Considering that we already sank.
Considering that we have not much left in reserve.
Considering our cognitive and sensitive alterations due to massive datafication.
Considering we are tragically dizzy.
Considering that we are dramatically and continuously human.
Considering that we might accelerate. Or slow down. Or both. Simultaneously.
Considering that time has come to compete with Silicon Valley tales.
Considering survivalism as the last avatar of the contemporary anxiety that stems from the free and privileged contemplation of our collective disaster.
Considering the suspicion towards the convinced affirmative linearity of manifestos, that leads us to consider that these considerings should be performed randomly, simultaneously and in a hesitating loop.
Considering emptying, minding gaps and flying lines at the same time.
Considering that our current state of crisis can be better understood as a long, illusionary and degenerative sickness.
Considering Le Malade Imaginaire.
Considering it may all have been one long fucking farce.

(Breath)

Considering the breathed (and stolen) speech and the closure of representation.
Considering Bernard Stiegler's notion of neganthropos and the way it opens up the question of another apprehension of the entropic and negentropic processes, from a perspective of human agency.
Considering the last two decades' process of acknowledgment of the now-famous Anthropocene and considering the impact of the latter on scenic thinking, the collision hereby producing, after Una Chaudhuri, the term of anthroposcene with an ‘s’.

Considering both the term anthroposcene and neganthropy, we suggest speculating on the word neganthroposcenic.
Considering that neganthroposcenic thinking is articulated with the revision of urgent needs to consider time ecology, we suggest associating the idea of neganthroposcenic with the notion of kronotopia.
Considering that Kronos is the divine descendant of Uranus the sky, and Gaia the earth. But considering also that Kronos is the planet of the Klingons, the extraterrestrial humanoid warrior species in the science fiction franchise Star Trek.
Considering Foucault's Heterotopias, even though doubting theatre to be still a heterotopia, according to the Foucauldian assumption, if maintained within its spatially and temporally representational logic.
Considering that we like contemporary witches' idea of sympoetics and wonder what it does to theatre and architecture.
Considering with Hamlet that “the time is out of joint”,
Considering Schrödinger’s furry pet.
Considering with the three sisters that “We're living in this sort of climate where without any warning it starts to snow, but still everyone talks and talks…”.
Considering with Titania that “this bad weather and these bad moods the seasons have started to change. Cold frosts spread over the red roses, and the icy winter wears a crown of sweet summer flowers as some sick joke. Spring, summer, fertile autumn and angry winter have all changed places, and now the confused world doesn’t know which is which. And this is all because of our argument. We are responsible for this.”
Considering, with Elizabeth Grosz, that matter and life transform and become transformed.
Considering with Clov “zero and zero and zero”.
Considering that Elvis’ ghost has surreptitiously re-entered the building.

(Breath)

