passed the mic over different surfaces creating a very unusual assortment of sounds.
Hooman then started arranging the cushions once more.
Matthew found an interesting use for the table boards, using them as tags, so there were three archetypes, Man, individual and the group.
Traditional Persian music was introduced at some point.
Thomas volunteered to be interviewed by Lillibeth. That was a sight to watch, because Thomas was quite critical about Lillibeth's position and strategy.
They swapped roles, then Thomas started interviewing Lillibeth. Role reversal was a destabilizing strategy.
Then Shawn was next. He defined himself as the technician. And that he supports arts.
Hooman meanwhile started arranging the deck chairs and the table outside, when he discovered that he could not take the white cushions outside creating very lively visual lines.
Thomas said he would then play a song for his friend Hooman, its called the third testicle.
Matthew compiled the cushions once more and started falling off the chair right on top of the pile.
It was at this point that everyone realized that the 20 minutes were over. A break was overdue and it was decided that everyone should sit around and discuss the final setting for the open lab.
Lillibeth and Tania were relegated to a corner after assuming center-stage. More discussion on the process and how it is connected, but rather in the end everyone agreed on more or less what was done so far.
The space was then cleared, all tables dismantled, all table boards placed on the glass facing the garden, and the K (2) felt incredibly spacious for the first time since we arrived there!
Then everyone tried to get into the mood of "performing". Matthew and Loan started engaging with the new space, Thomas improvised a little comedy routine and Hooman then walked in and played Om Kalthoum. I was a little surprised and moved. And his choice of song too was quite to the point. It was take me to the land of the beloved. Which made me instantly homesick.
The audience started coming in, and I realized how mobile my text will be. And how easily erasable it is.
I can not "re-write" what I wrote in the live blogging. That can be uploaded as imagery or photos or maybe even video. But I can try to write whatever it is that remained. In whichever state it remained.
Audience started coming in, Tania and Lillibeth started their research process by asking each other then they involved the audience, and they got a little more than what they bargained for. They got three very interesting interviewees who really stretched the gender spectrum, and represented an alternative range of "masculinities".
Thomas played a low key tune, that seemed to create a certain subtle layer, accompanied by sonic distortions made by Shawn. And I was looking forward to Hooman's traditional Persian music tracks. I kept anticipating the music as I wrote trying to remember how it sounded, and trying to fit this memory into what I am actually hearing and doing.
Loan and Hooman started to get very physical with the table boards and the chairs scaring the audience a little bit.
At some point Thomas stopped playing and started reading what I was writing. This visibility made me feel gazed at and upon.
And suddenly the alarm started ringing and the process seem to have came to a sudden end.
And my text was wiped out, and it only exist in audiovisual form. Maybe it should be uploaded on this blog as an alternative form of narrative to this one.
Everyone is invited to submit their own version of the process.

Day (10) - K (2)

My first experience with intense traffic, and delayed buses took place today. And I am unconsciously enjoying this little imperfect process that seems to take place beneath the perfection of the order of things here.
Eleonora got even more sick if that is possible, and she is sorely missed. Rike left. And Nora joined.
The discussion still ongoing on whether or not to produce something or present something in the open house.
What I understood that there is a general agreement somehow, that everyone will take the artistic choice to present what s/he wants and then join in jamming session of twenty minutes. The enduring feature will be the rearranging of the space. That seems to a performance strategy that appeals to everyone.
Shawn and Thomas starting jamming together, Thomas on electric guitar and Shawn working on the sonic environment as a whole.
An interesting development was when Lillibeth and Tania decided to join Shawn and Thomas. While Tania joined standing, Lillibeth preferred to lie down.
But then Tania and Lillibeth chose to work on their research (they are invited to elaborate on that here) as a way to engage with the space. And they kept asking for some "man" to volunteer. Repeating the statement "We need a man", gave a little gender twist for the process. When no one (man that is) volunteered, they decided to impersonate the role of male interviewee, with Lillibeth as the alleged "male interviewee". They assumed a corner and went on their interview.
More deconstruction of tables took place till they are just flat boards, then reconstructing them around an interesting arrangement of cushions. Nora then decided to be inserted in this collage of table boards and cushions making her look like an installation.
Hooman gave a new meaning to cushion arrangement when he started to arrange them outside the space altogether.
Nora then released herself from the chair-table installation and took over one mic and decided to experiment with swinging it over the floor. She then took things further by passing the mic over a cushion case over and over.
A series of collapses took place, with Hooman throwing chairs and table boards around, somehow driven by a certain build up of things.
Loan too seemed to be engaged on a very physical level with the chairs and table board. Trying to "figure" them out, in a literal sense. In kind of experiment where she is trying to define or understand her relationship with and to them.
Hooman's new cushion arrangement took the shape of a pathway of cushions all the way out to the garden. Nora was enticed to follow that path. Hooman later explained that he was inspired by Eleonora's mention of the image of "lines", how things and people come coming to her in the shape of lines.
Thomas was peacefully playing his guitar all the while.
Hooman then decided to lay down on one table board and start blowing into a mic, then to roll over across the table board, with an accompanying sound of an empty plastic water bottle being hit against a mic by Nora.
The question remains "what should we do now?"
And I was asked what do I think and said what I thought honestly, that there despite the intentional dissonance, everyone inevitably picked up on the energy of the other and started reacting to that.
There was, however, another problem which was how to place the audience?
Should the audience sit on the outside, the inside, outside and inside. The final decision was that the audiences will be seated inside the space.
Then the piece was timed to be half an hour, with an alarm clock being the signal for the termination of the piece. The idea of mobile phones that were used in the previous performance was dismissed as the process now is developed differently.
At this point Thomas brought up the question of content, a content that connects people together, a certain kind of common idea that people can relate to, grab on to in a way. To which Hooman replied that the need for an idea to connect would then alter the whole process of "improvised actions" that was taking place. Shawn very kindly mediated this debate, suggesting that its not a conceptual strategy or a concrete concept, its more like a connective practice, action that would ensure or make the individuals involved in the process more attuned in a way.
The suggestion then was that Lillibeth should assume that role or function, the interviewer, who could ask the artists or the audience, and in that connect the different processes and the people involved in it.

