SUBSCRIBE TO OUR MAILING LIST



home >

research portfolio

Zigzagging through space to discover the intimacy of relating

Screenshot 2021-02-17 at 12.03.05

a.pass post-graduate program portfolio in the form of a self-interview

+

appendix: polish website/archive of the research project (the website is in Polish, but references and content materials are in English)

 

 

Self-interview

 

What brought you to the research that you have been engaged with at a.pass?

 

First, I want to talk about movement practice; it is my base and the operational system. The movement practice has always been experiential and collaborative. It has grown through learning from and with others, listening to words, moving, formulating instructions, exploring their potentials, or teaching. It has always been working with the space in which it was happening and the materiality of the body and those beyond it. I have been exploring this practice as a practitioner– a mover. As such, a performer is always an agent and an observer of the performative. To perform one needs to be aware of the performativity that is already happening both within and beyond them. I’m interested in making the experience of the ‘performer’ available, for the audience; that is, to become an agent on the inside. Through the audience/performer’s relation to the textual material they are invited to activate the words through their participation. 

 

Second, I will tell you a story:

We sit together on a blanket. We are seven, but I say we are five. We are on the lawn in front of a 19th century gallery building that hosts the performance that you imagine you are taking part in. I say all five characters’ names and indicate, with each, to a specific person sitting on the blanket (I don’t know your real names). I say: we are at the beach, we are wearing bathing suits, one of us is topless. I say: there is a birthday cake in the middle of the blanket.  I describe how it looks with appetite: it has three layers, covered with whipped cream, and decorated with a few strawberries. I say: suddenly, we hear the noise. I say: we turn towards it. I say: we see a dog, a big one, hairy. I say: it is running towards us, fast. I say: it is very close. I say: it is hitting the cake, eating it, destroying it, and making a mess. I say: pieces of cake and drops of whipped cream are landing on our bodies. I say: we are looking at each other, we see our bathing suits and skin are filthy. I say: we are leaving to take a bath in the sea, to rinse the remains of the cake. I get up and leave the place. You follow. (A performative walk in summer 2018)

 

What were the questions you entered a.pass with, and what was their trajectory? 

 

My a.pass research proposal had three questions[*] which I was busy with throughout. But, from the very beginning, there was also an underlying inquiry that I’ve only recently named ‘the undercover project’. I find it more important than the questions posed in the application. ‘The undercover project’, though not proposed directly in my application, was the real motive to enter the a.pass research environment. I unfolded the project in the following questions: How can I engage in research questions not by building a construction (a product) based on elements that are accessible to me in the moment of posing the question, but by continually digging into the problems they evoke? Can I, through practice, dig into implicit relations and assumptions within my research? Can I at least for a while, or sometimes, suspend the connection of my practice to the product it might bring? Can I, instead, turn around to the field I want to explore and experiment within it? Not to repeat the representations but go into interactions with them? Exploring these possibilities is important for me for further functioning within the arts, for refreshing the sense of it, for negotiating with its demands. It was necessary to ask how I want to cultivate my base of the practice beyond, or better to say, under different the manifestations that it may take. 

Through the research process, I realized that my initial questions were attached to a particular imagination of a product and the context in which it could circulate. I wanted to reformulate my approach to working, to look for other possible openings of my practice. At the very end of a.pass, I realized I was unconsciously repeating the logic of production; using research as a means to produce something. Whilst, I don’t see it as necessarily wrong to use research outcomes for further production, in my case, the logic of production was keeping my research in a very narrow frame, thinking towards the future in terms of production was haunting me. Therefore, through a.pass I was able to build skills of resistance. The skills to make a space in which I could engage with research questions and share them in new ways. The booklet I am sharing through the end-presentations is the unperfect footprint of risking entering a different mode of questioning. It is the beginning.

 

What is your current research? 

 

The research materializes as written texts, which experiment with the form of the score—a choreographic tool. These scores are to be read by a reader on their own. They are written as scores (in its broadest sense), as tools that produce a specific situation, but rather than thinking of them as instructions, I propose to think of them as a literary form. A score as an instruction assumes a particular mode of attending and a set of abilities to enact it; to focus, to imagine, to act. As an instruction a score attributes value to doing. Here, I counter that attribution of value by opening possibilities of various ways of attending and propose to look at the performativity taking place in an intimate sphere activated through reading. I understand it as an interobjective[†] space created by a reader, a score, and an environment. The participant is invited to explore different ways of engaging with and interpreting the score. The reading of a text is a way of following this proposition and observing one’s attendance.  I called this kind of attendance ‘speculative doing’—observing, sensing, perceiving, and maybe imagining a further action, physical doing. 

 

A score is a structure for participation. What do you propose to participate in through these scores? 

 

The score directs its readers’ attention towards the relations within an environment of which they are part. In particular, I explore how we take part in the materiality of the environment as well as the relations we are already engaged in and have potential to engage with. Building upon observation and somatic experience, I explore environmental relations through navigating attention and developing fictions. This begins with observing our own perceptual and imaginative patterns  by turning our attention towards our embodiment and our surroundings. Exploring the relationality through one’s sensual nature puts subjectivity in the network of dynamic relations where human and non-human materiality cannot be sharply separated. It engages the images, beliefs, and scores of ‘being a person’ and asks how, as such, do we understand our participation in the environment[MOU1]. Fiction is implemented here as a speculative tool for practicing relationality, a tool to create affects—fictional spaces can, and often do, influence patterns of perception.

 

How do you use text to explore these modes of participation? 

 

The way of attending I am exploring and proposing demands effort. As William James said: ‘Only those items which I notice shape my mind—without selective interest, experience is an utter chaos.’[‡] To open up towards an experience of the material environment, I am looking for ways of giving attention to the possible mergers or dependencies between the bodies of participants and different materialities. An observation is an entry point, a practice to create attention. The research plays out in the area where we observe the grounds that we stand on; to give attention, ‘to excavate’ relations, processes, and influences we take part in, cause, or are submitted to.

 

If observation is a tool, what does it serve? Is observation a mindfulness meditation or an awareness exercise? Is your practice a form of human meditation within the earthy matter?

 

Observation is a tool for exploring the fantasmic minds—real or, at times, fictional sets of relationships that we are part of. It is a method to get acquainted with the unstable nature of fantasmic relations; their changeability, or even the transformation of the worlds known to us. To live with this transformation is to enter into collaboration with a process of decay, overcoming and transforming our own perceptual and existential limits or habits. The observation here (as opposed to how it functions in mindfulness) is not to experience ‘myself in the present’ but to direct the attention beyond the borders of my body, towards the other, our relation, dynamic of it, and the self, understood as being part of a bigger mind. Observation assumes the unknown (what is yet to come, what is excluded from perception) as potential and invites it to influence the known. 

 

As a presentation, you propose a booklet, an object to keep in hand, to read in your own space and timing. What kind of encounder do you propose?

 

Bridging the idea of reading with the participation implied in a score, entangles the readers body with the text in an intimate way. Attending to a conscious observation is a very personal and intimate engagement. I propose the exploration at this level to let this ‘close to yourself’ experience—the intimate—be influenced. To engage with observation is to explore how you, on this intimate level, are in, and develop, relations with others (human and non-human). How do you perceive and perform your participation within structures? What do you attend to? and what do you exclude yourself from? I was interested and inspired by the precarity of the proposed format and situation. Will the reader try to engage with the imagination within the text? or read across it briefly? Will they engage with the choreographic aspect and relate the text to the body?

On the other hand, I thought of it as the choreography of precarious times—’poor choreography’ or ‘poor people choreography’[§]. To create or participate in it, one doesn’t need any production machine, theater, scenography, or performers. One doesn’t need to buy tickets or even to go out. You can participate in it while being in lockdown, it is accessible wherever you need to be. These ‘poor’ conditions are interesting exactly because they activate a private space and a sense of public-ness within.

Observation and further speculation are ways to explore our position in the world’s material organization; in its systems and structures of power and control. A poet, Forrest Gander, talks about the ‘anti-spectacular’ potential of poetry which, using just words can focus attention for long hours and cause profound influence even in the context of the “resplendent visual world which often cannot focus attention on anything at all”[**]. I am looking for this kind of anti-spectacular potential of ‘written choreography’ operating on perceptions, senses, and imagination.

 

Attention and observation happen in time. Is time a theme in the research?

 

With this research, I reconsider what it means for a work to be time-based. The environment and the processes happening within it confront us with the passing of time. Different matters have different temporalities, temporal scales, and different dynamic registers of action. The ultimate reference and a tool to think with is, for me, geology, which brings us to the earth as the basic structure of our material being. Geological time teaches us about the constant movement of any and all matter, and it gives us a more-than-human perspective to time. 

