This research, although based on two creative processes, does not intend to only investigate a project. The intention of this research is to theorise a framework that can apply to any collaboration between music, dance, and/or theatre, as opposed to works which have the intention to analyse a concrete project. Examples of these can be found in the research catalogue. One example of these kinds of works is the research by Chanda VanderHart and Sonja Schebeck named ‘The Freestyle Orchestra: Questioning Norms in Classical Concert Performance through Ross Edwards’ Maninyas Violin Concerto‘. Here the idea of freeing the performers' bodies, especially the musicians, is very clear. They also apply theory to carry out a concrete performance. In addition, the research by Assi Karttunen, ‘The aural garden of sounding materials: performing within the materiality of Et in Arcadia ego-music performance‘, or Sarah Albu's ‘Concepts of Embodiment in Interdisciplinary Work Within a Musical Context, are both works where there is also an awareness of theoretical frameworks. 

In this research, the framework is central to understand its process. In the case of Albu and Karttunen, they briefly mention a framework in their conclusions. In the case of VanderHart and Schebeck, the framework is their starting points. This research focuses on theorising (albeit based on projects) rather than describing a project.

Creating a performance is very similar to constructing a structure. Different materials are needed to build this structure. Each material has its own qualities, and understanding these qualities is essential to knowing how they can be placed within the structure. However, when working on a creative process that leads to a performance, the term ‘structure’ does not entirely resemble the nature of all the components of the process equally. The artist has to be aware of the reality they are handling. Servos, in this case referring to the work of Bausch, states that “a choreographer always understands reality as a dynamic system, a system which is ever-changing and whose aspects influence each other” (Servos, 20). Knowing that the concept of choreographer is broad in Bauschian terms, it can be further extended to be applicable to any creator participating in the process.

The choice of the word ‘framework’ can imply a more flexible approach to the creative process and includes components of the process and the performance that are more dynamic and subject to changes - like the venue, the public, and the performers. 

To shape a creative process, it is essential to know how each component behaves. There are components that can be treated or handled analogously to each other, but the same treatment might not be applicable for other ones. Therefore, we need a way to describe the components according to their behaviour. A very illustrative way to understand this is by knowing how abstract or physical each component is.


  • The organisation of components.

In an interdisciplinary performance, some aspects are inherently more dynamic than others. Typically, these aspects are related to physicality. This is because the ‘physical’ things are generally more dynamic. For example, as we could see in the previous chapter, the venues had a big impact on the performance, but the concept stayed the same. This will originate different scenarios in every performance, which translates to different behaviours of the components. The expression a performer wants to convey, on the contrary, is less subject to changes. However, expression can still be dynamic, due to eventual emotional variations in the performers themselves or the public. Lastly, the concept or the structure of the piece can be seen as the most abstract of all components during a performance.

For a better understanding, the components are going to be placed in three general groups according to their quality: physical/dynamic, expressive, and abstract. The order follows the components from physical to abstract, but it does not mean that abstract components are more important than physical ones. In fact, an essential step to break from the hierarchical dichotomy of ‘good against bad’, ‘creation against destruction’, or ‘light against darkness’, is to embrace these polarising terms by not assessing them as positive or negative. “It is not a pacification between opposites, but active and fertile forms [of creating]” (Servos, 21). Ultimately, all components are relevant to the process and performance.


  • Physical/dynamic components: the venue, the performers and the public elements. Disposition and interaction.

A venue is referred to as any physical or virtual space where performance happens. The venue is made of three elements: the stage, the performers and the public. To overcome the limitations of these rather traditional elements, their definitions are extended in the following manner: a stage is where the performers are placed, and the public is the receiver of this performance. Therefore, there are three distinct elements to be observed: venue or space, performers, and public.


  • Qualitative observation of the elements: limitations and possibilities.