Day (9) - K (2)

As I crossed the multitude of bridges from Central Station to the House of World Cultures, it hit me again how this building was part of the German government. And how the entire space is structured in such a way to host the German government with all its main offices and institutions.
Raising in my mind more question about the nature of this inter/trans-cultural process taking place.
Then back to the lab, chronically late as I am, I realized that the space was even more transformed than the day before. Not only that, but also my own corner, the table I used to sit at and write (type) was dismantled as well. Giving me a strange sense of insecurity and displacement.
Throughout the entire lab today the most interesting statement I found was Tania when she said, I haven't collaborated with anyone since 20 years ago, with other concurring and revealing how the dynamics of collaboration is something new or somehow unusual to their process. Especially in such a condensed time frame.
Then again Tania had a very interesting revelation. "I only work within restrictions", she said.
And I found that particular statement fascinating.
Because its something I work with. I know.
But in this space, in the total absence of restrictions, with abundance of resources, and the existence of such varied artistic talents there seems to be some block somehow.
The day unfolded with everyone suggesting a particular proposition for the open house on Saturday, a performance strategy, a process, and those were many and quite diverse.
But not one made it to the finals!
Majority of the ideas suggested was somehow filtered through a rigid process of rejection. And since its a collective decision-making process, one single No-vote was enough to put an entire process on complete halt.
There were many interesting ideas proposed, I am going to mention some, but I invite everyone to discuss his/her own idea/proposal/proposition.
At some point Matthew suggested a process similar to speed dating where the audience can be divided into groups assigned to each artist, they will then talk with each other for a particular period of time (two minutes was the suggested period), then a swap will take place with different groups with a different artist and so on, till every group had a chance to talk with every artist, then each audience member will be given the chance to pick the artist he/she like.
A discussion then developed on how each artist should present his/her work, as a way to "lure" audience.
I thought this was an interesting proposition. But there seemed to be a lot of problematics regarding the organizational aspect of it.
Another suggestion by Eleonora was to rearrange the space once more, to engage with it, and see what kind of possibilities that can come out. But this time for fifty minutes.
And again a series of processes unfolded. With Loan citing a text by Sartre, Eleonora speaking in German and Porteguese simultaneously, Tania playing American commercials on her laptop, Hooman doing back vocals for Eleonora's improvisations and a number of other things.
And I was thinking, the less talking everyone does, and the more actions you do, the better it is! On a collaborative level that is!
But then I had to leave to work on my talk, and I don't know what happened next!
So everyone is again invited to add his/her own proposition, if not for reference, then for inspiration!

Day (8) - K (2)

The first lab get together after Erin and Brian left, and the general feeling was that there needs to be more structure, more form. The task of Erin and Braid was delegated to me and Eleonora. However, I think I don't want to be a catalyzer or facilitator. I would rather just write about the lab then assume this role. I think there is enough artistic expertise and potential without anyone having to assume the role of a catalyzer or facilitator.
I mean there might be a need for technical assistance, but I believe that could and should be provided by the staff of the HKW.
After a short meeting between me and Eleonora, we presented our ideas for the next few days, the we decided to step aside and let the collective decide.
And the first decision was to "erase" the memories of the previous week. To manipulate the space, reinvent it in a new way. And for almost 40 mins, the space was completely altered. New elements introduced (more black cushions, new white cushions, an electric guitar, plastic bags) and old elements displaced (tables dismantled, moved around, cables integrated with cushions, speakers dressed as plastic monsters).
After this 40 mins of creative chaos, the question remained what kind of content could come out of this chaos? This potential?
Does this potential pivot on a particular idea? Or does content have to be somehow introduced?
No satisfying answer was found, so the agreement was to play around some more with the space and the elements introduced and the ones manipulated and see where does this go.

At this point I had to go, what happened later on, is yet to be discovered.

Everyone is invited to share their own version of the story!

