what-we-did-in-amsterdam

notes, comments, feedback, images, ideas… from the workshop at sndo….
It was a wonderful experience, thanks everyone… // I learned a lot from our different modes of confronting things and I think this is quite a good thing actually for working together // taking things into practice was a really important thing to get at, I think it worked well, but I would like to think further about how we can go beyond context specific understandings of practice and up the stakes still a bit (i´ll come back to this) // we had a good balance between theory and practice, group work, discussion and writing I think, maybe we need even less writing time in the future // I think we all did well with showing ourselves vulnerable and putting our own positions in question throughout the lab, not getting defensive about stuff and playing it agonistically between the two of us (paz+manuela) as well as participants, letting antagonism emerge too but not to set up fixed (op)positions. this is something I also feel we (just about) navigated well with respect to the debates that went on about theory and practice. at moments I felt that there was some mistrust towards theory emerging which didn’t seem wholly productive sometimes, and a notion of practice that was maybe too focused on art – the same happened for a moment with writing/language and doing/practice, where people commented that they didn’t use language in their work supposedly, but again I think we challenged that, and generally these binary moments went by quickly – I think for the overall project it would be a huge shame if any opposition between theory and practice was forged, this will be even more challenging in the labs where we have both a clearere division between people with theory backgrounds and others more definitely identifying with ideas about practice, who might not initially trust eachother. // identification, and how to avoid it, especially when working with concepts and definitions, is a key question i think, and it´s through sustained reference to the instablility and situated, evolving nature of our positions that we can challenge this// ah, trust seems very important, needless to say… // the website seems confusing and I will try to figure out a way to draw out the difference between interactive and non interactive sections, otherwise it seems to work ok, any feedback? // it seems a great idea, to ask people to have a short entry ready by the time they join the lab, and to prepare them very well in advance, mainly through the website and texts, introducing the vocabulary upon which the project and labs is built so that in the lab we don´t have to address all that from point zero. // it seems very important to address the issue of developing a shared language, a common vocabulary, and to address the vocabulary that we ourselves use in talking about the project, and to get participants to challenge us on that (like they did this time) // I think the project framework does engage people a lot (as we heard from almost all of them), and the fact that it´s all confusing and difficult is good I think, it forces us to work more intensely and pay attention to eachother as a group. also as sher said, these paradoxical relations between theory and practice have been around and addressed for a while, it´s not like we´re looking for a magic solution, I would rather stress that we are seeing this as a site of struggle, learning and mutual help // the guest entries seem to be a bit too difficult to deal with, because the whole lab process is so self organizing, that in the end we can´t really plan things well in advance, it seems it´s a lot about negotiating them day to day (this is sth I learned a lot from you paz, to take any micro event seriously and address it directly – I think I have the tendency to let things run more loosely, which means sometimes threads get lost more easily, in these lab situations it seems helpful to have a good dose of this sense of urgency and crisis (when its productive of course)) //
questions that arose from this sndo lab for me, in terms of how to develop the project framework further:
in my mind, this is at the moment a really important point for thinking about the different social and professional groups we want to work with, and why. there is, on the one hand, the idea that the vocabulary we build will be transversal beyond some easy or fashionable connections, that different problems and discourses can really be addressed and shared there. this is very important for me and makes me think we need some good strategic mapping so that we don´t end up with an arty project in the end, or giving visibility to things that are already overbearingly present. visbility generally is a big issue… // so that leads me to think the working more explicitly with the idea of a common/shared language might be hugely useful to us. to see the project and labs as a site where a language and mode of relating to concepts can be carried forth, across various divisions, social, class disciplinary, geographical etc. if we could actually learn from the way in which all of these contexts and discourses will undoubtedly clash or at least produce friction, and see it as a site where an honest negotiation of concerns and co-speaking can emerge… someone said recently that friction is what enables us to walk and move… // so that reminds me that the co-authoring aspect of the project is quite important: on the one hand, transparency, and on the other, a good framework- the collective entries within each lab, also and particularly the website… it seems we need to frame the website in a way so as to encouraeg the gesture of putting ones own writing on there along so many other positions which might to a large extent contradict, not as a threat or competition but as sharing and negotiating. if we did manage to encourage people to use the website beyond the fear of making “imperfect” thoughts or doubts public and beyond some shyness or suspicion to do with other entries or people on the site, we might get a real confrontation going on there. that will of course be incredibly difficult to facilitate, especially with people who have less internet or writing practice, but I wonder if we could do it somehow anyways, going from paper to transcription on the computer maybe, or using audio… // so it seems that the translation issue really is at the heart of this, not as a unidirectional process but as method almost, between languages as much as groups/people. I guess we could flesh this out a lot more still, and have one lab at least where this is really what is at stake, and where we set up the lab in such terms.
manuela
Thanks a lot for the work we did. The more we put at stake our questions and different modes of working and the more we are able to articulate it to each other, the best. What for me is an important part of the labs is the constant negotiation of what is there in order to bring to the front for further questioning, how to deal with it, inventing strategies and ways of articulating those collectively as well as making decisions on what to do. 