 

I become troubled by thinking of the ‘nowness’ seemingly implicit in performance. ‘Being here and now’ is often the main category of performative practices. This ‘nowness’ is central to the somatic and improvisation practices that were formative for me and my work. Whilst I appreciate their methodologies—the ways in which they teach us how to give attention and how to be affected—they tend to give attention to an individual experience and place importance on what a subjective ‘I’ goes through. I have the impression that this approach to practices builds a community whose members develop a  sensibility for their own experience isolated in time and space. It creates a bubble of nowness that celebrates itself, that is, celebrates the individual, and does not create an idea of community with what is not immediately accessible, here and now. I try to work with elements of the somatic within an open-ended environment, in order to revisit individual or collective memories, create and share fiction, and re-observe the environment close to the body. Can we, with somatics, think of a body as something which is not determined by an ‘I’ and not limited to our materiality, but as an expanding entity in time and space? Can the performative act activate an embodied experience to explore an entity’s sensorial community of different matter and temporalities?

 

What would be the next step for this research?

 

I will keep on exploring writing. I want to work on a performative space where the intimacy of silent reading can perform in a public, social and collective space. I am thinking to collaborate with a visual artist to create a performative space where fiction-speculation is co-created by text, matter, words, and participants’ bodies.

 

 

[*] The central questions of the research proposal “Immersive speculation: choreography activating potentials” are: 

How can choreography be a form of speculation on environmental transformations?

How can this speculation address the actual environment in which it is happening?

How can the viewer with his/her presence be placed inside this speculation?

[†] Timothy Morton, Hyperobjects; as explained in chapter Interobjectivity; University of Minnesota Press; 2013; s.81-95

[‡] William James, ‘Attention’; in: F.R. David, AUTUMN 2020; uh books with KW Institute for Contemporary Art Berlin; s.39

[§] When I talk about precarity I’d like to refer to two artists who help me think about it. First of them is Ligia Clark and her Relational Object, second Lisa Nelson with her precarious composition scores, eg. one named ‘Poor people yoga’. 

[**] Usłyszeć ciszę, interview with Forrest Gander; in Julia Fiedorczuk, Inne Możliwości. O poezji, ekologii i polityce. Rozmowy z amerykańskimi poetami (Other possibilities. On poetry, ecology and politics. Talks with american poets); Katedra Scientific Publisher; Gdańsk 2019; s. 113.

 

Selected references:

 

María Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care; University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis; 2017

Julia Fiedorczuk, Inne Możliwości. O poezji, ekologii i polityce. Rozmowy z amerykańskimi poetami (Other possibilities. On poetry, ecology and politics. Talks with american poets); Katedra Scientific Publisher; Gdańsk 2019

Forrest Gander BĄDŹ BLLISKO (BE WITH), translation Julia Fiedorczuk; LOKATOR; Kraków 2020.

Peter Handke, The Jukebox and Other Essays on Storytelling; Picador; USA; 2020

Philippine Hoegen ANOTHER VERSIONThinking through performance’; Onomantopee; Brussels 20202

Toine Horvers, moving-writing; Toine Horvers and stichting Suburban; Rotterdam 2020

William James, ‘Attention’; in: F.R. David, AUTUMN 2020; uh books with KW Institute for Contemporary Art Berlin

Timothy Morton, Hyperobjects; University of Minnesota Press; 2013

Georges Perec, PRZESTRZENIE (ESPACE), LOKATOR, Kraków 2019

Ana Vujanović, Landscape dramaturgy: “Space after perspective”; Ana Vujanović’s website (2018)

Kathryn Yusoff, “Epochal Aesthetics: Affectual Infrastructures of the Anthropocene, https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/accumulation/121847/epochal-aesthetics-affectual-infrastructures-of-the-anthropocene/

 

Anne Juren, Fantasmical Anatomy research

Ligia Clark Relational objects

Ilana Halperin, Geologic Intimacy

 

Blocks in which I participated:

 

2 September-1 December 2019

BLOCK 2019/III 

A LOOMING SCORE – WE SHARE YOUR POLITICS OF DAMAGE

CURATORS LILIA MESTRE AND SINA SEIFFEE

 

16 January-27 March 2020 (block closed)

BLOCK 20/I ZONE PUBLIC

CO-CURATED BY FEMKE SNELTING / PEGGY PIERROT / PIERRE RUBIO

 

4 May-31 July 2020 / home (partial participation)

IN CONFINEMENT

THE IN-BETWEEN BLOCK 2020 II

 

14 September-3 October 2020 

SETTLEMENT 16/ THE UNCONDITIONAL INSTITUTION

VLADIMIR MILLER

 

Thanks for…

The always generous support: Lilia Mestre
Mentoring of the end project:  Myriam Van Imschoot
Mentoring throughout the research process: Kristien Van den Brande, Elke Van Campenhout, Valentina Desideri, Nicolas Galeazzi, Philipine Hoegen, Myriam Van Imschoot, Krõõt Juurak, Anne Juren, Sara Manente, Anna Nowicka, Jeroen Peeters, and Femke Snelting
Facilitating the a.pass program through curating blocks: Lilia Mestre, Vladimir Miller, Peggy Pierrot, Pierre Rubio, Sina Seifee, and Female SneltingThe companionship, support, and challenges: the a.pass researchers with whom I crossed (Deborah Birch, Rui Calvo, Anapaula Camargo, Chloe Chignell, Diego Echegoyen, Signe Frederiksen, Quinsy Gario, Stefan Govaart, Adriano Wilfert Jensen, Mathilde Maillard, Muslin Brothers, Nathaniel Moore, Vera Sofia Mota, Flavio Rodrigo Orzari, Ferreira Lucia Palladino, Federico Protto, Piero Ramella,, Túlio Rosa Christina Stadlbauer, Federico Vladimir Strate Pezdirc, Kasia Tórz, Katrine Turner, Amélie van Elmbt, Andrea Zavala Folache)
English proofreading and editing of my texts: Chloe Chignell
Making all this possible: the team of a.pass (Lilia Mestre Steven Jouwersma Joke Liberge Michèle Meesen)
Facilitating shifts of perspectives: Jakub Szymanik



My participation in a.pass and the realization of this research would not have been possible without the support of Grażyna Kulczyk’s Research Scholarship in the field of choreography granted by Art Stations Foundation.


research portfolio

Smarginatura {portfolio} | Kasia Tórz


Flemish wolf. “Metro” newspaper cutting, September/October 2019

SMARGINATURA_portfolio_Kasia Torz

 

research portfolio

PORTFOLIO

Rui Calvo

 

I am deeply grateful to Lilia Mestre and the a.pass researchers who worked in front of my camera, being vulnerable, violent, playful, cheating, confused, confusing and much more: Andrea Zavala Folache, Caterina Mora, Diego Echegoyen, Federico Vladimir, Flávio Rodrigo, Lucia Palladino and Nathaniel Moore. I also thank my mentor, Sara Manente, who participated as a performer in two videos. They were all engaged in doing and thinking with me, each with a different background and contributing in a unique way. The trajectory the research has taken is also due to their collaboration.

I have a background in cinema and I came to a.pass in order to take a distance from this field. I wanted to think of the audiovisual narrative otherwise. My initial questions surrounded different ways of filming bodies while not imprisoning them in rational discourse. How to create characters that push these limits and reject the logic of belonging, of confirmation? The a.pass proposals and the reading of different texts throughout the trajectory produced new desires that led the research into an eternal conflict between theory and practice. My focus was on filming bodies, their faces, their gestures. Over the course of my research trajectory in a.pass, the constant practice of shooting people from the program who were interested in taking part in the videos, and editing the material gradually, brought new important questions to explore, but the initial one always remained there, always being transformed and gaining broader implications. I have allowed myself to make choices that may be considered naivety or failure, but they were important for discoveries and new paths. So in this portfolio I will present the proposition of each video I made in a.pass; the instructions given to the performers to work in front of the camera; the videos themselves; some notes of the discussions with curators, mentors and researchers about the practice; and quotes of books and texts I was reading – all according to my point of view in the present, while writing and most importantly, editing, as a way of thinking, filming, and rethinking the whole trajectory.

 


 

FIRST BLOCK: TROUBLED GARDENS

In the beginning of the block, I had in mind:

“Une notion comme celle d’identité, aujourd’hui entièrement policière (connotations psychologiques comprises, du ressort des redresseurs de moi en tous genres), recouvre bien un aspect de cette perte: le visage doit être identique, non au sujet, mais à sa définition. Il n’est plus la fenêtre de l’âme, mais une affiche, un slogan, une étiquette, un badge.” A notion like that of identity, today entirely policed (psychological implications included, the responsibility of all kinds of redressers of self) does contain an aspect of this loss: the face must be identical not to the subject but to its definition. It is no longer the window to the soul, but a poster, a slogan, a label, a badge. – JACQUES AUMONT

 

FIRST VIDEO (june 2019)

 

 

Shooting part I: frame Caterina’s body in wide shot. She is moving, dancing, rehearsing. An introduction to the next shot, creating a curiosity about her.