Day (7) - K (2) General Rehearsal/Open Lab

The place is now "opened" up. Obstructions removed, and a certain "center-stage" created. Hooman might not perform though. Matthew hurt his ankle in yesterday's show and there is a strong chance Hooman will take his place.
This remains to be seen.
Yet in spite of this little technical mishap, Hooman still managed to give Shawn his two ingenuous tracks of Traditional Persian music.
The run-through was as follows:
Thomas will initiate the process, there was one cycle of vocal improvisation, magnet intervention, pillow routine, interception of Persian music, Samba, noise then Bossa Nova, then mobile alarm and voila!
At some point Brian suggested that I take a mic and assure the present audience that this is not a performance. I had to be "unserious" about it. I couldn't.
Erin took over. And along the process she would be repeating statements about the nature of this process, and if it were a real performance, such and such might have happened, such and such might have been seen.
Everyone was still debating how exact the transitions should be, and the timing of the overlapping processes. I think that "lets do anything", concept behind this process, already created quite a complex process, where the various spatial and temporal elements were heavily dramaturgically manipulated. And the main concepts of each process Erin talked about was somehow brought in this very tight time frame.
I believe that it is enough of an evident (visible?) condition to call it a "collaboration".
In a sense that a collectivity of artists engaged at a certain level, presented their work, cross-examined this work, and finally set out to "do" something in a designated space, in a specific time frame.
Shawn had to go for his own rehearsals, another run-through took place.
Erin came up with the idea of writing a sign, "If this was a performance...." placed on the door outside, so people read it on their way in.
Again the notion of "filming" the process gave rise to debate, with Brian saying this makes it sound or look like a real performance, and everyone agreeing that is "staged" in a way. So it was agreed it will be filmed, starting by filming the signs on the door.
People started coming in and interfering with the "setting" of the place, it was really clearly defined and set, there was a "center-stage".

The process was broken down to:
1) Mobile Phone routine

2) Vocal Improvisation

3) Erin reading and Erin and Brian's magnet routine

4) Musical intervention

5) Thomas pillow-throwing

6) Erin sitting at the very end of the room, where the pillows are

7) Eleonora picking the pillows and placing them on top of Erin

8) Samba!

9) Throwing magnets/one clever sentence routine

10) Bossa Nova

11) Alarm sound off

Ten minutes passed, and I was anticipating the intervention of music. For some obscure reason, I was not "satisfied" with the monotony of one two layers of sound, I wanted more!
However, Eleonora was already adding a few textual twists to the improvisation, these unpredictable, quite subtle twists, were like nice surprises..
The pillow struggle was little too violent though. But then my favorite track was not played!
But it was a success!

Day (6) - K (2) or Workshop Space

Trying to be engaged at multiple levels with the space I ventured a quick peak at the Berlin Biennale, I already had a long conversation with Lillibeth, who already went there, and she told me it was very disappointing and filled with "reenactments"!
This sounded funny enough from the master of reenactments, but I understood what Lillibeth's point when I went there myself.
In the schizophrenic weather of Berlin, I rushed to the HKW, to find that plans were underway to pick a place to "perform". After little debate, it was decided it would be K (2).
In a seconds the space was transformed in a workshop with everyone "setting the stage" in a way.
The idea was, on Sunday, when the lab is opened for public, K (2) would be a "stage" where a certain kind of process will take place.
The process entailed simultaneous vocal improvisation along with moving clothes from Erin's piece. Erin describes it as the "chorus" for the vocal improvisation. Yet we were wondering, how will color translate into Shawn's system. Since Shawn does not deal with color, he deals with image in black or white scale.
However, the moment Erin took out her pieces, accessories and magnets, endless possibilities of interactions ("engagements") with the medium sprang up!
Eleonora constructed a magnet-studded mic, which she called "allergic mic". Thomas followed, and then a vocal warm-up took place.
Shawn's setting up his system took a while, meanwhile, everyone plugged their music in. There was Eleonora's Samba, and Hooman classic Persian music. While Thomas provided background sounds of magnet play.
Then Erin started scattering little rare earth magnets, sphere in shapes, Erin diligently started scattering them, then she started moving them with a metal rod, till all they gathered up, Brian then picked them up and started throwing them at Thomas who tired to catch them with his mic.
Hooman then suggested to choreograph a little routine of throwing cushions and "fornicating" with them.
And before anyone knew it, three actual processes were created. Each with its own rhythm and aesthetic content.
Yet Shawn found it too problematic to integrate Erin's pieces into his system, it would take too much time to start working with color on such a short notice. The decision was then set that Erin's pieces will have to be dismantled, as their existence at this point will only be decorative, which was not their intended function.
The "process" was timed at 30 mins, people would enter the space and set their mobile phones at 30 mins, put them in the center and once the alarm sounds off, the process ends!

Day (5) or a Linguistic detour and having fun

So it finally rained properly and I realized I had to finish writing Day (4) post before things piled up and I lose moral resolve!
But then I got on the bus, and a two minutes delay in pressing the stop button resulted in me missing my stop and running to the bus driver, pleading in bad German my need to get off now! Now after a fruitless and futile conversation, I understood that I pressed the button not in due time. Livid with with linguistic blockade, I stormed out in the next stop and took the wrong turn.
And for miles as I walked there is was no sign of the House of World Cultures. And I was beginning to wonder, if I was not really lost.
Not used to the practice of consulting cartography, I reluctantly took out a map and looked at it. To no avail.
I was still lost, but at least I knew I was not very far, but somehow in a "parallel universe" of where I should be.
Getting tired and annoyed and I decided to go back to "ground zero" and take the bus back home!
But then I realized I should not get discouraged by my linguistic ignorance nor my cartographic incompetence, and give it another try.
And so I finally reached the House of World Cultures. And I walk in the room to discover that only four of the artists were able to make it. And to top that these four lucky individuals have finally engaged on a non-verbal level!
They musically improvised and actually had fun!
So I think the proposition for today is to stop thinking and start acting! Maybe a more action-based process, is a process that can induce creativity at a certain level.
This remains to be proven though!