Considering the needed defamiliarising and even the desynchronizing of anthropocentric time – as a time that moves punctually and with a definite telos insight – and considering a newly expanded field of temporality full of not only co-presences, but co-absences, nonsensuous flows and affecting specters.
Considering the simultaneity of the here and the elsewhere, of the now and the else-when, confronted with an apparent stage that imposes itself on our senses, but which is also, tellingly absent, gone in temporal slippage, simultaneously vanished and diffracted.
Considering the here and the elsewhere, and the now and the else-when, as opening multiple ontologies of the object.
Considering a revision of theatrical temporality that would pay attention to the messed up and enmeshed temporalities of the Anthropocene, to promiscuous and anarchic heterochrony, a time, that is, of weather.
Considering the need for a response before the revival of the fetishisation of the present, presence, and presentness. Thus considering suspicion towards the mindfulness and yoga business.
Considering outsides, hence temporal definitions in regard to spatial traditions.
Considering the abandonment of the desperate ontologically oriented attempt to recover the instant, to inhabit the present, to intensify our presence in order to repair the prehistoric and contemporary increasing feeling of lagging behind a time which would supposedly fly.
Considering Giorgio Agamben’s secret rendez-vous between the archaic and the modern and that the path to the present has the form of an archaeology.
Considering the double symptom: 1. of the depressing history of the recurrent ideology of fixing the human incapacity to be in the present, and 2. of the stubborn western theatre’s mainstream belief to proclaim itself the aesthetic vehicle to organise and produce this epiphanic reparation.
Considering that the direction of time has changed. That we have to dismiss a.s.a.p. chronology and linearity from their modern, scientifically and poetically proven, given their noxious effects.
Considering that utopia ceased to be operative long before we chose to generalise predictive algorithms.
Considering travels in multiverses and multidimensional constellations.
Considering how this revised approach of time, when the future might turn itself into a transformative power for the staging of its own way to access, affects the re-routing of our art practices and the re-visions of our discourses on performance.
Considering that pre-existing communicational stages and traditional representational patterns might be out-of-date to convey a passage to the future.
Considering we could come back to the presents in which we have never been.
Considering how much predictions, such as the forecast of the planetary ecological catastrophe or the countdown to the ‘Sixth Extinction’, is putting a demand on those known stages to transmute in order to sustain themselves as experiential platforms for accessibility to the future.
Considering that architecture is always differed, deferred.
Considering heterochrony; that is to say considering the destabilization of the chrono-logic of the production and the organization of theatre works.
Considering multitemporality; that is to say considering experimenting with new theatrical arrangements in order to develop a spectatorial sensitivity to the simultaneity of manifold temporalities on and around a chosen ‘stage’ or ‘event’.
Considering idiorrythmie; that is to say considering the potentialities of a relational reorganisation in between the stage and the spectators out of the conventional framed time of the theatrical representation. And considering that this reorganization is based on a long-term iterative process of encounter through fractal and protean narratives.
Considering situated knowledge, network thinking, chrono-homogeneity, alter-theatricality, and queer temporalities.
Considering architecture used to be what would always remain.
Considering winds and vulnerabilities.

(Breath)

Considering, in the chicken-and-egg situation, that architecture may have engendered man, and not the other way around.
Considering that theatre is maintained within the idea of being a technique for letting a stage appear as an interface; an interface or a transactional zone that should facilitate a certain, even blurry, always elusive, way to access to the complexity of the world.
Considering architecture and theatre have all the reasons to collaborate when it comes to building a world that does not collapse in the next two minutes.
Considering how theatre and architecture have intersected so far, that is to say considering how architects have designed performance spaces for directors or cities. And how directors have been inspired, metaphorically as well as scenographically by architectural constructive praxis.
Considering that we are beyond architectured drama and dramatic architecture. That is to say, considering a revised dialogue between theatre and architecture, directors and architects, on a non-building, non-dramatic and non-composing agreement.
Considering that scenography has drifted from a technique of realisation of decors to a speculative praxis for the emergence of stage-events.
Considering the architectural and theatrical turn from the pyramidal organization of spaces to the labyrinthine way of accessing times.
Considering the good old Theatrum Mundi. That is to say that the world is a stage and the stage is the world and the world is a stage... but considering also that this has to be reconsidered and radically updated, since we know that the world has already ended, and subsequently the possibility of theatre might demand a revision of its means to access these worlds in the reworlding.
Considering that researchers Lewis and Maslin have dated the origin of the Anthroposcene in 1610 and that Shakespeare supposedly wrote his play The Tempest in the same year. Therefore considering The Tempest to be the first anthroposcenic drama. With a long ancient Greek tragic prologue and a few interludes of Basque pastorals.
Considering also that architecture was definitely diluted, here in Venice in 1978, becoming purely performative.
Considering that we have long been in a post-architectural condition.
Considering that we split! We split! We split!
Considering that theatre might have reached its ultimate post-anthropocentric phase but considering at the same time that theatre might maintain itself as a specifically human technique of distancing for allowing accessibility, on the brink of collapse within a radical demand on earthly ones’ equalization.
Considering, with Manfredo Tafuri, that architecture has already renounced the formation of objects to become a technique of organization of pre-formed materials, that asks for authentication from outside architecture, as early as during the 18th century.
Considering that theatre might sustain itself as politics, and therefore ethics, of perception. And considering our interest in opening those notions as, after Tuija Kokkonen, chrono-politics and, henceforth, as chrono-ethics.
Considering the hypothesis to release theatre from its conventional temporal frame determined by the human-scaled linear conception of time. That is to say considering that theatre might not depend on the obligation of the now of the here, but rather be thought and implemented as scattered, always else-when.
Considering, with Hans Hollein, “Alles ist Architektur” and that the Architektur consists of the determination of the environment.
Considering that in French the word “scène” means both scene and stage. And considering also, since we consider polysemantics, that the word “temps” in French means both time and weather.
Considering the emphasis on performative aspects of theatre and architecture over representational ones.
Considering that the emergence of a stage might not be dependent any longer on representation and reflexion, let's say on mimetism.
Considering that theatre might not be sustained by mimesis if we understand mimesis as specularity; but considering that it might be possible though to think mimesis otherwise after we sank, maybe as a radical alteration and process of diffraction.
Thus considering that architecture is relieved from its traditional definition as being solely the art of building, in the manner that theatre is relieved from mimesis.
Considering that theatre might still consider Shakespeare, Chekhov, Brecht, and Beckett. And many others. But considering too that this legacy might be way too white and gendered to be seriously considered.
Considering that we might need to drift far away from the authority of anthropo-logo-phono-phalo-centrism.
Considering that, whenever architecture has dealt with theatre, it has altered theatre less than it has retroactively transformed itself.
Considering Gertrud Stein and Landscape Plays.
Considering the death of the character.
Considering that architecture is in a pretty bad state.
Considering the post post-dramatic theatre... that is to say reconsidering drama but beyond human scale and history, and thus considering that the notion of hyperdrama might be useful.
Considering the unseen, that might be spelled the un-scene.
Considering time as the main, polyphonic, multivocal, plurifocal, protagonist.
Considering letting go of the ecumenical community of spectators and to grow instead of the idea of a spectator’s idiorrythmic and contingent assemblage.
Considering that technomultiversal expanding territories must be linked to a human augmented body through a renewed scenic thinking that produces queer imaginaries.
Considering that theatre doesn’t describe or reproduce this world which is already past, but the world to come which is already now.
Considering a theatre of forking stages.