Each one of the mentioned elements presents a group of qualities that always leads to certain limitations for the performers to convey their discipline. However, limitations are closely related to opportunities. They help frame the performance according to the ‘imperfection’ present in the elements. 

The size and shape of the venue influence how the stage and public are placed. The materials it is made of and the presence of objects (walls, columns, seats, etc.) affect the acoustics and the eventual movements the performers are going to carry out. Some venues (usually non-conventional ones) need some planning to take advantage of the space, due to their complexity. 

The limitations present in the performers and the opportunities provided by them differ depending on the discipline. Most of the musicians (except for singers) need an instrument to express their art, and in terms of movement, this is a limitation. A pianist cannot walk around while playing on a grand piano, and a double-bass player will not be able to move quickly around the stage. This has to be fully taken into account, but it does not mean that performers should not explore the extent to which the instrument is limiting their possibilities of movement. 


  • Disposition:

Disposition relates to where and how each one of the elements of a venue are placed. It can be seen as the organisation of space in a static sense, a setting. This means that the stage, the performers, and the public are organised in a specific way. Most of the time, these elements are distinct. However, many examples can be found where the elements are blurred. The area usually designated for the public can be utilized as a stage, or the public can be included on the stage, almost turning them into performers. Some examples of this disposition can be seen later. There can be more than one disposition within a performance.

Disposition is also key to adapt a performance to non-conventional venues. As Laura Suárez states in the interview, “you are losing a lot if you go to a space with the potential to be developed artistically and look for a 5x8 rectangle to place your performance”. Therefore, it is very enriching to look for different configurations of these elements that can enhance the other components.


  • Interaction:

If we move out of the static notion of a space, we find that all of these elements are interacting with each other. In fact, it is impossible for these elements not to interact, even at the most subtle level. The levels of interaction where the focus will be are the following:

   -Interaction within a discipline:

Each one of the interactions has a specific quality. This means that the way each interaction occurs is related to the codes these performers share. One could regard this kind of interaction as a common language. Musicians, for example, share a special and distinct experience, after years of study and playing in ensembles. Similarly, dancers and actors also accumulate much distinct experience throughout their careers. 

-Interaction between disciplines:

A different interaction is the one between disciplines. This kind of interaction is very important for the cohesion of an interdisciplinary performance. As mentioned in the previous section, it is a shared language that needs to be created and found by the performers themselves. This is also referred to earlier as the Bauschian ‘group expression’, also widely mentioned and used by Suárez. There are two main ideas to take into account when handling the interaction between disciplines. Firstly, performers can interact with each other using the specific means provided by their discipline. Secondly, they can also use means from the other discipline for the interaction, and it can happen to a greater or a lesser extent. In the middle-late stage of the creative process, the expressive resources can be narrowed down, while still keeping the richness of the interaction that has been achieved. However, the most weighty quality within this kind of interaction is when the group is connected as a whole, in its own way, and functions as a unity, which at the same time consists of individual performers. As Laura Suárez states, “[the group expression is] a confirmation of how we manifest ourselves as humans. Even if you create something by yourself, you need to connect to someone else”. This is why this component needs such a big focus in the creative process. 

-Interaction between performers and public:

The public perceives both kinds of interaction (both within and between discipline). The specific means that performers within each discipline employ to interact with each other comes through different channels to the final receiver. Generally, musicians communicate through sound, dancers through movement, and actors through spoken and body language. Mar López reflects on how the element of the public influences the creative process. She explains in the interview that the public is a separate element, and it is useful to regard it in this way. “Unless the targeted public is very specific, for me it is very important that the public doesn’t exist as a concrete part of the process, because otherwise I can’t convey what I want to express in an honest way. [...] [First] I have to find myself and the people who are working with me”. In her view, introducing the public is very related to how secure the process is. If the process is more experimental and less clear, “introducing the idea of the public can be very problematic” (López, interview). However, the moment the public is included in the process, the performance is highly enriched. Servos also refers to the manner in which Pina Bausch included the public in the process:


“As Pina Bausch described: ‘the things we discover by and for ourselves are the most essential ones’. [...] this ‘ourselves’ carries implicitly both the performers and the public. The process of experimenting, and of life, achieves the task of cleaning and expanding the sight to perceive what really arrives to us”.