Day (4) - K (2)

Day (4) starts with everyone being a little restless in the space. Its cold outside, and there seems to be another negotiation between a sunny mood and a grey one on a climatological level.
Inside, however, It was Peder's role to present his work process. Peder described a system process, the system consists of:

Inputs: can be defined as ideas, research, direction, experience, knowledge
Body: can be defined as gender, genes,..et
Negotiations between Self and Choreographer

Peder sees the creative process as an attempt to find a new land, new territory which in itself is a frightening, exciting, stimulating experience. The "outcome" of this process, the product is not fixed, its always a work-in-progress in a way. Its always reworked, created again and again. Each new environment creates a new situation, and what is created or recreated depends on what you deliberately change.
This gives the feeling that the process is an ongoing one. Never ending, and never fully realized. This reminds me of Tania's statement that once the piece fulfills its aim it dies. Maybe for Peder, once the process reaches this level of stability, or wholesomeness it will end.
In working in a collective as a dancer, Peder embodies the individual artist with a certain responsibility, the individual artist is responsible of how the collective acts on both levels, performance and otherwise.
When asked about the nature of power in this system, hierarchy, came to view. And this hierarchy creates interesting and demanding situations. This involves small social structures, processes, Hooman focuses on these processes, as method and part of the work.

Brain then intervenes and posits the notion of constraints, a condition of entry, conditions that come from the process itself, and that create a complex plateau, which takes a life of its own.

At this point Hooman puts his foot in it and brings the subject of, how can we make economy out of the question? How can there be an open discussion about economy?
And he explains the existence of hierarchy in the work is hierarchy in the sense of functionality, not a high-level or low-level, the power is defined, pre-established rules

Eleonora brings in her own personal experience in theater and describes the process as a set of obligations vs power what she terms a "collections of dramaturgies". The process involves a complex, entertwinment of lines of the creative issue/process. Thus, the "authorship" is already dissolved in a way".

Thomas then discussed two projects of his, that involved contested that negotiated the modes of engagement with a clear, defined set of instructions. The projects involved a coded, timed piece, that is written down, as a notation, as a musical notation, where several other dance companies were invited to perform it. Thomas can elaborate on that a little more.
The notion behind this was to test limitations. The kind of limitations people have, and how and where does it exist.
Coincidently, Hooman performed this piece. And he said that why should we take these instructions for granted? We can always dialogue with it. Manipulate it. And again Hooman says that manipulation exists, and does not have to be negatively perceived.
Loan, had a very interesting remark, in the midst of the discussion of restrictions, regulations and instructions, she says that every restriction invites you to react to it, that the only thing that restrictions do. I thought that was a brilliant observation. Bringing the agency of the individual despite of and in spite the apparent structural or procedural restrictions that are discussed here.
Those who took part in this debate are invited to elaborate on it here.


By then, it was Nora's time to present her work. And Nora is soft spoken, when listened to, its like she is constantly whispering something to the wind and not to mortal ears. Me being partially deaf, suffered continuously trying to make out exactly what is she saying. It didn't help that she was discussing extremely complex ideas.
Nora started her talk by discussing the connective tissue Erin mentioned at some point earlier (Erin is invited to discuss this further). What also interested Nora was the Fascia, a dense connective tisues that are organized chaotically, it a dense strong structure that is key for structural integrity despite being chaotic as such.
In work, Nora is interested in creating an experimental ground for something that we are not used to and she is always challenged on how to bring the dancers into the process and how to give control. She is a proponent of integrating the thinking process with movement. She does not seem them as two separate processes or isolated from each other. Hence, her dilemma continues on how to bring dancers in the thinking process as well.
In creating this experimental playground, she says that she likes to introduce people to texts in playful way. Links to her work are listed below.

fieldings.wordpress.com/
ruptures.wordpress.com

Nora is invited to discuss her work more. As I don't think I will do justice.
But in the habit of speaking about interventions and destablizations, Nora points out that she always invites other people to intervent to destabilize my habits in that way, working with other dancers is a tool to be disturbed or destabilized.
She clearly expresses her discontent with solos, and how she thinks its uninspiring.
Erin then intervenes, to continue the talk on destabilization and derailment, she explains that some environments are known, they are controllable, however it takes an enormous amount of improvisation, not to create modes of operation, but to reinvent the ground, the place where this modes of operation should or could exist.

Nora takes that it and contextualizes it saying that dance audiences are trained to look at the form, and the body, the technique and that it becomes very difficult to over come these codes.
Hooman intervenes and brings his own experience, saying that it taks lots of physical work to "recode" the body, and this code has to be decoded again so the audience can be able to "read" it.
At this point Nora invites everyone to leave the space ands it outside. And take the conversation further in the destabilized weather.
Nora continues to say that she is always surprised by her own position on that what excites her always creates a sense of being taken in, or engaged, but at the same time it distracts you, because you are forced to think about how and why are excited, thus you begin to disengage from the immediate process.

This moved to questioning the doing. Is the doing necessary?
what to do? what does the doing do?
what concerns us? how we bring concern to things?
How what concerns brings about process?

Erin then intervenes and says that an environment creates concern, the concern is at the level of the field, not the person. The audience bring concern towards the work, and the choreographer brings concern to the dancers,....etc therefore this brings about potential for interactions.

At this point another heated debate breaks out between everyone as Nora brings the notion of uncertainty as dynamic of engagement with the audience, how this bring a different dialogue between the performer and the audience.
Since I personally disagree with most of what was said, I invite everyone who participated in this argument to present his/er argument here!

