My internal dialogue on the development of my artistic presentation on 29.09.2017

Purpose of the presentation: To bring pieces and parts of what my research is about to teachers and students of the MTP program.

A reflection on what I presented. An attempt to write critically what the presentation was about.

A way to understand what I presented.

1. I started from the usual (for me) point that something has already happened and we are all involved in its secret. (Deleuze and the difference between the short story and the tale). The secret is not there to be "revealed" but it is there, impenetrable, and we are all involved in it whether we like it or not. In my case the secret has to do with who I am, how I work, previous works, what have I researched previously to that day, with other groups and of course it includes the dinner we had with some people from ArtEZ on getting together and converse with speech and movement.

2.Choreography

A woman (me) is trying to take distance from her own project, she is there but she is very focused to what she is doing, she does not pay attention to what is happening around her, in an attempt to let go of the control she has in the presentation. Three other people narrate what her work is about, and she (I) although present, has no more power to what is narrated about her. She keeps being very precise with her movement, she distributes the papers by paying attention not to treat anybody differently. Her movement is the same to anyone as if she is convinced that this is the only way to hold some kind of control over what is being presented, as if she is afraid that otherwise she will loose control and will become unfair. Now, each and everyone of the audience is given the papers in the same manner, using the same movements each time, and she is being very precise on the way she moves to treat everyone equally. But strangely enough, this results in a mechanical, disturbing (from feedback) movement, an aggressive movement that after all not only does not treat the audience equally, but treats them in an aggressive yet equal way. As if in order for them to be treated equally aggression and/or violence has to be introduced.

Is this aggression trying to become the opposite pole to a rather relaxed conversation the three members are having? Is it an attempt to gain lost control by putting herself in the position of the outsider/insider? Or is this violence, the inherent violence embedded in any act that involves putting rules about being together?

3. Taking control of- letting go of.

Taking responsibility- letting things happen.

4. People are seated on tables in a way that could promote intimate communication. They have eye contact, they are close to each other, and they listen to three other people narrating a story- we don't know what it is about. On the tables we see sentences written on paper about the polyphonic subject, about how voice is given to singularly defined identities, about suppression of the different voices. We also see pictures of a gathering of people. Some of them are the same people who now talk and narrate the story.

Why doesn't the audience communicate? Why do they look like puppets? Do they need someone else (in our case me) to set the rules for their freedom to communicate? Do they need a structure to prepare them to communicate? And is it the case that when this structure is not provided and things are left vague yet precise (you are seated on tables , you look at each other etc.) the audience will always react like that?