Dramaturgy session with Konstantina (towards a presentation on the 29th of September)

The metaphor I used is the mole and a picture of a mole showing her face out of the soil in the garden. I can relate to this metaphor because I think the way I do research resembles the mole.

I go with my eyes closed, without knowing where or why I go, I create space in the soil , hit maybe a rock and then change direction, until I find something that feels good (a point that makes sense). Then, I continue in another direction again without knowing.

During this process my senses get amplified, although I don't see where and why to go somewhere I receive all the information I need through the senses, and continue to move on without knowing and without being able to see until I reach a point where the processed information create a knowing point or a point of knowledge or a point that makes sense.

I also connected this metaphor to the typology Carl Jung has for different personalities, namely, the feeling type, the sensing type, the thinking type and the intuitive type. I said that although I have parts of each type, I am a sensing type. Sensing mainly refers to the method by which someone perceives information. Sensing means that a person mainly believes information he or she receives directly from the external world.

The gifts I got from the people that I shared this metaphor with are written on the post-its I present here:

All were very interesting but the most interesting to me was :

"While struggling with the senses you make brilliant underground systems"

The reason I found that so interesting is because it made me think of something that I may have already created that is under the surface and I don't really see it, while I struggle with "things" that are on the surface. It made me wonder what are these systems that are not seen to the normal vision that I have already created and how can I see them in order to use them? And how to use them ? To use them where? In the presentation at ArtEZ? For the presentation in ArtEZ on the 29th of September I had the following thoughts and discussions:

Create a series of exercises that will produce alternative ways of :

a. doing conversations

b. doing movement experiments with others in space/doing body based conversations (not in the sense that the body is a language, not in a descriptive way)

Alternative : "as good as" (in context?, in value?, in aesthetics?)

I would like to attempt to create:

a. Alternatives ways, (ways of approaching things differently) methods to make a conversation possible.

b. Alternative ways of creating a movement dialogue among people

How

taking into consideration ways that I have not used before

Maria Juao suggested :

To have rules, instructions, actions 1. to let go of control

2.to have a very precise set of instructions (like flexus ?)

3. not to have any instruction at all

4. to use ballet (as something I don't like at all and I have not used before). But if I go with using ways that I have not used before then there are a million of things I have not used before, and how to choose from them?

Maybe by borrowing elements / methods from psychoanalysis, science, politics and/or other fields to help me create the exercises.

Questions needed to be answered

From which perspective do I see the spectatorship? Do I want to create exercises that will help people make a conversation, in other words is it an experiential thing for the audience? The audience participates in the conversation? Or do I want to create exercises that will form different kinds of conversations that will be presented to an audience? The same question goes for the body based conversations.

Difference and similarities between a game and an exercise

Game: is recreational activity involving one or more players, defined by a goal that the player try to reach, and some set of rules to play it.

Exercise: is a planned, structured, repetitive, and intentional activity intended to improve or maintain a purpose. (to make you "fit" for something).

So, we are looking into ways that will make as "fit" , that will train us in doing a conversation. Is intimacy important in order to start a conversation? Yes, intimacy understood in the sense that it acknowledges and accepts the diversity within the people who take part in this conversation. So, maybe finding the right distance for the participants both literally but also not in a literal way in order for a conversation to start and/or to continue.

Structure

I am very familiar with the exercises' structure that body based techniques share (ballet, contemporary dance but also relaxation techniques, yoga etc), so I choose to include it here in order to experiment with it as a structure for the conversation exercises. For this example I use the metaphor of a ballet class structure

So as a basic structure a conversation practice should include exercises that have the following characteristics :

a. Warm up exercises. Simple exercises that help one start slowly to warm up in order to get into a conversation.

b. Core conversation exercises. Exercises that help the participants to gain a basic vocabulary about making a conversation. This includes a set of more difficult exercises, by repeating maybe exercises from the warm up and learn ways of thought that develop into dynamic combinations. In other words one applies what she has learned in the warm up exercises.

c. Relaxation exercises. After the dynamic part, one finds his way in the conversation to relax, and take time to herself to reflect.

What I have up to now as exercise to create a conversation/ or what needs to be considered

1. People meet around a table (space has to be considered)

2. People share one after the other knowledge and/or experience on a pre-agreed notion, question (topic of conversation and ways to approach the subject)

3. They then look at it from different angles : psychoanalytically, in an imaginative way, culturally.(the participants search for diverse ways of approaching the subject, different from their initial angle or approaching from the same angle but differently )

4. Doers and observers alternate and give feedback (all participants have the chance to see the conversation from the outside and from the inside, they give feedback from both positions)

5. after the end of each conversation they take the time to think, to reflect and to write (maybe use post-its writing what it was about or creating new rules for the exercise)

They repeat the exercise with the new rules that have been created.

The same structure can apply to a movement conversation.

1. People meet in space (what kind of space is that? how does it connect with the participants?)

2. People share one after the other the topic that interests them to share in order to make a movement conversation (e.g. touch, walking, etc) How do they share the topic that interests them? with movement? by saying it?

3. they then look at it from different angles ( e.g. re-articulation with movement, repetition, getting together-going apart) (the participants search for diverse ways of approaching the subject, different from their initial angle or approaching from the same angle but differently )

4. Doers and observers alternate and give feedback (all participants have the chance to see the movement conversation from the outside and from the inside, they give feedback from both positions) Is feedback given in movement this time (?) 5. after the end of each conversation they take the time to think, to reflect and to write (maybe use post-its writing what it was about or creating new rules for the exercise)