Day (3) - K (2)

A colder day in recently sunny Berlin. An interesting mixture of gray and clear sky seem to put a sober tone on everything around.
Today were moved to K (2) our new location for the lab. A smaller room, a little claustrophobic, with a low ceiling and a general appearance of a storage room, rather than a meeting room!
The HKW is completely transformed. And now its actually funny going through its stoic halls and open spaces to find it filled with flowers or installations for the opening.
As usual I arrive late, assuming there is no traffic in Berlin, and getting surprised every single time!
It was Thomas's turn this time. And this is a blank space ( ) where Thomas can write whatever he likes in it.
Although I did not catch the entire presentation, Thomas proposed an exercise of sorts where anyone can suggest a particular activity on the condition s/he would start by saying "Its better to/not to...."
How it works is the entire participants would try to configure a way to solve this proposition and try to come up with a solution to this problem. Anyone can suggest any proposition provided it does not come out as a series of associations of proposition linked together. The suggestion should appear as a coherent sequence.
Some of the activities suggested were:
To hug
To tickle
To stop
To look outside
To do what you usually do
To speak about England
After a lot of displacement and commotion it was suggested that we "better go back" and continue!
By now it was Erin's turn to give a 15 minutes presentation of her work. And she was generous enough to physically share with us her installation, and let us have a feel of what it is really like. Erin's background includes painting, she is stranger to colors, shapes or textures. Her collection included prototypes of basic shapes for a jacket, a skirt, a shirt,.....etc, with vintage button and rare earth magnets specifically designed so it can be attached to whoever walks through the space where the pieces are.
Erin described her work in trying to create pieces of cloth that do not have preconceived notion about the body. How the body looks, or how it should look. In a way it was like designing a "democratic collection" where everyone can access and personalize in a way.
She wanted to create an interactive environment that was non-threatening, and that resembles a playground to a big extent. The "magnetic" quality and the fragmentation of the pieces of the fabric ensured a mobile engagement. The piece could move along with the people.
Erin described the seduction of the fabric to her, but holding a piece of a China silk, I completely understood the latent seduction she spoke about.
Each piece of fabric had a series of connective sewed to its side, so there was a whole side of the piece that is not cloth related. People can treat the fabric pieces in non-garment related way.
Erin spent hours and days hand-sewing the pieces, and sometimes friends helped. This notion of sharing, somehow is still carried over. The engagement that is done with the piece is not the conventional engagement. There is something very personal, generous and seductive about it.

Next in line was Loan, who was slightly uncomfortable with the collective gaze, where the entire lab was scrutinizing her and what she was talking about. I have to say that I personally thought that she was incredibly articulate and engaging for someone who dislikes public presentations. She started by saying why should anyone be interested in knowing anything about her! She then went on to describe the process of her work, which revolves around what she termed as "negotiating the I". She breaks down her process into stages of sort. There is:
listening: "shutting up" she calls it, trying to read the situation
After reading the situation you then try to understand, what is needed/expected of "me"? where can I contribute? what are we looking for here?
You then start to propose something, a direction maybe?, according to what happened earlier
This is the point when the new "I" is created embodying the knowledge, references, experiences that are subsumed under a "we".
Loan says a key statement that defines her process, "I am never only myself all the time on stage", the "I" is a construct, based on the idea "we" created. The artistic work then happens between the "I" and the "we".

Rike came up next, and she surprised us, by a very personal presentation, an excerpt from Roland Barthes, handwritten, on embrace. And I don't think she would mind me quoting it here:

"There is embrace, which is a motionless cradling: we are enchanted, bewitched: we are in the realm of sleep, without sleeping: this is the moment for telling stories, the moment of the voice which takes me. In this companionable incest, everything is suspended: time, law, prohibition" nothing is exhausted, nothing is wanted: all desires are abolished for they seem definitively fulfilled."

Rike seemed to remind us of the importance of an embrace, and the difficulty of keeping a partner in embrace if you are an artist! Especially a dancer. She said it has been very difficult maintaining this embrace while traveling so much to perform. She seems to be caught up in dilemma of combining what she loves, with she does.
Erin then made an intervention and posed a very interesting question:

"what kind of collaborative process can it create this kind of feeling?"

Rike's short, but very personal presentation was followed by Matthew, whose presentation reminded me of corporate briefing on a new management strategy! The presentation was precise and laden with management terminology!
Matthew's process revolved around transparency. He is interested in group dynamics and how a group can functions. He investigates the process of decision making. He gives of dancing as collective situation, where people negotiate how to "act". There is an explicit set of rules of how to function and yet there is also an unspoken of system of rules. For Matthew a process can be more transparent when you open the process and examine the unspoken of rules of interaction, all these assumption that are unnecessary, and create this field of possibilities that we were not seen before.
Matthew then argued that a flat structure will not necessarily result in transparency as expected, however I did not understand his other alternative ( ) this is a blank space where Matthew can suggest other systems for transparency.