Servos, 23

Therefore, we see two different approaches: separating the element of the public until a medium stage of the process, or including the public in the beginning of the process.


-Interaction with the venue:

Lastly, the venue is also interacting with all other elements. Although, compared to the public and performers, the venue is mostly passive, so it is not such a reciprocal process compared to the other three kinds of interaction. However, it plays a clear role in the performance in all instances as well as in the process in many cases. There are specific cases where the influence on the artistic expression is strong. The acoustics, for example, directly influence the way musicians and actors interact with space and convey their art. The material the floor is made of, eventual obstacles, big instruments, etc., influence a dancer’s performance. An awareness of this interaction can be achieved by actively exploring it before the performance and animating all the physical objects that compose a venue by actively including them. This observation contributes highly to deciding the disposition of the elements in the venue as well. 


  • Expressive components: intention, action and expression.

Expression has always been seen as an essential aspect of performance. The art is conveyed through expression. In case of an interdisciplinary performance, these expressions are transmitted through different mediums (sound and movement). However, it is significant to ask the broad question of how these expressions are conveyed, and where they originate. 

To answer this, we must observe that expression works closely with two other components: intention and action.


  • Intention:

Intention is simultaneous with action. Ideally, an intention is the reason for an action to happen, and the action conveys the intention when carried out properly. “This reason doesn’t need to be something profound or complex. Sometimes it can be obvious or simple, but asking why one carries out a specific action will change this action” (Suárez, interview). Understanding the reasoning behind the artistic choices made during a creative process leads to a stronger awareness of the intention behind those choices and thus brings coherence to the entire process. 
The relation between intention and action can happen in two ways: an intention can originate an action, and the questioning of an action can lead to an intention. Usually, a combination of both takes place, but it is useful to know these two approaches.


  • Action:

Actions refer to what is being done. The component can be applied to the three performing arts, which means that it includes body movements, spoken word, and played music. As with intention, actions can refer to more concrete situations that can directly express an emotion or image, but they can also be more abstract and less direct. 
Actions have to be shown clearly to convey compelling intentions and expressions. On one hand, this clarity is related to the action itself (how big or distinct the gesture is) and for how long it is happening. Many times, subtler actions require more time to be properly conveyed. According to Laura Suárez, this duration is necessary because the performer needs to open their senses and give attention to how they react to this action. She gives an illustrative example: 

“When carrying out an action, the body is open to perception. In case of touching the surface of a table [...], I will put all my attention to the senses [...]. By doing this, the action is enhanced, and the public sees more than just a person touching a table.” (Suárez, interview)

Most of the time, actions become more specific further on in the process, as can be seen in the description of my master project. Sometimes, the duration of the actions can be reduced if the performer has gone through the mentioned process. It is a delicate decision, as there are several factors involved. According to the conclusions drawn from the interview with Laura Suárez, the performer’s perception is highly relevant when making this decision.

There is also a strong connection between actions and interaction. When an action is carried out by one performer, it directly impacts the receivers. These receivers consist of the public and the other performer(s). Even the same performer who is carrying out the action is a receiver because they perceive their own action. The impact of the action on these receivers facilitates interaction. In the specific case of the interaction between performers and disciplines, different kinds of reactions can be observed. Looking at some of the free improvisation methods present in the three disciplines, one can view three main types of roles that constitute interaction: leading role, accompanying role, and contrasting role. These roles can be adapted for a general use, and not only for the case of improvisation. 

