What is the position of 'the architecture' and 'the performance' in a setup where 'un-built space' and a 'zero-degree performance' (shift to framing just the 'hyperreality' of a conditioned/scripted situation) seem established in the practice?
In Theatre without Actors, Pedro Manuel introduces a series of staging strategies in which there is no human actors on the stage. Metaforically and practiclally, this fits into a post-anthropocentric dramaturgical strategy (Taskanen), but puts the absence of 'humans' also in wider theatre tradition.
The greek notion 'theatron' (the place from where you look) was a starting point for a workshop-series that investigated the spectator-actor duality.
From which position do we look at architecture? Which position do we take inside architecture? (Psarra refers to Tschumi's labyrinth-metafor to dissiminate the narrative potential of space within a series of projects)
From which position do we look at performance?
To understand the position of architecture in my practice is to step in and out of the threshold of 'being in' or 'looking at', in the same way as we can represent 'a performer' (be a performer) or look at one.
-> reference of rolefluidity to Kögler as quoted in Kester's Conversation pieces (p95)
Did the architecture of HALL01-06 stage its spect-actors, or invite the participants into a frame to experience co-presence? In the latter: what are
The position in HALL33 as a 'zero-degree performance' is basically sharing a frame with another person to experience both the dulness and the richness of reality as it is. -> 'We are training ourselves in simply being with other beings (and things)' -> ref to Sodja's essay for Homo Novus.
Training this can be done within the educational frame, inviting students to creatively deconstruct the 'world as we see it through conventional eyes'.