In a swift synthesis by Erin, to integrate what Matthew was saying and to give a cue for Brian to start, Erin played further on how way of opening up a system can be a cause of derailing it. She gave an example of that, and said that there might be a million sparks for derailment, as derailment as a contagious phenomenon, but the question remains how far should you go? When do you let go?
Erin suggested that language could take over, this is when Hooman intervened and started questioning the extent of trust we put in language. He said that spoken language is only one form of expression, that does not entirely express a person, there are many readings of the endless layers that constitute a person. How is it that we "read" or "listen" or "see"?
Hooman demanded that we try to interpret the "in-between".
And this was the cue for Brian's presentation which was about organizing non-verbal experiences and finding a way to assert this in relation to the speaking world.
Brian screened the film of autistic activist Amanda Baggs, called "In my Language". A link of her video can be found below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc

Brian explains that Amanda tends to put language in a opposition "my language vs. "language", taking language into opposition with non-verbal experiences
He sees Amanda creating complex, organized world of thought, that does not need to express itself in language. Her world its not meant to symbolize, or to communicate, but its expressive. The "language" can take this kind of expressivity creating gestures, relating things in environment, gathering these things. What Amanda does is create an actively relational rhythm, a counterpoint as Brian describes it.
She combines many modes of expression singing for example is a layer
All these modes express the complexity of her environment its a different way of thinking of language. Its an affective expression of her mode of existence, an affective resonance with a certain symbolic reservoir that draws in symbolic associations.
Brian then threw in the biggest question of them all, "the question of philosophy".
He maintains that its not religion or ideology, it would be using the machinery of language to reconnect to these sensory non-verbal experiences. A way of reconnecting differently.
Then explaining his own process and practice Brian states that as a discipline philosophy creates a certain way to relate to a certain discourse, as a process it is cut loose from this disciplinarian tradition, going out to express itself differently.
The logical question then was what is an aesthetic process then?
Brian answered that the aesthetic process is a process of becoming, its a perceptual experience, its the way by which one makes connections, there are practices that are relational, there are practices that bring multiple layers of sensation, generative, creative inside every practice, it is a way of containing.

Day (2) - K (1)

Day (2) at the Lab, and this format is starting to sound like a prison diary more than an artistic journal! The HKW is starting to be more personalized by the invasion of its pace by artists and their installations. Clothes hung on lines snaking all through the space till the very fountain on the outside, screens set up, sound equipment installed, one can almost forget the architectural politics of the place.
Day (2) consists of mini-presentations of the lab participants and their work.
Shawn Greenlee came first, unfortunately I missed the first half of his complex presentation on converting image to sound. My own very limited understanding of the physics of sound and waves came in the way, and I had to ask poor Shawn to sit and explain to me in simple terminology what exactly happens.
Shawn describes his interest in acoustic, psycho-acoustic phenomenon where there the space contributes to how sound is shaped. At the same time he points out to how our perception influences what we hear. In an example I still fail to understand, and in which I think Shawn will have to explain himself, when two tones are played together within the same frequency, people will start to hear a "third tone", a differential tone, that does not real exists but is entirely perceptual.
Thinking in terms of process as Erin was talking the other day, it was hard to think of what Shawn does as a process resulting in a particular product. The two seem to be completely isolated. At one level there is the process, presented in the live performance, at another there seems to be the product, which can be a CD with edited material from the live performance.
How the process comes to being is through Shawn's life-drawing and where this transformed into a signal, distorted, then presented in the basic material of electronic music. Shawn gives an interesting summary of the history of converting image to sound. He outlines it in three stages:

• Transduction:

Which took place in the 1920s-30s when people started recording sound on film. And discovered they can compose sound waves and compress them on film. This was a direct transfer of that energy.

• Translation:

Here the manipulation works on the level of meaning as with computer programs. Where a system of meaning is clearly defined. Meaning is written clearly in a notational system . There is a fixed system of rules.

• Interpretation:
  

At this level the rules are subject to manipulation. The same manipulation of energy and meaning is there, but through gesturing (life-drawing) you are interpreting. You are influencing these rules and meanings.

Tania posed an interesting question on the visualization of the technological process. A lot of musing on the gestures that Shawn does and that ultimately define the kind of sound that is coming out. Shawn was also trained in visual arts, so he relates the gesture to the image, and his body language is shaped/influenced by years of playing in Rock bands. The tracing of the movements seem to include many layers of history and practice.
Shawn explains "the system" as his instrument. And the visualization, is the visualization of his instrument, which is situational. Sometimes in contexts where the performance is small scale there is no need to project the visualization, other times in bigger scale performances, the setting does not allow everyone to follow through and projecting the visualization becomes an interesting option.
Shawn goes on to say that there is a hypnotic quality about the visualization that somehow guides the audiences' attention back to the performer in a way.
This might sound like a commercial but more information on Shawn and his work can be found on his website:
http://www.02909.com/greenlee/
And there is another link that I will post later where some of Shawn's work can be downloaded.

The next presentation was by Hooman Sharifi, from Impure Company. And the statement that stuck to my mind the most was "I like to look for the "Nos" before I get to the "Yes's".
Hooman works a lot with Persian motifs and music. And he presented several miniatures from what looked like Medieval Persian manuscripts of folktales and stories.
What interested Hooman was the flatness of the pictures, and the text that is prettily inscribed along the frame of the picture.
While the stories carried a dramatic and tragic content, the pictures were somehow controlled and refined to such an extent.
Hooman's next performance will be about these miniatures.
He also presented samples from Persian music he has been working with. And despite the fact that this is not the first time I listen to Persian music, I still have the same reaction. There is something immediate and crude about the music that suggests for me an unmodulated intensity.
Hooman than explained the compositional elements of the music, he can do this further, again my background in music does not qualify me to recap. I might not do it justice.
(so here is blank space for Hooman to elaborate!)
What Hooman was saying was, that the music is somehow compact and intense, and it has layers to it. Which one can dissect in a way. He describes his choreography as moving to the music not interpreting it. This might be the reason he works with non-Persians because the body-memory and emotionality might not be there versus the fact if he employs professional Persian dancers that would move with this history or responding to this emotionality.
The choreographic concept behind Hooman's work is quite interesting. He prefers using the term "flesh" rather than "body". He perceives the body as a sum of parts/organs that are not necessarily in harmony, rather in dialogue with each other. This state of disharmony or disconnected parts, trying to coexist seems to be the pivotal point for the kind of movement Hooman creates.
He does not believe that dancers should enjoy themselves. He believe that this "attitude" is what destroyed dance and created a state of self-indulgence.
In Hooman's process of artistic creation he prefers basic elements, no costumes, basic lighting, and nothing to indicate anything.
In his next piece Hooman will be working with animals. Again to highlight the structural elements of behavior and very solid dynamics that control and govern groups of animals. He is also interested in the different names assigned to different groups of animals (litter, school, pack, shoal, host,...etc) and how we can decipher meaning from them.
Hooman unfortunately did not have a documentation for his work, but I found this little clip on Myspace, I hope he is not offended by me posting it here!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=32985594