When an action is received by a performer, they have the option of accompanying it or contrasting it. These two choices enhance the interaction, dramaturgy, and all other expressive means, to convey a convincing performance. For a performer, knowing that these roles exist, opens up a vast number of ways to interact with each other. This can be seen in the accordion solo in ‘The Devil on the Dance Floor’, where Rosanna uses her movement to sometimes accompany the music and sometimes contrast it. Depending on how marked the performance is, each role may be more or less defined beforehand by the creators. In the case of classically trained musicians, when the music that is being used is fixed, these roles can be applied with the body language and not necessarily with the musical material.


  • Expression:

Expression is a variable component. It is always happening simultaneously with the other components. An action and intention result in an expression. This expression can be something concrete (an image) or abstract (emotion), or a combination of both. The expression generates an impression on the other performers, the public, and the performer who has carried out the action. An impression is what the senses perceive from an expression. They are key to see if the rest of the components are delivered as wanted. Therefore, it is essential to register these impressions constantly as an individual and as a group. In the interview, Laura Suárez expands on how the different levels of perception are fundamental to be aware of all the elements around oneself. She states three levels: self-perception, perception of the group, and perception of the space. 


Expressive components are one of the keys to spontaneity and/or authenticity in the outcome of the process. An approach to achieve this is that the focus should be on how the intention leads to action and results in an expression, thus generating the ground for spontaneity to happen. Both Laura Suárez (last question of the interview) and Mar López (6th question of the interview) defend the idea of “going through the process that generated that outcome”, rather than focusing only on the outcome itself. The Russian dramaturg and theorist Konstantin Stanislavski gives also an insight on this process: “The scenic creation consists of proposing big objectives and an action [...] to realise these objectives. If everything is followed properly, the result is created by itself. Many actors make the mistake of not thinking about the action, but about the result” (K. Stanislavski, “The Work of the Actor on Himself”, 173). The “objectives” that Stanislavski refers to are similar to the intentions of this framework. The dramaturg confirms the general difficulty of these components. Their main quality is that they happen simultaneously and require, in many cases, a trial-error approach.

  • Abstract components: concept, narrative, dramaturgical units, and structuring elements.


To summarise, the previously mentioned components build up a unique language (interaction) with words (actions) and intentions, which gives rise to images and/or emotions (expressions). This artistic language, influenced by the place where the performance happens (venue) and the ones receiving it, can now function quite well as a whole. Nevertheless, it is convenient to ask how to find an aspect that can influence the other components in its way and give them more cohesion. The most stable component present in the creation process and performance is the concept, alongside the narrative or structure, the structuring elements, and the dramaturgical units.

It is important to note that these stable components can be the origin of a creation but might also act alongside other components, or even appear later in the process.


  • Concept:

Every performance has an idea that influences the rest of the aspects in a creative process and in the final presentation. The concept of a performance can be very concrete: it can be a term, a situation, a story (my current project, for instance, has climate change as a concept). It can also be abstract: an action, an intention, an emotion, or even improvisation. 

In the case of Laura Suárez, “the concept appears quite early. It is what gives coherence to the image or the proposal” (Suárez, interview). However, it is important to note that this concept is not necessarily stable during the process. Many artists, like Suárez herself, are open to changes in the concept, especially when there is thorough work in aspects like the group expression. Bausch, who regarded this aspect as the seed of her performances, focused on creating “a theatre which does not invoke the cognitive qualities of the public, but its feelings” (Servos, 38). In these cases, the concept is malleable throughout the process. Mar López reflects on the different approaches to the concept in the first and third questions of her interview. In one performance that she created, for example, the concept had a heavy presence from the beginning and was researched in-depth before rehearsing.


