ACTION
Performed/staged actions and gestures
On the tram to the railway station of Gent-Sint-Pieters: Breg to Siebren: ‘I’m reading the book written by sociologist Pascal Gielen about the commons…it’s really interesting! I plan to read further on the airplane.’
Siebren to Breg: ‘I plan to sleep a bit on the airplane. Let me know what kind of inspiring ideas they are reflecting on. I’m reading the book ‘Gestures of participatory art’ by theatre scholar Sruti Bala.
Flight Brussels - Vilnius
The arrival in Vilnius is quite foggy.
Siebren and Breg leave the bus at the stop with the name ‘Sparta’ and walk in the direction of the historical city centre.
They lunch at restaurant Freunde. Just after the first rond at the buffet table a conversation starts about the work of TAAT, with a focus on the architectural dramaturgy in relation to the performative potential of space in creating encounters.
Breg: ‘I’m not sure if the concept ‘encounter’ is still the right way to describe what the space in our work facilitates. There is a bulk of philosophical literature about ‘encounters’, which would be interesting to dive into.’
Siebren: ‘Is building relations a better way to describe the embodied experience during the performances?’
Breg: ‘We think more and more about the concept ‘shareability’ as the core concept to describe our work, as we talked about a couple of weeks ago (at the Vooruit Gent).’
Siebren: ‘I've read that you describe the dramaturgy of TAAT as ‘architectural dramaturgy’. How do you look at the concept of ‘spatial dramaturgy’?’
Arrival Gert-Jan
After a walk they decide to meet for dinner later. Gert-Jan and Breg go to their shared appartment and Siebren to the Ecohotel, which is nearby.
Breg and Gert-Jan catch up on eachother and - as usual - switch quite easily to the schedule of the day. Some common questions that arise: What do we want to get out of this 2-day workshop? What is the envolvement of the partner organisations and how do we see this in the future? What does it mean to be here? How does HALL07 in Akniste and Riga (2019) inform what we are doing here?
Gert-Jan: I did some research in the peet-blocks, and prepared a sponsorship proposal for the peet-company we want to work with next august. Allthough I'm starting to have strong doubts about using the peet, as we're supporting the industry behind that unresponsabily exploits these natural resources.
Breg: I agree. The only reason for me to keep using peet in the future is to consciously saveguard at least a part of the material - that would anyway have been exported to Germany as a fuel product for agriculture. what we actualluy 're-contribute' to the forest where we use the material is more interesting to me.
Dinner
Gert-Jan, Breg & Siebren arrive at a restaurant in the city centre which serves traditional Lithuanian food. First we order an appetizer, and start to talking – immediately Gert-Jan starts to ask questions to Siebren (It’s the first time they meet each other): Why did you decided to choose TAAT as a case in your research? What is for you peculiarly interesting about TAAT? Did you experienced a TAAT HALL? How did you experienced our work? What do you want to scrutinize in the work of TAAT? How do you see your own role during the coming days?
After the meal the three of them decide to go back to their accommodation.
LIVE ARCHIVE FOOTAGE
Footage printed directly from http://www.taat-projects.com.s3-website.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/
REFLECTIVE NOTES
Questioning/thinking on meaningful and critical moments
The book ‘Commonism. A New Aesthetic of the Real’ by Nico Dockx and Pascal Gielen (2018) looks interesting to explore further the concept of ‘commoning’, in relation to the work of TAAT. Especially because Breg is so inspired by the thoughts in the book. (S.N.)
’Encounter’ is described as the essence of theatre, see the first sentence in the book ‘The Empty Space’ of Peter Brook (1996: 6). But what does ‘encounter’ mean in a philosophical way? Encounter is a core concept in the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. He describes the face of the Other as the encounter with ‘alterity’, crossing the known and the unknown. Does this resonate with the aesthetic experience? (S.N.)
From an environmental psychological point of view (Peponis, 1985 in Bechtel & Churcham, 2002: 280) encounter is a set of networks, representing the interactions of individual people at different frequency intervals. According to the sociologist Max Weber, an action is 'social' if ‘the acting individual takes account of the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course’ (Weber, 1968:4). Mutual social actions between people are the base to build social relations. Art historian Dorothea von Hantelmann (2015: 57), states that a performance create a social, but also a spatial and temporal relationship between individuals. But what about non-human materiality, can we include objects as equal actors in the meaning- making network? (S.N.)
Does shareability works as a common value to describe the dramaturgy and the ambiguities in the work of TAAT? (S.N.)
Can we talk about the ‘dramaturgical process(es)’ instead of the dramaturgy in the work of TAAT? Then it’s more about creating a context (cf. ‘the dramaturgical’ by Myriam Van Imschoot), where anybody can bring something in, or give feedback. This relates with the concept of shareability as ‘relationality’ and ‘plurality’. (S.N.)
What are the implications to develop a dramaturgical process based on ‘shareability’? Are there necessary conditions to (co-)create a shared dramaturgical context which is inherently open and collaborative? (Note by Siebren)
What is my position during the workshop the coming days? As a researcher in social sciences (i.e. reflexive work by observing their practice)? As a trainee, doing a dramaturgical internship (with TAAT)? As a student in Performing Arts and Media Studies? As a participant? (S.N.)
EXTRACTION
What are the revealing threads, connections and relationships?
Reading performativity in the work of TAAT as building relations on a social, temporal and spatial level, both ‘in actu’ (i.e. performed and staged actions/gestures) and ‘in situ’ (situational dramaturgy; in casu the Pakrantė community garden). (S.N.)
Every encounter is a possibilty for a personal redefinition of your relationschip with an Other. We use the performativity of space to create a higher awareness of this relationship and its reciprocal potential. The practice develops as a process of encounters happening in a range of contexts, based on an attitude of openess, generosity and equality in exploring 'spaces for the unknown'. The encounter with Siebren was meaninfull as it unfolded in sharing this common attitude. (B.H.)
Scrutinizing the conditions to (co-)create a shared dramaturgical context which is inherently open and collaborative? (S.N.)
The way we interacted since the first day we met each other is part of an ongoing dialogue. ‘Dialogics’ is a concept that has been coined by philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bachtin, in which he points to a mutual exchange between at least two 'actors' (or people). A dialogical exchange is not goal-oriented and does not necessary lead to a final result or consensus. Richard Sennett describes the latter as a ‘dialectic exchange’, which he contrasts with a ‘dialogical exchange’. Dialectical exchange is based on opposition focused on synthesis (as the final result). Although people do not necessarily agree among themselves, one can become more aware of their own positions and perspectives through a dialogical exchange. This can also increase mutual understanding and opening the conversation. This fundamental open character of dialogical exchanges is important in each co-creation process, as the thriving force in a relational and open dramaturgical process. (S.N.)
The recognition of intersubjectivity - mentaly and bodily - is a necessary condition to conduct (artistic) research. It makes space for equality in both an individual and a collective knowledge production. We expand this intersubjectivity from an individual to a collective and an environmental scale by moving the practice from 'enclosed spaces' towards natural environments. This 'research-by-practice' contributes to a post-anthropocentric worldview by developing a relational/enviromental dramaturgy that instrumentalizes 'encounter' as a building block on a micro level. (B.H.)
I observe 5 relevant 'movements'
1. The encounter between TAAT and Siebren
2. The questioning of the concept of 'encounter' (on both a philosophical, social and dramaturgical level)
3. The discussion about Siebren's position within the workshop
4. The idea of 'commoning' and 'share-abolity'. (GJ)
5. The introduction of academic 'references' as 'actors' on the TAAT 'stage'