The organizers of Lab 4 encouraged the workshop leaders to combine theoretical and practical workshop elements. (See Meta-Methodology above for details.) This resulted in multiple ways for the participants to collaborate and communicate.
Here are some comments of workshop leaders regarding Collaboration and Communication, which show the diversity of reflection of the workshop leaders, but also reveal some common tendencies:
Bhagwati: Theory-guided listening is essential while responding sonically to both sounds and social constellations in the room and outside.
Blume: I’m not sure if there is a specific “style” of communication. The session starts probably in a classical way, me talking and the participants listening. But there was then a place for Q&A, to give some feedback. The listening exercise part was definitely in another style, probably more “free”, wherein the participants should participate much more.
Sakina: Unfortunately, Kurdish music and language have been subject to a very intensive policy of assimilation for a long time. Therefore, their written or recorded resources are very limited. Kurdish songs are often the only sources we can rely on. I tried to benefit from the songs and the limited number of field studies on Kurdish music. Unfortunately, due to the lack of sufficient material, we focused on viewing and commenting on videos from a few regions that could provide a practical example of traditional chanting. The tradition of Dengbej is an important source that I rely on, for it presents the most vivid examples of historical narration through music. Once again, I saw this very clearly: music is not only music for the Kurds, but also a very important area that ensures the survival of a memory, culture and language.
Kislal: I really liked the composition of the attendees, who were professors, students and artists. So I saw there the possibility for conversations between different perspectives, different point of views in small groups. After reading them my letter “the questioning the state of right now and before”, the attendees of the workshop were asked to come together in smaller groups (4-5 persons) to discuss what they had heard. They were asked to choose whether to take some of the topics which they were interested in and discuss the answers for the questions with their expertise in Art/institutions/collectives/processes, or to ask new questions which are relevant for their jobs/works. That gave every of them to get involved with questioning the “reality/norms”.
Maria Do Mar: I prepared a lecture with lots of examples from the cultural world and combined it with elements of small group work that allowed the participants to translate ad hoc what they had just heard into their own context.
Erdödi: In my workshops I work with a non-hierarchic, eye-level approach to communication and collaboration, always ensuring that there is a possibility to ask questions, and creating space and time for peer-to-peer work in pairs or smaller groups (see above), with situational exercises that help transmit my initial impulse/lecture. Although practice-based, it would remain abstract and theoretical without these hands-on situations that everyone can experience and experiment with.