  • Narrative or structure:

Narrative is a word that is mostly used to define a storyline or an event. In an interdisciplinary work, each discipline relates to narrative differently: the theatrical narrative is the one which has the most possibilities of telling a concrete story, while dance and music are more event-related, using levels of tension to narrate through aspects like emotion or structuring elements. Variation in the levels of tension, or dramaturgical line, usually defines this structure. The narrative is a way to frame the time according to what is happening in each moment of the performance. As Suárez says in the interview, “The structure shapes the artistic and aesthetic proposal” (Suárez, 5th question). It is up to the performers to decide how structured they want the narrative to be. It is significant to stress that the narrative does not necessarily have to relate to a concrete story, especially when it involves music or dance. Depending on the project and the artists, the approach to the structure can be strict (less dynamic throughout the process) or flexible (more dynamic).

Both Suárez and López have a flexible approach to the structure. “In my case, [the structure] appears gradually throughout the process” (Suárez, interview). For Mar López, “the order of the scenes is based on different options: they can be how the body feels about this specific order, or how these proposals contrast each other [...]. Another important factor in this structure that helps a lot is my idea of how it begins and how it ends” (López, interview). As happens with the concept, the structure, even if it is flexible during the process, is stable during the performance.


  • Dramaturgical units:

Dramaturgical units are similar to scenes in theatre, except that the term also encompasses dance and music. They can be triggered by an action, intention, a text, a piece of music, a movement, etc., and eventually, they include more components. For example, using a specific piece of music as a unit can activate specific emotions, which originates actions or movements. The term “unit” is used by Stanislavski in “An Actor’s Work. An Actor Prepares” and could be briefly described as “the division of a performance in its units, to study its structure” (K. Stanislavski, “An Actor Prepares” 99). In this section, we examine Stanislavski’s use of the term, as well as Suárez’s approach to the matter.

At the beginning of a creative process, dramaturgical units are one of the most practical components to work on. For instance, framing an improvisation on a dramaturgical unit will bring a lot of ideas to the surface, which can be used to be developed further. The reason to choose certain material can be intuitive or based on how it relates to other components. 
During the first part of the process (the improvisation), the performers need to liberate themselves from filters and surrender to each other. The second part has two perspectives that can be combined. One would be to register the emotions, images, or thoughts that arose during the session in the purest way possible. One of the techniques for this, used by director Laura Suárez, is automatic writing, which has to be done right after the session in complete silence, without interacting with the other performers. After finishing, the performers share their writings with each other. This gives a notion of which expressions have arisen during the improvisation. Generally, if there has been a connection and interaction in the process, the writings create a sort of collective subjectivity, where each individual gives their own interpretation of the group expression. Alongside this perspective, a more analytical view can be utilised. This would be to observe the components that arise and see which results can be useful to develop further. The decision can be rationally or intuitively justified. According to Laura Suárez, a dramaturgical unit “can be based on a small development you want to transmit, an emotion you want to convey, or a state [...], that will influence the rhythm and narrative of the performance directly” (Suárez, interview). 

When working with a more theatrical approach, dramaturgical units “always contain conflict. Conflict generates the theatrical quality. It is a clash that has to be solved.” (Suárez, interview). This conflict is related to the intentions of each performer, or in the words of Stanislavski, “the objectives”. “Each objective is an organic part of the unit, or vice versa: the objective creates the unit that encompasses it” (Stanislavski, 99). What Stanislavski’s book and Laura Suárez’s interview refer to is the deeper sense of the concept of conflict. It refers to the intention of each performer, the “inner life” of them, and how this eventually clashes with the other performers. Stanislavski (Stanislavski, 100). An intention (or Stanislavskian “objective”) does not need specific characters or lines, but rather “something that happens, a core, that has to be solved”.


  • Structuring elements:

Structuring elements can be seen as sub-concepts, elements that are more specific than the concept and which help influence other components in a more concrete way. In some cases, the concept itself can also be included in the structuring elements, like the devil and the angel in ‘The Devil on the Dance Floor’. The quality of these elements can be adapted to the specific features of each component. Some examples of these influences that are worth mentioning are:


Shaping a narrative according to structuring elements that are related to the concept can facilitate an organic development of the dramaturgical line. This influence can be very obvious or it can act as a colouring of the existing narrative. Both examples can be found in the practical section of the research. In ‘The Devil on the Dance Floor’, the images of the devil and the angel are used for increasing and decreasing the tension respectively. In my current project, on the other hand, the influence of the elements in the structure does not affect the levels of tension to the same extent as the previous example.