 

 

Shooting part II: Caterina’s face.

Instructions to Caterina:

  1. Silence. Don’t talk. Stay in the chair. You can look around, you are not supposed to stand still. Sometimes I want you to look at the camera, establish a relationship with it, as if it were someone else, a character.
  2. Staying in the chair, look for a spot in the room that catches your attention. Observe it and describe what you see.

Caterina’s feedback: “I was not super much thinking and I was just trying to be, like, calm. […]  At first I was trying to be pretty and then I was a bit bored of myself… And… It’s not that I, I was thinking into something… I was just trying to focus on being here […] But I was trying to be calm. To not to do, so… but I think I did a lot. […] Or try to not have an opinion of what I was doing.”

 

 

Shooting part III: Flávio’s face. It was filmed later, without Caterina and it was less improvised, since I was planning the filming according to what happened in the previous shoot.

Instructions to Flávio:

  1. Silence. Don’t talk. Stay in the chair. You can look around, you are not supposed to be completely still. Sometimes I want you to look at the camera, establish a relationship with it, as if it were someone else, a character. I will not count the time, but you should stay like this for a few minutes. So, in your time, I won’t say anything, you look at the camera and say: “I’m gonna put a song” and then you get up and go left. When you return, talk to me but looking at the camera, I have questions for you. And you also must have questions for me. Do you think you are acting now?

 

Editing: connect Caterina’s and Flávio’s close-ups as if they were shot and countershot. Since they don’t interact and don’t talk about the same subjects, observe what their faces and gestures express in that mixture.

 

Video’s presentation feedback: Philippine Hoegen, one of the mentors of the block, sees a mixed relationship with the object, a game with it, in which there were no signifiers for Caterina. Surface x psychology. She says that the fact of framing implies a choice and immediately creates a relationship. Nicolas observes that a causality was created during editing, but not only that. A way of editing that controls and loses control, falls in love with faces. Caterina thinks I should be busy with clarifying the methodology of editing, and my role as an editor. It makes me think back to my interest in the strength of the instant over the logic of an action. How to play with this strength in the editing?

 

SECOND VIDEO (july 2019)

 

 

Unlike the first video, this one is about interaction between performers, and most of the time the camera is far away from them. The general situation of the scene is not clear, but each of them has two or three instructions to follow, a score in which they hover between fiction and being themselves – a creation of subjectivity through filming. None knows the instructions of the others. A score to ensure that the performers are not subordinate to the causality of narrative, that they surpass the limits of a given role and don’t reduce themselves to a character or an identity.

Instructions to the performers:

Flávio

. all the time you must be eating a fruit or talking

. you don’t want Diego in bed

Lilia

. read a book (Strangers to Ourselves or Sexus) that you find on the bed, sometimes aloud

. attentively observe Flávio and his body

. invite Diego to bed

. “Do you wanna go back to Brazil?”

Diego

. make questions about the couple Lilia and Flávio

. say many times: “I’m ok. Don’t worry.” “Do you want me to leave?”

. don’t look at them too much and when you look, disguise that you are looking

 

The close-ups are shot after the improvisation, a sort of interview in which I ask them questions related to subjects they were discussing in the shooting.

The improvisation is shot three times, alway restarting from the beginning, like in a rehearsal in which a scene is improved and a dramaturgy is created. But the aim is to create a score that allows people and relationships to be constantly in construction. To go further in this goal, the répétition (rehearsal and repetition in French) will be practiced in a different way in the following a.pass blocks, recording an ongoing situation that stops only when the shooting finishes (this subject will be explored later on). 

The wide shot shows the space in its entirety, a recognizable space (a bedroom) that somehow situates the fictional situation. But it’s more a backdrop for a pursuit. Placing people together in bed is charged with meaning, and I want to see how they would deal with this without having a clear fictional framing. 

Since the camera doesn’t get close to the performers, it doesn’t interfere much in the way they act. In some videos further on, I will hold it closer to them, making the intrusion of filming more noticeable, and opening the possibility for the performers to experience a different embodiment via the intersection of context and camera.

In this video, I don’t see a different temporality being created, nor a puncture (something that appears in the middle, between fiction and reality) or an awkwardness. Sometimes something close to this happens, like at 17:50 in the timeline of this video: Lilia says she feels more respected now that she’s getting older, then she covers herself with a blanket and talks about disappearing, not being framed. Her words cause discomfort in Flávio and Diego. There is a moment of silence in which they don’t know how to act. It’s an important quality in the development of the research, which I will go further with in the next videos.

During the video’s presentation in a.pass, Nicolas Galeazzi, curator of the block, observes that some instructions given to the performers have different qualities compared to others. For example, “all the time you must be eating a fruit or talking” produces something different to “you don’t want Diego in bed.” This is another practise I develop in the following block.

 


 

“Learning to be awkward, to be graceful, to leap, and to fall is a training in attention and also in revisceralizing one’s bodily intuition. It is a training that collapses getting hurt with making a life, but that includes the welcoming of exposure alongside of a dread of it. There can be no change in life without revisceralization. This involves all kinds of loss and transitional suspension.”  – LAUREN BERLANT

“Which is preferable: changing my personality and keeping my body, or changing my body and keeping my current manner of experiencing reality? A fake dilemma. Our personalities arise from this very gap between body and reality.” – PAUL PRECIADO

“Contrary to the Lacanian theory of the mirror state, according to which the child’s subjectivity is formed when it recognizes itself for the first time in its specular image, political subjectivity emerges precisely when the subject does not recognize itself in its representation. It is fundamental not to recognize oneself. Derecognition, disidentification is a condition for the emergence of the political as the possibility of transforming reality.” – PAUL PRECIADO

“Perhaps Lingin suggests, rather than transmitting clear meanings, the encounter rests on an acknowledgment of an elemental otherness that is related to our own. ‘We don’t relate to the light, the earth, the air, and the warmth with our individual sensibility and sensuality’. We communicate to one another the light your eyes know…’” – AVIVAH GOTTLIEB ZORNBERG quoted by KAREN BARAD

“Living compassionately, sharing in the suffering of the other, does not require anything like complete understanding (and might, in fact, necessitate the disruption of this very yearning).” – KAREN BARAD

“Saying ‘the truth is a creation’ implies that the production of truth goes through a series of operations consisting in working a matter, a series of falsifications in the literal sense… each one is a falsifier of the other, each one understands in his own the notion proposed by the other. It is these powers of the false that will produce the true.” – GILLES DELEUZE

 


 

SECOND BLOCK: A LOOMING SCORE

One of the proposals of this block is a weekly meeting where each person presents 5 minutes of a practice, work, or something regarding their research, and about which another participant asks a question, and a third one answers on behalf of the first. Each asks and answers on the basis of his/her own research. I present videos that I shoot one day per week with performers and edit right after filming. Throughout this process, my questions from the previous block remain, but with new contours, and alongside new questions. The room where I film the videos is dark and not recognizable as a place: it’s not a living room, a bar, a rehearsal room, thus troubling the space where the performers can situate themselves (in fiction or reality). This creates the conditions for sub-narratives to arise and evolve. The instructions given to the performers have one or more of the characteristics listed below:

One new fundamental element of these videos is violence. There’s violence in the stories the performers are asked to tell, but none are told the instructions of the others, so there’s a tension of not knowing who has instructions that demand disrespect or aggression, nor what they might do with them (so they play a dynamic of glances). There is the violence of framing bodies, allowing the spectator to see what the performers see and also to watch the seeing, which the performers can’t. The cut in the editing becomes more prominent once the context (either real or fictional) is more unclear; every cut becomes an ellipse. The ellipse can be considered violent, but it can also be seen as a way of interfering in the moving image, freeing it from the surveilling eyes of the spectator.

Having to admit some aggression and to move within dissatisfaction (the inconvenience of other people), I ask them to not take the agressions too personally and to look for something in between the score and the improvisation. What kind of encounter is possible in such a context of tension, vulnerability, exposure to the other and to the camera, ongoing rupture, misunderstanding and indeterminacy? What kind of encounter is possible in a situation where the body has no stable response to an intention, because neither the filmmaker nor the performers have access to one? How much are these violent thoughts already embedded in the performers? If in the beginning of the research there was still an idea of character – though already unstable and influenced by the filming process itself – now this idea is even more troubled. What can be imagined in that scenario? What kind of alchemy is produced with those elements?