(Breath)

Considering what might scenically collapse, persist, expand, and emerge.
Considering theatre can teach architecture how to design not for the future, but for incompossible presents.
Considering that deep stage can be the site where these incompossible presents could resist destruction.
Considering that things are not going to be better in a better world but rather considering the need to invent survival kits, and among them scenic imaginaries, to mutate within unavoidable toxicity.
Considering oceans' unknown scenic potentialities, as much as intergalactic xenotragedies.
Considering that deep space has possibly more to do with the void between celestial bodies than with the physical depth experienced in our daily life.
Considering that a stage is an open horizon (of awaiting). With less perspective and way more scales than is possible to grasp by the conventional stage. And considering that the new stage might be produced by the weakening of, the impossibility to, and the failing to grasp the scales beyond.
Considering the multiple ways to rethink space through relations of proximity, and local transmission of effects.
Considering that the stage has been amplified to the more than human actor's network and considering an expansion of the theory towards a spectator's network.
Considering the shift from the stage considered as center towards the emergence of the practice of a stage considered as middle.
Considering de-hierarchisation.
Considering that the theatre director has to become an attentive and modest reshuffler of agencies and attentions, a facilitator of the scenic experience produced by an invitation to spectate in medias res.
Considering that, contrary to what Bernard Tschumi writes, the architect is a translator and a critic and a revolutionary. And let’s add to that, an enabler.
Considering that this reshuffling is opposed to the aesthetic control of the mono-focal organization and production of a centripetal stage and considering that this shift demands a necessarily partial suspension of directing as knowing.
Considering that architecture cannot produce the event, but merely finds stratagems not to prevent it.
Considering that this reshuffling of agencies and attentions implies a particular care to the desalination of theatre’s control over its own temporal conventions, established, so far, to reinforce, according to the Western conception of a unitary, linear, chronological notion of time, the human-centered and specular, and spectacular, stage, ecologically unbalanced, and no longer accounting for a world in urgent need of redistribution of agency.
Considering that this double, linked, change of paradigm from stage-center to stage-middle, and from director to reshuffler, does and does not imply the death of the theatre, that is to say that it might open up the possibility of a mutation – which implies the letting go of an obsolete paradigm - of this, as Carl Lavery writes, “humanistic art par excellence” that is theatre, towards a post-humanist art which should not be dehumanised but rather inviting humans to the non-representational experience of their own necessary repositioning within this ecological necessity of global rebalancing.
Considering emergence in a world populated with homogenous computational agents.
Considering the need to escape reductionism and refuse pure emergence, in regard to the fundamentally heterogeneous nature of material agents.
Considering therefore neganthroposcenic kronotopias as potentialities of the emergence of occasions of experience of those stages-middles, appearing and disappearing at the intersection, synchronic and diachronic, simultaneous and deferred, of the manifold human and other-than-human times, temporalities, rhythms, tempi.
And considering them as coming under the ethical demand to rethink from a neo-scenic perspective on the Anthropocene the human repositioning as a move within the inevitable, renewed, de-centered technocondition.