-Dramaturgical units, expressive components and interaction:

Structuring elements influence these components in diverse ways. They can shape the frame of a dramaturgical unit and it can define the quality of the actions and intentions of the performers. Different elements can be ‘assigned’ to different performers, creating, in theatre terms, different characters. These elements originate intentions and actions, and also shape the interaction. As happens with the rest of the components, the elements can be distinct or blurry, depending on the level of concreteness or abstraction that the group wants to convey.


The structuring elements may affect the placing of the spatial elements and how they develop during the performance. They help lay the ground for other components to flourish in a cohesive way. Interaction, intention and actions will therefore be affected by where the performers and the public are placed.

Relation between components in a creative process and the Deleuzian rhizome.


Two key ideas to understand any creative process in general, and interdisciplinary collaborations in particular, are the possible starting points in the process and the relation between components. On one hand, the starting point can be focused on one or several components simultaneously. When the performance is experimental, like the works I have participated in, the starting points involved unstable or expressive components early in the process. On the other hand, working on one component immediately brings others to the surface, because they are all closely related to each other. Therefore, at an early-medium stage of the creation process, it is useful to start observing how the component that is being worked on suggests other components that have a different degree of stability. For example, an ensemble that has started focusing on the interaction for a few rehearsals might find it practical to find how this interaction  relates to a specific concept. Even if the concept is already thought-out, interaction needs to be forged in its own way. To sum up, the concept is generally thought out, while interaction is mostly worked out in practice. 

When the process crystallises in a performance, the intention is that all components function as a unity, but this unity is composed jointly by a multiplicity of components that have their own behaviour. Moreover, it is interesting to point out that there is a parallel model in contemporary philosophy that uses a similar concept to describe, in this case, the notion of knowledge in a non-hierarchical way. In their work ‘A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia’, authors Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari introduce the term ‘rhizome’, a clear image to describe how knowledge expands horizontally. A rhizome has no center and it confronts the dichotomies of thoughts that are traditional in our society (positive-negative, valid-invalid). This resembles by and large the presented map of components, and the principles of the rhizome can ultimately be related to quite an extent to creative processes.

  • The Rhizome principles and the parallelism with the map of components:

The principles of the rhizome outline the concept in six points. These points describe any rhizomatic structure, like power or political relations, ideologies, knowledge, social behaviour, or the arts. In the case of this research, a further elaboration will follow each principle to explain briefly how they can be interpreted in the framework of an interdisciplinary performance. Given that the performing arts directly involve some of the mentioned structures, especially social relations and interactions, knowledge, and arts, it is well-grounded enough to state that an interdisciplinary performance that is thought out non-hierarchically will also act like a rhizome. 


  • ‘1 and 2. Principles of connection and heterogeneity: any point of a rhizome can be connected to any other, and must be. This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point, fixes an order.’

Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 7

This summarises one of the initial conclusions from working in projects like ‘The Devil on the Dance Floor’ and the experience with director Laura Suárez and dancer Rosanna ter Steege. The components (the points of the rhizome) always influence each other. They work together and they are non-hierarchical. They have different behaviours, roles and hence require different artistic treatment, but no component is more important than the other. 

  • ‘3. Principle of multiplicity: it is only when the multiple is effectively treated as a substantive, "multiplicity," that it ceases to have any relation to the One as subject or object, natural or spiritual reality, image and world.’