The instructions are given to the performers right before filming and, once I start shooting, I record uninterruptedly for one or two hours in the same space. So the actions, lines and stories contained in the instructions are repeated many times in an ongoing situation, creating a different temporality. The state of not knowing is prolonged. It’s a framed encounter in which improvisations are perpetually rearranged and rearticulated. The language spoken is mostly English, which none of us has as our mother tongue, and which therefore evolves as queered communication. This becomes an important element in my work within this context.

The video below is the final edit of all the videos I made throughout the looming score.

Instructions for the visitors:

Instructions for the performers:

 

 

 

 

 

first part

 

 

 

 

 

everyone but Lilia

Lilia

Caterina

Flávio

Lucia

 

 

 

 

 

second part

 

 

 

 

 

Lilia

Caterina

Flávio

 

 

 

 

 

third part

 

 

 

 

 

Flávio

Diego

 

 

 

 

 

forth part

 

 

 

 

 

Lucia

Flávio

Diego

 

 

 

 

 

fifth part

 

 

 

 

 

 

Caterina

Lilia

The camera’s potential to interfere with the improvisation of the performers is not yet as incisive in these videos as it could be. Most of the time I am holding the camera far away and getting closer only by zooming in. In later videos, the camera, as well as my presence, will be more intrusive or at least there I will make attempts towards this. Jeroen Peeters, one of my mentors, participates in a filming practice as an observer and draws my attention to the question of whether I should be more present in the shooting. I think about my voice, my gestures (hors champ or not), the camera and my thoughts as possible agents of interference.* Jeroen also remarks on the private dramaturgy that is produced in each performer. I could also play more with my interference, allowing it to facilitate or threaten what is being produced.

* For me, it seems that “interference” is a concept that was always part of the research, but it was Lilia who drew my attention to it in a conversation in my last block.

 


 

“It is repetition that which ruins and degrades us, but it is repetition that which can save us and allow us to escape from the other repetition. Kierkegaard had already opposed a fettering, degrading repetition of the past to a repetition of faith, directed towards the future, which restored everything to us in a power which was not that of Good but of the absurd. To the eternal return as reproduction of something always already-accomplished, is opposed the eternal return as resurrection, a new gift of the new, of the possible.”  – GILLES DELEUZE

“Tout l’effort du développement ‘technique’ du cinéma […] revient à naturaliser l’image cinématographique, c’est-à-dire à la domestiquer, à la familiariser […] Adieu à l’inquiétante étrangeté, adieu à l’altérité non récupérable, adieu au réel non encore cadrable.” The whole endeavour of ‘technical’ development in cinema […] comes back to naturalising the cinematographique image, meaning domesticating it, familiarising it […] Goodbye to troubling strangeness, goodbye to irretrievable otherness, goodbye to the as-yet-unframeable real. – JEAN-LOUIS COMMOLI

“The lack of elements to glue things creates an openness, a possibility of never settling. We cannot block out the irrationality, the perversity, the madness we fear, in the hopes of a more orderly world. […] Indeterminacy is not a lack, a loss, but an affirmation, a celebration of the plentitude of nothingness.” – KAREN BARAD

“Relationality always includes a scenic component, a fantasmatic staging.”
“Transforming the story of cause and effect to a spectacle of cause and side effects.” – LAUREN BELANT

“…identity allows us to distance ourselves from any actual manifestation of queerness”
“…accept the inauthencity at the core of something, understand it as a social institution, while still self-consciously and undeceivedly, succumbing to it.”
– DAVID HALPERIN

 


 

THE IN-BETWEEN (BLOCK) 

(an extra block to keep working on our research while having a lot of questions and a myriad of uncertain responses in self-confinement)

 

 

 


 

“Lies are so hard to keep track of. It’s like you’re constantly being reborn every time you begin a new sentence.” – DENNIS COOPER

“L’art de vivre, c’est de tuer la psychologie, de créer avec soi-même et avec les autres des individualités, des êtres, des relations, des qualités qui soient innomés.” The art of living is to kill psychology, to create with oneself and with others unnamed individualities, beings, relations, qualities.  – MICHEL FOUCAULT

“Ideia de identidade só funciona quando a subjetividade está reduzida ao sujeito”. The idea of identity only works when subjectivity is reduced to the subject. – SUELY ROLNIK

“Shame is the affect that mantles the threshold between introversion and extroversion, between absorption and theatricality, between performativity and — performativity.” – EVE KOSOFSKY SEDGWICK

 


 

FOURTH BLOCK: SETTLEMENT

The aim of the Settlement workshop is “to create a poly-central gathering that is self-structured, self-organized and open to contributions from anyone. You are cordially invited to join this process by establishing your own space in the a.pass Settlement and sharing some of your ideas, practices or works with others. The materials and structures available at the a.pass main space will be a common resource for all who join to create whatever is needed to facilitate this process.” Trying to adapt my research to this proposal, I work on making a set for my filming practice. A nondescript space, a potential landscape that doesn’t represent a specific place but whose elements engender different connotations according to the acting of the performers and how I choose frame (dark spots, a red curtain, a corridor).

The following video is shot in that space, mixing up a private and intimate sphere with a theatrical scene. Although the performers discuss the news, tell personal stories and perform violent gestures, there is no predetermined discourse. The aim is to have no project, to preserve a way of filming that is a form of thinking in real time, to create the conditions for something to emerge, to articulate new meanings or to dislocate the subject of meaning altogether. In this shoot, the performers acknowledge the camera and the viewer’s presence more, resulting in uncomfortable physical responses to the act of being filmed and encaged, or to the feeling of being “unmasked.”

My work with the camera and the editing opens a negotiation between what I watch, what I feel about it, what I would like to produce. There are moments that flow in their whole duration (“real time”) and other ones that I cut more, creating a cumulative effect of time.

 

 

Some extracts from the interview with the performers of the video above (Andrea Zavala Folache, Caterina Mora, Lilia Mestre) about their experience and Kasia Tórz as a mediator. The transcription is faithful to the syntax of the speakers.

RC: How would you define the agency you had? 

LM: …is about interfering, possibility of interfering. Dislocating as well what’s happening. And also […] to not do, you can stop anytime. […] it’s not sequential instruction in a way. I think interference is the best word. Which is a generator.

[…]

I think we are on standby and then things start to happen. There’s quite some rupture […] It doesn’t need to be violent […] but to cut through.

KT: Andrea, do you also share this notion of interfering?

AZF: Yes, in the sense of… I thought the agency I was given or I was taken was one with autonomy, like that the agency was autonomous to… to be responsible of when to interfere or change track of things or when to enable the score or disable it. It makes me think also of interdependence, so interfering as a sort of… that this fear that creates the action where the three of us are agents, is one that is interconnected. So it’s an interdependent relationship of… I have my autonomy but it doesn’t take away the responsibility to actually, anything I do can be changing how things will resolve themselves or get lost.

CM: So for me about interference, I don’t feel it more in terms of the dramaturgy because I feel more the continuation actually, the repetition of the rule. And when I see interference is more in terms of the rhythm, so something in the rhythm of what’s happening is being cut but something that appears. But for me the agency is more related to how much can I push the rule, how much the rule resists. My agency is kind of being as obedient as possible.

RC: How much agency you have? Is it something you can play with or… are you in a trap? Does vulnerability allow boundaries to be open or the opposite?

LM: The instructions are my guidelines to interfere. […] I do feel trapped but not badly. It also feels like “Ok, this is what you can do”, so it’s also relaxing to know that “ok, this is what you can do”. It’s not a trap in a negative way, like finding our way out of there. But I feel that the conditions are well established, I can’t… I’m well situated. Maybe the environment defines very much where you are and how you can move within that space.

[…]

In terms of vulnerability, I do feel vulnerable… There’s nothing bad. I never felt bad. Neither to feel trapped. Neither to feel vulnerable. Neither to interfere. So there’s something there supporting these actions or these qualities that you are naming. So I also feel confident that I can feel vulnerable. Sometimes I think it’s needed somehow so I’ll work for that, to try to be in that place of vulnerability. This is my own thing.

KS: Have you ever questioned the instructions or had a desire to add something or to cheat a bit?