The next presentation was by Tania Bruguera. In discussing her work Tania explained that to her the process of artistic creation is guided by two main time frames:
Short term project
Long term projects
While listening to her I felt that her work is very time sensitive, she describes it as conscious of the audience and the amount of attention they are willing to give, and that she anticipates. The conceptual work done is therefore linked to this temporality and capacity for engagement.
She uses a term I like very much, "social time". It opens possibilities in our own understanding of time and it what signifies for us and how we perceive it.

What I understood was that this temporality creates a dynamics of in/visibility. Where the work is visible within a particular time frame, after which it renders itself invisible in a way.
For long term projects Tania mentioned that the process becomes part of the concept for the piece she is doing. Long term pieces are problematic, because people re/act for what is already a preexisting notions.
In a very clear example of her work strategy Tania discussed a project for a Cuban artist (which she has to write the name herself, as I couldn't catch it), where she reproduced her work for almost ten years. Such long term project is aimed at changing something socially. And the end result was to let the work of this artist be acknowledged, and once it was, Tania stopped. She sums it up in a poignant sentence saying, "once the goal is achieved the piece dies".
Part of this is the position of the author. Or rather the dissolution of the author, as Tania calls it.
She thinks the work in terms of a narrative, a text-based paradigm in a way.
Tania gave other examples of her work. But what resonated the most for me, was she was saying about politicizing a moment, where people's behavior is brought into the spotlight and questioned. This destabilizing strategy tampers with notions of what is legitmate as an art practice, something Tania herself identifies with, through working in grey areas, of permissibility, illegality...etc.

The following presentation was of Eleonora, a project she was just fresh out of doing and was still "raw" as she describes it.
Eleonra lives in Rio di Janeiro, a very violent space she says. In a personal initiative to make peace with that space, Eleonora devised a series of actions to engage with this space and try to maybe understand, reconcilie, come to terms with the space..
The series consisted of seven actions, eight if it would have rained. The seven actions are:
1st
Eleonora brought two chairs from her kitchen and placed them in a public square in Rio, where she sat there holding a sign saying "we can talk about any subject".
2nd
Eleonora sat on a chair, with a table in front of her, in the same square and starts cutting the words in the Brazilian flag (order and progress) and to rearrange the letter to see what was hidden
3rd
Go with a brush and soap and clean a line in the same space. Using the brush and the substance to cross the square.
4th
To invite different artists for a massage in the public square.
5th
Read aloud. A classic Brazilian literature. A 19th Century author, whom again Eleonora has to write his name down as I find hard to follow up with all these names!
6th
Energize the place historically, by passing out pictures from different historical eras (16th-20th) and give it to the people.
7th
Stand in the square with two jars, one sliver the other clay and start pouring the water from one jar to the other till the water completely evaporates.

The actions were aimed at changing the regimes of presences, relations and an attempt to try to connect in more vibrant ways. Eleonora works with collapsing spheres and the tension between liminalities. She was trying to find different modes of communication, open a more receptive disposition and a less creative manipulation. She uses the word "permissive", trying to create a permissive environment where the ordinariness of everyday life is somehow juxtaposed with the extraordinary condition of the city.

Day (1) - K (1)

K(1) is the place we have been assigned for the first two days of the Lab. In the light of the structural setting of the place, the hall is quite functional, serious and too disciplined for the creative work that is supposed to take place.
from the very start an anxiety broke out about the imperative of producing a product by the end of the first week of the Lab.
Several participants voiced their clear dissent regarding being pressured to present their work in such a short time period and having their work judged in light of those fifteen minutes.
Erin and Brian who were assigned the role of catalyzers suggested a sratetgy that Erin used to facilitate the process of creating a platform for a collaborative effort.
Building on their work, they are more interested in the process of art creation, then in the finished work itself. They think the focus should be on the connections that happen along the process, the different phases, rather than just to present a finished work as it is.
They both suggest a proposition. A game of 24 hours duration based on a project Erin did back at the university. While the project lasted for an entire semester, here it was to last for a few hours.
The idea was to uncover the technique different people use in their process of creation.
The game was styled as follows:

• Each member of the lab will write his/her name on a piece of paper
• All the pieces will be mixed together
• Each member will draw out a piece of paper that has a name of another member
• After each member selects a piece of paper, the group will divided into "process-prospector" and "prospectee", each engaging in 30 mins conversation.
• Then a switch in the role will take place, and those who talked, will listen, and those who listened will talk
  