(Deleuze and Guattari, 8)

There is no center in an interdisciplinary creation. Although the process and the result can be organised around fewer components, what is delivered is a unity composed of multiple components, which at the same time are complex structures by themselves. Multiplicity is a widely used term in Deleuze’s philosophy, and a rather complicated one according to readers. The entry in has a condensed definition of the term:

‘A multiplicity is, in the most basic sense, a complex structure that does not reference a prior unity. Multiplicities are not parts of a greater whole that have been fragmented, and they cannot be considered manifold expressions of a single concept or transcendent unity.’ 

(Jonathan Roffe: ‘The Deleuze Dictionary: Multiplicity’, from Accessed 21-11-2020)

According to many people in and outside the art world, the concept is what defines the performance. However, knowing the complexity that the idea of multiplicity conveys, it is legitimate to ask to what extent a performance is repeated exactly the same every time it is interpreted. If we look at each one of the mentioned ‘structures’ (the components), it is evident that they are always behaving differently, and the resulting combination never happens twice. Therefore, each performance is a distinct performance, because each time the result is unalike.

  • ‘4. Principle of asignifying rupture: a rhizome may be broken, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines.’

(Deleuze and Guattari, 12)

Changing or removing one or several components results in a new or different performance. Together with the principle of multiplicity, it supports the idea that a performance can never be repeated the same. The case of removing components is quite rare, but their modification is common (shortening of the structure due to practical reasons, changes in the stage and public elements, etc.). 

  • 5 and 6. Principle of cartography and decalcomania: a rhizome is not amenable to any structural or generative model. It is a stranger to any idea of genetic axis or deep structure. [...] The rhizome is altogether different, a map and not a tracing. Make a map, not a tracing. [...] The map is open and connectable in all of its dimensions; it is reachable, reversible, susceptible to constant modification’

(Deleuze and Guattari, 12)

Three assumptions can be made from here. The first one supports the idea that any starting point in a creative process is valid. As the authors state, ‘Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of the rhizome is that it always has multiple entryways’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 12). The second assumption is that all components are constantly in contact, even when the process is advanced. They feed each other and become gradually more cohesive. ‘The orchid does not reproduce  the tracing of the wasp; it forms a map with the wasp’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 12). The third assumption is that the inclusion of other forms of art (light design, costume design) will act as another component that will influence all others. The map ‘can be torn, reversed, adapted to any kind of mounting, reworked by any individual, group, or social formation’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 12).



For someone who has recently started experimenting in the field of interdisciplinary performances, like me, learning about the distinctions between the components has been a great help to enrich their presence in my artistic practice, and achieve an organic and honest result in the project I am working on.

It is important to note that there are two seemingly contradictory notions about the relation between components throughout the theoretical framework of the research. Firstly, components are inevitably connected with each other. At the same time, to work on one component one needs to ‘isolate’ it. How can these two ideas work together?

The key to understanding this apparent incongruity is through the use of different mindsets during the rehearsal. Using a flexible approach when experimenting with components that involve more instability enhances their dynamism, and widens the palette of resources that can be used to be developed further. This contributes to shaping a strong component. For example, Mar López reflects in the interview about the specific case of the public, but it can be applied to the process in general: “These different approaches are very important for the creator. The creator has to decide when to focus on these components, [and] when to widen the scope [...]”.

In an advanced stage of the process, going back to isolate components might prove unnecessary, due to the complexity that has been achieved. At this moment, the connection between the components is quite strong. Nevertheless, the possibility to go back to fewer components is not completely rejected. Being absolute about it and ruling out the possibility of focusing on other aspects might negatively interfere in the creative process. Therefore, to stay consistent with the main idea of the research, all possibilities need to remain open to try out if required.

Lastly, experimentation works incredibly well when the group energy is respectful and non-judgemental. It is important to try as much as possible, in order to have as many options at hand and work on the next stage of the process. Rosanna, reflecting on her experience with musicians, states that “It’s all about creating safe space and respecting each other. When this is there on an interdisciplinary level it brings something new” (Appendix 1: Insights from Rosanna).