AZF: For me, the cheating is totally inscribed in the rules somehow. I am given enough information to know I can’t know all the rules… So there’s an impossibility for me to know everything, you know, to hold all the information of the rules. So then there’s gaps of interpretation that opens up a… Maybe that’s also for the agency, a sense of being able to interpret and cheat. But I think when I was performing… It’s kind of actually hard to cheat because the rules are not so many so there’s a lot of space to do many other things… so the rules imply that not everything that I would do it’s a rule or something the director has told me to, so then all those other things are they cheating? So to cheat I guess would be to not obey the rule so even that it’s impossible. I mean unless we have a long conversation about exactly how my interpretation can follow a rule, but so I feel like it’s a sort of puzzle that I enter. […] And the fact that I’m giving the information to have enough knowledge that it is a puzzle, then I feel a lot of trust from both Lilia and Caterina, and from Rui. And then the vulnerability can actually be embraced in a way. I like to think that vulnerability doesn’t contradict confidence. That in order to be vulnerable, especially in performing, you need confidence to actually be vulnerable for something. So that trust for me is really key. You know, that you trust my interpretations, my cheating, my following the rules, all of this is part of the puzzle. And I don’t feel totally trapped in it but I understand that walls are needed somehow.

RC: The instructions allow cruel actions, but these violences are not often followed by a reaction  (no punishment, no confrontation, no resolution). Do you feel surprised by some of the actions of the others and how do you deal with it?

LM: Instructions are not much given of how to react but more how to propose. (…) In relation to the one when Andrea calls me cunt, that was hard actually. I mean it was difficult to… And then it was very interesting to see how I could somehow compensate that humiliation somehow, right?  How can I reunite myself again as a character? So it’s a moment of being disarmed, you’re like “ok”, and then how do I build it up, how do I create some consistency that I don’t collapse. How to rebuild to be able to play, to be able to be there.

AZF: I also felt that when I called Lilia a cunt, the violence was in realizing that I would not do that in my life. So what am I saying “yes” to here?. Like am I doing it for the sake of art or a friend? So the fiction of the apparatus sort of save the violence but there’s still an ethical question in me of how far do I go for art. Because if I would be an actress following a script, people would know I’m a character. So it’s sort of excused in a way. And here because part of the script is taken out or something, it’s almost like I’m playing Andrea so I am close to reality. So people don’t know how I am playing with fiction actually, so the fictions that I play for myself are not totally visible. Then that kind of unappointed fiction or undefined fiction is what is the most violent of the work. But at the same time there’s still a part of fiction so I don’t feel extreme, not actually that it is causing any deep trouble.

CM: It often happens I’m kind of surprised in my interior. And then it’s a bit shocking because… the camera is there not far away… Depending on how this surprise is, I’m also trying to integrate it. […] A lot of things are happening because I’m always producing in relation to how I feel, to this surprise… And how I deal with this surprise.

LM: I was thinking about our relationship outside of the camera, the situation. So I mean the level of complicity or friendship that we have already between us and… How does this play within when we are playing? Because we are all doing indeed ourselves and we are all part of this program, so we carry something with us already in the projection of who we are towards each other, so there’s another score in there also. There’s a system of relations that it’s there. If we were foreigners to each other it would be another one. Here we have a degree of knowledge of each other that comes from a.pass. We are all very much foreigners, we all come from different parts of the world with different stories. So we carry that and then we carry some common ground within the program and then we go inside that room.

CM: The most violent is the editing, when I see how it’s also then afterward manipulated.

LM: Always something can turn, the things can turn around, into another direction. In this sense there’s a bit of maybe immanent violence, there’s a sense of this quietness. It can be fun… I always feel a certain tension there where things could turn. I put some violence there. (…) Like, something can come from the back, something can come from a place that you didn’t… So maybe this is because we know that the instructions are different and then we don’t know them,  so there is an alertness in a way.

RC: Each instruction has a different quality in the repetition. What does it do? It’s a skill-development instead of character-development?

LM: I think that’s very hard actually, to repeat. Spontaneous is maybe more “ok”, you just throw yourself, let’s try this. But then repeat that you have to think twice. And then I think in a way it’s there where the work starts. Like how do you say it, and then maybe sometimes you just say it halfway… This is one thing, there’s a lot of practice in there. I feel the most acting practice comes from that place actually, of how to repeat things. And then I also think It creates a certain intimacy. […] maybe not intimacy but history. Like I’ve been there before. I have heard it before. I’ve heard you say that before. I’m not telling that story myself. There is something that builds like a common history. Like the story of the train that it’s there since the beginning, now Andrea also knows that story but she doesn’t know exactly where it started, how it was originally. This story became something that we all know collectively and we all have different relations to that thing. […] You don’t know anymore if it was real not real, how and what happened actually, but somehow you have an idea of that story.

CM: [repetition] creates a condition that escapes, it’s escaping from the succeeds and failures, another condition of doing it. It doesn’t have to succeed because it doesn’t have to fail. […] It creates a condition to navigate in all […] What I like from repetition is that all the time it pushes me in the same position of doing something I don’t know if I would do it in a situation.

AZF: For me is also a concrete form of awkwardness, that I value a lot as well. It’s kind of like being “hey, how are you?”, “hey, how are you?”, “hey, how are you?”. Like if you just give yourself whatever word and then you repeat it, it becomes absurd as well. Or everytime you say, there’s no training of it, other than saying it, so the intention changes so it’s awkward to say it again without knowing what’s the difference in the intention […] If all I have to do is say a line and I have to rehearse it, but now I can’t rehearse but I have to repeat it, so it becomes more and more awkward for myself.

LM: For example, in the laughter, it’s an interesting one. To have to laugh. Because I feel definitely awkward because there’s no reason, right. But then at the same time I have to say it was like listen to yourself, I know what a laugh can be, a real laugh. There’s also the question of the real laugh. Can I really do it for real?

CM: All the time it allows displacement, the repetition. 

RC: And the role of the camera?

AZF: It’s like a level of being hyper aware, of self-awareness, alertness maybe, surveillance. I don’t think I forgot at any point that there was a camera.

KT: Did you enjoy it also?

AZF: Yeah. I guess that’s the creepiness of exposure and performance. It’s pervert. (…) I think I got at some point reminded that my agency has the right to challenge you as well and the camera. And I am so hyper aware of where it is that at any point I could just do this:

[Andrea is the one in the lower left]

LM: I think it happens more when you [Rui] are inside, in the beginning you were not inside. It was much more disarming because you don’t know at all, you just have the camera away with everything and you don’t know if it’s coming closer or further, so you are much more disarmed. Once you are there then… cause there’s also the possibility of getting away from the camera. You can also leave. You can also go. And in a way I think it becomes a character, there’s also Rui there. It’s also intrusive in a way, like “I’m looking at this, I’m interested in that”.

RC: But it’s less voyeur?

LM: Yes. I think it’s less voyeur.


 


research portfolio

Portfolio

Adriano Wilfert Jensen’s a.pass portfolio, January 2021

portfolio apass


research portfolio

Deviant portfolio by Muslin Brothers

 

Deviant portfolio Muslin Brothers

 


research portfolio

Flavio Rodrigo Orzari Ferreira – Portfolio

5 November 2020

Click here to read the portfolio: portfolio_Flavio_Rodrigo


research portfolio

PORTFOLIO // LUCIA PALLADINO AND PIERO RAMELLA

 

 

 

DIALOGUE

 

 

I have a proposal to deal with this portfolio: both of us will sit at our tables and we will write to each other on a common document. The conversation will be slowed down by the timing of the writing while we will look back together to this year and a half in A.PASS, from September 2018 until January 2020. In this period we have been leading a continuous conversation between us, which is maybe the smallest brick of the whole process. And I love small talk.

 

Let’s try. In time we have been asked many times to show the process of our reciprocal editing. We were sort of reluctant to be explicit about it in the beginning. Or we just thought that the two voices were already very clearly different, that they didn’t need to be further explicated. Or maybe we thought that it was just impossible to say who did what. 

We’ll see if we’ll manage to enter some small talk in here!

 

 

 

I Block//School of Love

curated by Adva Zakai

(September-December 2018)

 



What do you remember about the beginning?

 

I think that we started from the end. At the beginning we stopped. Maybe we were supposed to start but we didn’t. 

 

We first tried to see where were we. What and in which shape, through which language we could relate to the context. We observed our practices, questions, our doing in relation to the new context of A.PASS and of the researchers that were there in that moment.

We used the first four months to suspend our doing. We looked back at our artistic practice and research, we renamed it, we rephrased it.  

Do you remember what was the question when we started?

 

We had many questions, actually. At the beginning our work consisted mainly in formulating questions. Most of them would concern time, attention, peripheries, noise and translations.

 

 

What is there?

Is it possible to transform the perception of the instant in the construction of a duration?

What is such a translation?

What is noise?

Why should the periphery of the perception become the center of the research?

How can the center remain open?

What is sacred?

 

 

Are some of these words still with us? Did some of them change?

 

Now that you brought back these questions I can see again that we started from the end. From this last question. 

What is sacred?

If I look back to it, I think that we tried to stay close to what was sacred to us. 

I would say that what was sacred was the distance between us. We didn’t know how to name this alterity which is the unknown space between me and you.