• The aim was to create a dialogue where different lab members get to articulate their processes of creation, and each member write three verbs describing or summarizing this process
• Then a verb diagram will be created, where we will try to locate common verbs through which we can start creating a collaborative process

Some of these verbs were:
selecting-empathizing-anti-socialing
navigating-fitting/unfitting-living-embodying-
reducing-questioning-focusing-stabilizing/de-stabilizing-unkowning
trusting-multilayering-doubting-balancing-challenging-expecting-
negotiating-editing-translating-searching limited
paralleling
reconstructing - letting go - daydreaming
listening - eating -walking
getting bored- being alone - forgetting
drawing sound- making emerge- finding a certain something in an apparent nothing
transmutating - reanimating - perceiving

Another discussion broke out, in the sense of a riot would, about the use of questioning or musing over the process. While some lab participants were in constant engagement about the process of their work, others came from contexts where this process was considered of minor importance, and the sole focus was on the "product".
Then again the anxiety about the "prodcut" and strategy of work came to the surface. How will this product emerge?
And several creative suggestions came out:

1. We can choose not to present anything at the open house
2. The product is of momentary importance. The aim of the lab, is bring about different artists from across the spectrum, to dialogue and exchange. The "product" is of minor significance.

A pseudo-agreement took place, and lab participants agreed that tomorrow, seven of the lab participants will think about something they can bring to the lab (previous work, an object of particular importance,...etc) and spend 15 mins. talking about it.

Erin shifted the focus a little bit, when she started thinking about the verbs compiled, and she was particularly drawn to the verb "non-inventing" used by Lilibeth in her work.
Lilibeth was then approached to explain and perhaps elaborate on what she means by non-inventing in her work. She explains that she uses elements already existing. Its not something new or spectacular, citing an example, Lilibeth works with words, presenting these words, which people think its about her, however the songs are inspired from myraid of different things. Her manipulation of "formal language" to make it appeal to her own language. Same goes for documentary, one selects what one chooses to show. Or to edit. These things were not invented. But the way that they are presented was invented in a way.
An artistic intervention at this point reconceptualizes the idea of "taking"
One artist suggests the term "stealing". Different terms might be used (exchange, translation,...etc) but the actual process of creation starts when you take something. The moment you get hold of it, you start reflecting on how to make use of it.
Another lab particpant answered back that there is a moral charge in the term "stealing".
Another artist explained that stealing is a complete appropriation of the object, where its possession moves from one person to the other and its no longer there.
To that the reply was, the object might be lost, but the recollection of it remains.
The same artist, then questioned, stealing as a transgressive act. But receiving is considered a more of a passive act.
The discussion went on to ponder upon the question, what do artists work with? How much is there of borrowing and taking?
One artist suggested that just its impossible to invent beyond nothing, one has to invent with an existing matter.

An artistic intervention suggested that dislocating is an interesting possibility. How can on rearrange entire systems by introducing insignificant or minuscule elements that result in the overhaul of the whole system.
Erin then pointed out that to her traveling to do her work is a process of dislocation, or rather its an interruption or a disruption till one is reintroduced in his "original system".
Or rather traveling as a condition where you take things in. Or maybe the different context refinorm the object in ways that were not perceivable at first, but this hinges on how open one is.
Erin poses the terminal statement that there is only so much invention that can happen, there is bound to be an element of repetition after a certain point.
At this point one artist points out to the fact that the demanding context of touring, is nothing like the context of a lab. The lab is a "welcome contrast" to the rigorous mechanism of presentation exemplified by touring.
The functionality of traveling is then brought to question. What is the purpose of traveling?
One travels to experience different way of surviving other systems.
One travels to places where one is immune to their influence.
One travels in order to protect a particular work.
Erin suggests that the temporality of a work is crucial in understanding the process of art creation. Some temporalities get in the way. One has to consider how long does the process of art creation takes.
But can an artistic process be circulated within a paritcular economy of exchange? Can on "sell" his/her process? Can it be given.
Sean relates how he was approached by people who were interested in "buying" his "software" he uses to process image to sound. Which brings to question what this process can do on its own, without the artist who actually created it.
The conversation is brought back to the issue of production. Producing a final product. And the example of the entertainment industry creating reality shows that create a product every single episode is mused upon. Yet one has to to situate entertainment as a function of a capitalist system that ineluctably linked to profit. The question should then be is the creation process linked to profit and the notion of profitability and productivity as in the "entertainment industry"?
Erin and Brian then discuss how certain ideas need "gestation" to be brought about. And how one should think in phases. In a way ideas do not arrive in a finished sense as products, as a quantifiable product.
Thomas then argues that one can be creative in different ways. Any idea one work into an artistic process. A work of art is a process where does the impossible, with no need to explain, justify or proof anything. There are unnecessary limitations on our capacity to imagine and understand.
Eleonora saves the day by appropriating the conversation and pointing out to an affirmation of a particular notion through a speech act. The modern question of "It is art", to the more contemporary question "what is not art?". This speech act opens up a paradox, allows the excavation of layers upon layers of meaning. This movement, movement of ideas, creates a series of thoughts, creating tension of what is the basic image of an ontological existence.
She explains a project she did where she brought two chairs from her kitchen and placed them in a public square in Rio, where she sat there holding a sign saying "we can talk about anything". The idea was to collapse limnalities of a private space and a public space.
People will come sit in a chair and talk, each time for three hours. In some instances she had the permission to record.
When asked Eleonora what is the culmination of her project or idea, she answered, "To make peace with the space I live in"