(Breath)

Considering that we are contemplating the idea of a deep stage, as much as we are concerned by deep time.
Considering that, beyond Eisenman, architecture also departs from textuality and that deep structure differs from a linguistic approach and does not seek variation within invariance, but rather stems from contingency.
Considering that the deep stage is continuously and systematically scrutinizing the very relationships constituting time and theatre, also time in theatre, and according to questions concerning what it means to make theatre from an ecological perspective that includes an ecocritique of the term ecology itself.
Considering that the deep stage stems from a set of procedures to locally arrange complex concretions.
Considering man may not be the producer, the actor and the spectator of such a stage.
Considering that the deep stage might not be considering any more nature as the outside. Hence considering that the deep stage might have no more backdrop and no more backstage.
Considering the indefinite extension of the deep stage.
Considering that the deep stage is not theological nor teleological but an uncertain zone to embrace a certain ethical concern about environmental cataclysm, social instability, and economic aberrations.
Considering that the deep stage might be made of this process of change and emergence under the risk of collapsing.
Considering that the deep stage is rationally irrational and therefore reconsiders psychedelic and epigenetic mechanisms through its hospitality toward altered states of consciousness.
Considering that the deep stage might not be immediate.
Considering that deep stage eludes permanence.
Considering that the deep stage might provide different affordances of time and space in the simultaneous appearing and dissolving, that is to say considering a renewed ecology of perception at play.
Considering scenic narriteratives. That is to say iterative narratives. That is to say considering the never happening of the deep stage, but its multiple and fractal affordances through a complex transformative network of tracing displays.
Considering that the scale of deep stage is fluctuant, and emerges as an ephemeral entanglement.
Considering that the deep stage seeks to engage with other theatrical temporalities and to propose something that might be explored beyond ‘eco-dramaturgy’ and ‘landscape performance’.
Considering that the deep stage follows a dramaturgy that is not anymore indexed to textuality but to scenic thinking.
Considering architecture both as an event, i.e. what takes place on deep stage, and as the surface on which the event takes place, i.e. deep stage itself - the supersuperficie on which appears what is coming yet remains unknown.
Considering that the deep stage is concerned with how theatre might be able to provide another way of accessing establishing a reflection on its own temporal internal modes of operating. That is to say considering dividing time from itself and considering inviting the spectator to get lost in a vortex or a whirlwind of different temporalities.
Considering that the deep stage as a scenic frictional dialogue with superstructure, with big data-flow, with preemptive societies.
Considering that the deep stage's spectators might be spectral, relational, tangential, and potential.
Considering that theatre has to consider urgently technological mediation and condition, and therefore considering the deep stage to be a pluriversal zone of negotiation for our algorithm dependent lives.
Considering ether, viruses, and cellular automata.
Considering that the deep stage could be also named the hyperstage, superstage or archistage.
Considering that the deep stage might always be already glitching.
Considering that the deep stage engages with supersonic billions of communication protocols and superheavy oceanic tides.
Considering that the deep stage is digitised, holographic, organic, inorganic, and stellar.
Considering that the deep stage might not replicate but reiterate, that means constantly mutate.
Considering that deep stage contains the principle of its own impossibility, unless architecture is considered as the domain of administration of the growing complexity, across scales and fields, a cultural medium for everything and anything.
Considering that the deep stage might not be constructed, organized, produced and reproducible but rather might be emerging as an environmental, irregular, incoherent, sporadic and uncertain experience.
Considering deep stage to be an expansive apparatus for contingencies.
Considering that deep stage refuses a unified architectural definition.

(Breath)

Considering all this, we would like to invite you to join us to imagine, prototype and perform with us the deep stage.

Welcome.