 

The distance is what allows being together.

The distance is the space/time in between things.

The distance is the space and the time between me and the other. If we can look at the distance, if we can perceive it, we can look at what we share. All that we share is this “in between” which is the distance.

It is not only possible being together despite distances, but it is possible being together only thanks to these distances.

The distance is what determines the relationship.

Walking is a measure maybe.

When I walk without knowing where I am going, without knowing the path, with no project, I accept the existence of an other, something I don’t know.

Not knowing is an obstacle between me and the other.

It is the obstacle that allows me to see the other as different from me.

Not knowing is a distance between me and the other, that I can run across.

I can run across this distance thanks to its opacity.

If it were transparent I would not see it, I could not run across it. I could only pass through it, without noticing it and without reflection, with no clash.

Not knowing is a distance.

A distance is opaque.

Opacity allows me to meet the other.

 

“Space was holy to

the pilgrims of old, till plane

stopped all that nonsense”

(W. H. Auden)

“Distance” and “opacity” are two specific concepts that influence very much our work. They were related to the problematic relationship between “center” and “ periphery”, which caused us many discussions. Actually for us these terms were time-related concepts. I can consider the peripheries only if I take the time to distance the usual path. The operation we were interested in was the dilation of time which allows previously unconsidered possibilities to emerge. Between our artistic practices, indeed, artistic research is for us a tool for self-critique. We got then interested in framing self-critical institutions, which would be institutions that are conscious about their situatedness and complexity, that allow space for self-sabotage and reframing. 

A is not equal to A.

 

We wrote the following two texts for a writing score Adva proposed at the beginning of the block: “How would the future be, if your artistic research would have taken over the world?”

 

 

The world will exist in the interrogative form.

The end will be close to us

and we might be friends.

 

We will learn from flowers:

the truth about every man is that 

he/she is about to die.

 

Nothing will be equal to nothing.

Everything will be 

incommensurable

irreplaceable

incontrovertible

irrecoverable

irreparable

irredeemable.

-Money will be the principle of irreality-

 

The dance of the dead will shape the light of the fire of the living ones.

 

There will be no evolution, no revolution. We will keep on turning.

 

We will wander in those utopian regions, placed somewhere and nowhere, between an infinite tenderness and an infinite solitude.

 

Every road will be a cemetery

and, in the crackles of the asphalt,

there will be our little fallen flowers

our masters

our dead.

 

There will be a desire hidden in every thing.

 

We will become small

 – small, in order not to lose each other.

Revolution is going on.

It will walk in the forest. 

It will breath, smell, look.

It will be as an idiot. It will not know, like now, as a pioneer. It will say: I will not know but I will believe.

It will be an animal. It will look around modifying the shape of its body to enter the forest.

Attentively it will touch and get touched by the other. With no name, it will mutate and multiply, and it will continuously reverse the point of observation during its dance of attention.

It will be multidimensional, it will be inhabited by a multitude of spectres corporeal and impalpable at the same time.

It will not do a lot. It will not have anything to add.

It will move with caution through words, bodies and light. It will be mostly silent.

It will be stumbling, transforming judgement into motion.

 

 

 

II Block//Troubled Gardens

curated by Nicolas Galeazzi

(May-August 2019)

I would say that with the video “And the woods all around” we framed our use of the words center and periphery and, thanks to this restriction, something else broke in the scenario. 

How did this framing transform these words? Would you say that, looking at it now, it made us move to the structure of the frame itself?

 

We wanted to get rid of a problem we didn’t know how to solve. The dichotomy center/periphery seemed inadequate but still we wanted to use those words out of that geometrical/hierarchical relationship. According to the curatorial proposal of the block, we had to embody a question we were struggling with, give it in “adoption” to someone else and then eventually receive it transformed somehow by the “adopting researcher”. We created this video in order to hand our question to someone else and, in the moment we made it, the supposed content disappeared. What emerged instead was the problematic relationship between the artistic research and its documentation, which brought us back to the practice of framing self-critical institutions.

 

This is how we started to look at the frame and observed where and how it would raise questions. We looked at the framed document as a “material”, in Tim Ingold’s terms: not as a fixed object that would encapsulate and preserve a point of view from the past, but as a malleable flux of possibilities. We tried to understand what kind of relationship it could open for the future. What did it do, for example, to call this video a “document”? What did it do to us, to observe it through its institutions (e.g. the video format, the website on which its accessible…etc)? What did it do to look at it from the situated context we were working in during the block – the “troubled” Zsenne Garden?

 

Talking about self critical institutions, in this case the video attempts to show the complex cluster of media involved and the situatedness of their performativity. There is not a single possible mapping of this material, it aims to be open to critique and it does not pretend to have a “form” different from its “content”. For sure there has been a strong relationship between this operation and the fact that we were working in a permaculture garden.

 

Twelve Permaculture design principles articulated by David Holmgren in his Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability:

 

1. Observe and interact

2. Catch and store energy

3. Obtain a yield

4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback

5. Use and value renewable resources and services

6. Produce no waste

7. Design from patterns to details

8. Integrate rather than segregate

9. Use small and slow solutions

10. Use and value diversity

11. Use edges and value the marginal

12. Creatively use and respond to change

We realized that there is no map from the outside and as soon as we try to create a document, a map, we are changing the landscape we are in.In the book “What would the animals say if we would ask to them the right questions?” Vinciane Despret observes how observers observe the animals. The way the observer position him/herself in the landscape changes the reality itself.

I remember you wrote a story when you were at highschool. Can you write it down here?

I love your stories.

 

Which story? 

 

The one about distance.

 

It would have worked well before, actually, when we were writing about distance!

 

Now we are far enough to read it.

 

You are right.

 

One day, the teleportation was invented. At first it was possible to transport datas anywhere, instantaneously and with no mistake. Then it became possible to teleport objects and eventually human beings too. That day humanity faced extinction.

You are particularly concerned by the future…

 

My affect towards the future is related to the fact that at a certain moment I started to realize that this word, “future”, wasn’t used anymore.I remember the future as science-fiction: it is amazing to think of unpredictable possibilities to come, to imagine them. For a long period, in Italy at least, we didn’t use that word anymore. Many generations of children without the word future in their bodies. In that moment I started to use it again, to say it, to see if it was possible to feed it and open for it new directions/horizons.

What I love about your story is that it shows how errors are those that allow us to relate to something, to engage with it – until death. The story also suggests that when the space-time is reduced to zero, there is no more other to relate to. This reminds me of what Byung Chul-Han calls “the society of transparency”, where the “dictatorship of the self” doesn’t allow any otherness to exist. If there is no otherness, there is nothing I can imagine anymore…This is the way I perceive things now, at least.

 

It seems that without accident there is no event. Without error there is no possible development. We are stuck playing the same scene again and again, if nothing goes wrong. The point is that we don’t have any direct access to the future, of course. In the present we have only access to the past and this means that in order to introduce some difference, we have to mess it up, lose something and highlight something else. We have to edit it. We actually do this anyway, since we are not omnipotent and omniscient. It’s about recognizing that any “closed” view of/from the past is not only impossible, but also undesirable.

 

We can design maps for the future. These are not meant to be “true”, neither as objective points of view from the past, nor as consistent pre-views of the future. Once we have them, though, they will start to influence us.

 

Maybe they are not “true” now, but by drawing them they might become true in the future!

A chair is not so much designed by the way my body “spontaneously” sits, but rather it tells me how to sit.

This is exciting. And it works the same for the way we look at things, the way we formulate questions, the way we perceive things…etc. These activities are also designed by what surrounds us,

 

And it seems logical that documents are especially involved in designing future practices. This turns a little upside down the cause-effect logic and the linear perspective of time. Sometimes I feel that something “comes from the future”, that it is not related so much to a “now” that has already been, but rather to a “now” that is yet to come. Like in Aristotle’s “final cause” theory – which appears quite bizarre to our actual common sense. Talking about things from the past that seem to come from the future…

 

There comes my fascination for the figure of the augur. For the ancient italic populations the augur was a priest that  would read the will of the gods in the flight of the birds. He would go to the “templum” to do so. The “templum” was a portion of time and space from which he could read the birds flights.The “templum” was actually each one of the lines traced by the augur to frame the sacred space, a “cut” into space and time, a temporary suspension that allowed a reflection, a reading – the word “temple” comes from “templum”, which derives from the ancient greek “temno=to cut”. Also “tempo” (“time” in Italian) has the same origin. The augury embodies the action of taking a position from which, by observing what is there, it is possible to relate with different kinds of time simultaneously. You have to go in that position though, you have to move towards that place. An effort is needed. This is the frame where a suspension can happen. It is a time inside the time itself. It is what Agamben calls “Messianic time”. The time of contemplation. Contemplating is then holding this position. It is about staying with what is there, with what comes, through a specific frame. If the way I position myself can transform what is there – and therefore the future itself -, then the contemplation is a active and political state of being. I like to talk of “contemplative activism”.

 

I can see a strong relationship between artistic research and faith. You have to believe that something good will come out of it even if you can’t say exactly what and how. Nicolas’ proposal for the block, the “Adoption”, was very precise in this sense. To give away a piece of your work and to believe that it will be fruitful for it to be put in someone else’s hands, you need faith. You can only take care, give all your attention to what you receive, and hope that the others will do the same. 

 

 

A: Adopting is a big challenge.

B: To receive back the material we left.

A: To give up expectation of realization.

B: Can the documentation be originated by a script?

A: We wanted to avoid narration.

B: Why?

A: The narration tends to identification, often.

B: “This” is “this”.

A: To put things in one line.

B: How to avoid to do what we would have done anyway?

A: I don’t know what this book is.

B: We don’t know what it will be.

A: We didn’t finish it, yet.

B: It’s about avoiding linearity as the only option.

A: What I wanted to do was not only to write a book, but also to create an experience…

B: The problem is to translate these experiences we worked with.

A: When we entered this space we really felt “home”.

B: We are translating one’s experience to the other.

A: We are translating each other’s experience to the other.

B: We didn’t see each other’s presentation.

A: But I slept in your bed…That’s very intimate.

B: How to translate something that’s so close to me?

A: To work with someone else’s project and not mine-still working on what I am interested in.

B: I have a strong tendency in reacting.

A: To embrace something that doesn’t belong to me even when it starts hurting.

B: “Maybe it’s still possible, maybe it’s still possible…”

A: To work with the resistance, not against it.

B: To move out of the landscape, to see how can I relate to it and then to move back in.

A: It’s not only to zoom in and out, but also to blur the lines.

B: You don’t know what belongs to whom.

A: I like this a lot.

B: To show the responsibility in the adoption.




 

III Block//A looming score_sharing politics of damage;

curated by Lilia Mestre and Sina Seifee

(September-December 2019)

 

 

Our third and last block has also been centered on an “adoption” process. This time, though, we would share some materials and we would adopt the other’s questions. The first thing we shared was a video which put together some shooting we did at Zsenne Garden during the summer and a text that we developed later on. 

 

This video is a translation of a map we realised to observe the garden. This map would put in relation the landscape with the words we wrote about what our research would do in the future. My affect, when I arrived in Zsenne garden, was a portion of sky in between the trees. Being inside, immersed in the industrial area of Brussels, I could still have access to a vertical horizon. Then we imagined a conversation of the Augur with the birds.

 

I liked the question Rui wrote for us after seeing the video:

 

In the video, there are treetops framing the sky with clouds and the birds’ flight (frame inside the frame). There are dialogues between 2 non-visible characters (A and B) written on the surface of the image (these characters are around, in a place out of the frame but close to the borders, or not)? There are sounds of things out of the frame, but these things belong to that environment (a sound of something out of the frame could be from what is around or not). Is this set of things made for us to see the birds and the sky in a proper way or to see something else? The strength of your frame is centripetal (to the documented objects, even if it is multicenter) or centrifugal (there is an idea of whole, “from here_to_there”)? Is the documentation about something in the frame… or something around… or something else?

 

I wouldn’t be able to give him a singular answer. I liked though the idea of a centrifugal force, which preserves the possibility to have a central object of attention, but at the same time it indicates the presence of vectors – within the same system – that tear it apart, that spread it all over the place. Being the frame of the camera an institution, that looks like the description of a self-critical institution to me. 

What got less clear, then, was if this had to be considered a “document” or not…but at this point investigating the definition of “documentation” was not the main issue for us…

 

We wanted to re-open these documents, to see if and where there was space for us to enter. We slowly throughout the block tried to create space between the materials, between the documents, among the way they were translating each other in order to observe what kind of movement, what kind of dance they would bring.

 

If the “form” and the “content” of the document cannot be separated, the documentation corresponds to its staging. We moved from “documentation” to “memory”, not as the ability to preserve in one’s brain the image of past objects and events, but as a highly performative operation that makes the past and the future converge in the present experience.  

 

I have all the ages at the same time in my body. Memory is an agent on the present. Memory enlarges the space of what is here and now transforming a linear perception of going forward, of flowing, of proceeding, in a multidimensional and multitemporal landscape.

 

Memory embodies distance and opacity.

Before A.PASS we had been working a lot with games. How did they come back in?

 

I always used games. It is a way to be with others. A game is a way to be fully involved and light at the same time. Whoever knows the rules can have access. And accessibility was an important point of our discourse as well.

 

And rules also have very often the form of a “map”

a game is a map

a frame

a self-critical institution

 

you can put the game there, in the middle

it’s clear that even if it is your game once you play it is not about you, it is about this middle space which is in between you and the others

and I need the others to be different

and see the difference

which is the distance that allows us being together

 

We were very happy to work with scores during this block: I would say that scores are a specific kind of games. To design scores was a great way to work on the staging of a map. The score draws a specific landscape, but – if it’s well designed – something unexpected will often emerge. The rules of the score are the “templum”, the suspension in space and time that dilate time and nourish our faculty of attention, just like the frame of the camera and the limits of the stage.



NAME IT/Writing Score

 

[There is a table. Two laptops on it. Two silent writers facing the public. One projector shows a blank page with the text on the wall behind the table. The public is witnessing]

 

– You look, you sense, you feel everything which is happening in the room. Everything means 

everything that catches your attention. Everything that emerges through you in relation with what is around you. Your writing is not traveling too far nor too close from where you are.

– You can take your time, trust and write it down. 

– You have to write 1st person, singular or plural – for example, if you see someone entering the space and saying hello to a friend you could write: “I entered the space, I said hello to my friend”.

– If by looking, smelling, sensing, perceiving the way you want what is around you a memory or a thought emerge, then take it as part of the space and write it down. Through this digression, you can distance yourself from what is around you and then come back.

– The other writer is at your side writing with you on the same page. Try to consider it.

 

I AM HERE. 

ARE THOSE VOICES, THAT I AM HEARING?

I AM READING. 

I ENTERED BY THE ENTRANCE DOOR, AND NOW I’M IN. SITTING. 

I REMEMBER STANDING FOR SOMETHING. 

CAN I STAND FOR SOMETHING NOW? NOW SITTING? 

I CAN FEEL YOU AT MY SIDE I CAN SEE YOU. 

HOW MANY METERS OF AIR OVER MY HEAD? 

I’M FLOATING, THE HEAD IN THE AIR. 

I’M MOVING MY HANDS.

I BREATH. THE HEART IS BEATING. 

ONCE I SAW MY HEART IN THE ECOGRAPHY SCREEN. 

BEATING. OPENING AND CLOSING. 

LIFE IS STRANGE THROUGH A SCREEN.

I’M WRITING. 

MY GAZE WANDERS ACROSS THE DETAILS

IS IT GOING TO END SOON?

 

 

A fellow researcher in A.PASS, Adriano, asked us:

 

A promise of observation. Observation from you – of what concerns most of us.

You were sitting next to each other. Soft, patient, listening. An analogue complicity situated between one big and two smaller screens.

Descriptions turn “poetic” “I’M FLOATING, THE HEAD IN THE AIR.” “I REMEMBER STANDING FOR SOMETHING.

CAN I STAND FOR SOMETHING NOW? NOW SITTING?” “HOW MANY METERS OF AIR OVER MY HEAD?”.

Not much is written, is this writing an excuse for sharing time/presence? For sitting next to each other and in front of us, while the laptops offer a small protection from full exposure and/or transparency.

If that is so, what is the minimum of text and screen needed to give a cover for presence?

 

We are interested in situations that are at the same time an exposure and a concealment. We wanted to show something that was clear and incomprehensible, intimate and universal. We imagined that “what is there” from my unique and ephemeral point of view, could be at the same time a paradoxical Manifesto.

 

We tried to write a text that would manifest the operation we were doing through the score. That’s why it is a manifesto. It manifests a reality from a specific point of view, which is a map, or a game. In the score the sabotage is included. 

 

To explore further the idea of “sabotage” we wrote an actual manifesto informed by our documentation criteria and created an “editing score” to make other people enter into it, moving it away from us and making it opaque again.

 

WE ARE IDIOTS – MANIFESTO FOR NOW/Editing Score

 

[There is a table. Two laptops on top of it. There are two people: the “writer” is facing the public; the “reader” is sitting with his laptop facing the writer. Two projectors overlap their projections on the wall behind the writer. One of the two is projecting a very slow motion video of an almost invisible, overexposed, white goat. The other one projects the white page on which the writer is writing a text – which occupies exactly that one page:

 

I AM HERE NOW

I TAKE A POSITION

I REVEAL MY POSITION

I AM AT THE ENTRANCE THE DOOR IS OPEN I ENTER

I CAN RUN FROM HERE TO THERE FOLLOWING  STRAIGHT LINE

I AM CLEAR NOW

I AM THE SHADOW I MAKE

I AM HERE

I LOOK THROUGH THIS FRAME

I AM IN THE FRAME

I AM THE FRAME

I MAKE THE FRAME

I FRAME INSTITUTIONS

I MOVE BORDERS AGAIN AND AGAIN

I AM ONE

I AM MANIFOLD

I AM MULTIPLE

I AM FOCUSED

I AM PERIPHERAL

I TAKE TIME IF NECESSARY

I TAKE TIME

LA VACHE EST UN HERBIVORE QUI A DU TEMPS POUR FAIRE LE CHOSE

I TAKE THE TIME IT TAKES

I AM AN IDIOT

I AM A PIONEER

I  DO WITH WHAT IS THERE

I UNDO WITH WHAT IS THERE

I MANIFEST WHAT IS THERE

I ACCEPT WHAT IS THERE

I ACCEPT NOISE

I NEED NOISE

I TRUST OPACITY

I TRUST YOU

I TRUST

I BELIEVE IN THE PRESENT AS A PROMISE

I BELIEVE IN THE FUTURE AS A LEGACY

I BELIEVE IN COMPLEXITY

I BELIEVE IN MAGIC

FORSE L’AMORE E’ CONTINUARE IL DISCORSO DI UN ALTRO



After the writer finishes to write the text, the score starts.]

– When the writer stops writing the “manifesto”, the public can start editing it

– One by one, the people in the public can whisper in the writer’s ear up to 5 elements to cancel choosing between words, letters and empty spaces. The writer cannot discuss if the indication is not clear: he/she has to find a solution alone.

– The reader keeps on reading out loud the “manifesto” while it is being edited, following its transformations until the end of the score. When he/she reaches the end, he/she starts back from the beginning.

– When the public stops editing, a new text is done and the score ends.


[21st November 2019, Bruxelles]

 

I AM NOW 

POSITIVE THE DOOR THERE FOLLOWING A STRAIGHT LINE

I AM CLEAR NOW, I AM THE SHADOW I MAKE

HERE

THROUGH THIS FRAME

ME

I AM THE FRAME

I MAKE THE FRAME

I BODER AGAIN AND AGAIN

I AM ONE OLD PERIPHERY

I TAKE TIME

DU TEMPS POUR FAIRE LES CHOSES

IT TAKES AN IDIOT

I AM WITH WHAT IS THERE

I UNDO WITH WHAT IS THERE

I MANIFEST WHAT

I ACCEPT NOISE

NOISOPACITY

US

THE PRESENT AS THE FUTURE MAGIC

FORSE L’AMORE E’ CONTINUARE    

 

“Maybe love is continuing the discourse of another” wrote the Italian poet Milo De Angelis.

I think that our experience in A.PASS had a lot to do with this. Giving attention to the other, adopting the other’s work, letting the other’s work enter yours, in a dialogue. 

It is so precious to nourish our critical sense by continuing a discourse, without burning it.

In the end it is really not about me and you, nor the others. It is about the discourse. 

And, as always, it is a matter of love to make it last a little longer.

 

Thanks to A.PASS. Participating has been a big privilege.

Thanks to: Lilia Mestre, Nicolas Galeazzi, Pierre Rubio, Vladimir Miller, Joke Liberge, Steven Jouwerma, Michele Meesen. Thanks to all the mentors and participants and fellow researchers present, past and future.

This is not the end.

 

 


research portfolio

P E N D U L U M /// p o r t f o l i o – a p a s s

 

Diego Echegoyen is an Argentinian theatermaker and performer.

His work in a.pass is a ritual disorganization of his family narrative & its myths,
his wounds & obsessions, the recent Argentinian history & his experience in Brussels as a migrant.


 

 

This portfolio composed by three episodes describes the journey that ended up in his performative installation 
“To be someone implies to be somewhere”.

PENDULUM I Portfolio APASS
PENDULUM II Portfolio APASS
PENDULUM III Portfolio APASS

 


 


research portfolio

CAVES 1 – ESCAPE

 

 

TERESA IN THE CAVE DOSSIER

 

 


research portfolio

CAVES 2 – RE-ENTRY

 

 

 

ANCESTRAL Ca2+ DOSSIER

 


research portfolio

Sina Seifee a.pass dossier

ajayeb body allegory
_ajayeb_bod01-2

Research portfolio for finishing a.pass:
Download here: Sina Seifee dossier for a.pass end-communication.pdf

Read more..

research portfolio

LAURA PANTE // PORTFOLIO // A.PASS 2018 – 2019

LAURA PANTE // PORTFOLIO // A.PASS 2018 – 2019

The following pdf file comprehends the trajectory of Laura Pante‘s research through the context of a.pass. The contents of her research turn around the crafted concept of 2D Dance, a flickering and performative exploration around learning conditions, body language conditioning, and the double role of aesthetic models in the use and in the production of corporeal images. (clik on the following title not on the image to see the portfolio)

Laura Pante – 2D Dance – a research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


research portfolio

The thing called “Portfolio”

"why" this is "what" it is?

  p o r t a f o l i o     –> qui porte les folios, que pliega la research, that pretends question the vertical format  

September 2019

 

Read more..

research portfolio

Practicing Interstices_Portfolio by Nassia Fourtouni

Developing tools and methodologies for a dramaturgical practice informed by somatics.

I came to a.pass with a research upon dramaturgical practice with a focus on the initial phase of a creative process, namely the phase where things are not yet shaped, the phase of nothing.

Having in mind the dialogical relationship in which most dramaturgical practices take place, the first scores I developed were about dialogue and conversation. Gradually, the scores and methodologies developed borrowed the form of a somatic lesson.

In my work I bring together text and experiential anatomy, shaping an expanded dramaturgical practice that can vary in form and content depending on the given context. The aim is to facilitate the appearance of embodied aesthetic experience by addressing the inner sense.

The practice manifests in installations, scores and somatic lessons. Also, it functions as a critical commentary on authorship and the seductive power of language, mainly in relation to the use of instructions.

Link to the portfolio: Practicing Interstices by Nassia Fourtouni


research portfolio

Dear Visitor – a portfolio by Katinka van Gorkum

 

Dear visitor, this is the link to the portfolio on Vimeo

Please note that it is possible to change the quality settings within the menu of the video on Vimeo. The preferred quality is 1080p or even 2K. The consequence of watching the video in this high quality, is that the video will take some time to load. I kindly ask you for your patience. In case you get very frustrated waiting for the video to load, it is possible to send the video over wetransfer, just send me an e-mail (vangorkum.katinka@gmail.com).

 


research portfolio

Research “history” Pia Louwerens at a.pass, July 2017 to February 2019, approximately.

Research Portfolio

Research “history” Pia Louwerens at a.pass, July 2017 to February 2019, approximately.

Hello everyone,

Where do I start? Do I start at the beginning and end at the end, or do I go in a circle? Do I write about how my research developed at a.pass, because then I write about the people I met and the energy they contributed to my project, the theories and books I met and encountered as vividly as the people who shape the program.

Read more..

research portfolio

Some activities to be recognised as Otherwise Exhibiting

research portfolio

Some activities to be recognised as Otherwise Exhibiting (pdf)


research portfolio

Subverses [summary of research trajectory]

25 January 2019

Research portfolio

Eleanor Ivory Weber is a writer and artist, whose artistic research is grounded in conceptual writing, psychoanalysis and vocality.

 

The following two documents summarise her research trajectory at a.pass, September 2017 through February 2019.

 

Read 1 (basics):

SUBVERSES-EleanorIvoryWeber-2019-part1

 

Read 2 (poetics):

SUBVERSES-EleanorIvoryWeber-2019-part2

 

 

 


research portfolio

Portfolio

‘The Construction of Performative space’ – Esther Rodriguez-Barbero

 

Process review of the parkour in a.pass

End Presentation May 2018 – ‘This is 1000 liter fuel, so…’ DecorAtelier

 



APPLY TO THE A.PASS PROGRAMMES

post-master program
pre phd-program
phd-program
to be discussed

Please enter your links to your Portfolio, CV and other documents here if they are aleady online.

Alternativly you can upload your Research proposal, Portfolio, CV and other documents here.

Maximum file size: 50 MB, maximum 5 files.

X  

add file..


SIGN UP TO EVENT
selected :
yes
no
ex-participant


ORDER