 
Presenting the project, as “pilot” was good. It gave enough space for people to invest in it. The participant’s position got to be framed as relevant as ours, condition, which I also think we should address in each workshop. A term instead of “pilot” could come along with this/and your feedback…keep thinking on it…
I had to think of the relationship of theory and practice quite a lot lately. One of the spaces that this project unfolds is the use of our own vocabularies…so we enter into the realm of categories here. I think that’s very fine when we keep on relating them horizontally. For me what is at stake with this issue is the notion of information. Who has the knowledge? The person who is not related to theory or the one who got it? Where is the knowledge? In the one who spreads, pass on the information? Or in the one that is able to relate and negotiate with not so legitimated or valued vocabularies? I think that we should keep an eye on the last question as I think is extremely relevant in this project, because otherwise the project could run the danger of falling into the trap of exclusion. One of the challenges of this project I think, is that what we challenge is the very use-value of language and it would maybe be interesting to understand that theory is useful but that also we should work out our know ledges and backgrounds with great respect in relation to where people is with their “own” theories. Anyhow, where we should aim with this issue is to understand that what is developed in each lab is an inside theory/vocabulary which is applied through experience, articulation and the practices we go through as a group of people in a specific context.
Perhaps we could bring a bit of more awareness on the kind of methodology we could start to develop: we are not defining terms; we are not doing communication games or creative communication. What we do is to take hold onto what concerns each other individually; using it and articulating it (the ways we map them out, relate, question, co-speak, participate on each other’s vocabularies) and at the same time, discussing collectively how to take them into practice. How to experience and participate with the things and questions that are relevant to us is interesting because the project, in this way, invests on situated spaces (mental, theoretical, emotional, practical…etc) as a site of crisis and struggle, invests on questions, uncertainties but also desire. (I’ll comeback to this).
In a way we initially set up the project in a contradictory way: After sndo, what became relevant and spoke directly to us was “practice” in relation to the terms discussed as an access point rather than something that needs to be understood, defined or explained; and the negotiations around what direction the lab should take and what was relevant to discuss or discover. Aspect which by the way, we shouldn’t forget: I believe this is the only way in which we won’t end up legitimizing what we do, but dealing with it and allowing its actualization in each place we go to and with every body that participates in it. So “practice” in terms how do we decide to map, articulate, discuss, exchange…what makes the project take on its on current dynamics and not an imposed one; all the negotiations, the articulation of words, ideas, concepts and the further actions attached to them, but not writing. I think is important to differentiate that writing is only one aspect of this project, aspect that will be achieved clearly on the publication, but that it doesn’t necessarily has to be achieved on the workshop.
Instead, the idea of “mapping” becomes more and more relevant to me, because after all, this is what you and me where doing in PAF first we met. My proposal would be to stress out more the idea of mapping instead of writing, as a good way of putting things in context, allow research and mobility. This also brings me to the question of address, situated activities, context: We could relate mapping in relationship with the one entry/theme we decided to address in each lab. I think that departing from one entry, could clarify very well the idea of how to situate “the stakes” in real situations, starting from the current situation where the lab takes place. Like this each participant performs only one part of the bigger map, so that we avoid getting too subjective or busy with ones on practice or signature (specially when in arts contexts) and more engaged with relational situations and collective work.
The last thing said, makes think that when avoiding aesthetics or what actually one is busy yet working through it’s resonances but placing it on a wider context with other people with other mediums and occupations; makes this project quite general (I mean it would be very easy to do this project for instance only related to a context of choreographic practice…for instance) but at the same time it is super specific. One gets to ask him/her self what I do with this now, one gets to expose and position in that site of struggle or crisis where creativity, ethics, invention are at stake. It demands avoiding blames, exclusion, territory…and it inspires to move beyond one’s specialized area of knowledge.
We could also think on how to make these maps possible/doable/available depending on the layers that each specific map draws…of course layers are always related, but I think that if we give more thought to this idea, the question of address, place, context would be relevant to bring forth into concrete practices with real situations/people. For me mapping has to do with the way one relates place, references, ideas, history, theory, devices, emotions, people. A good way to frame “practice” would be to be able to address the practice of the discussed entry focusing or having the chance to focus on the different layers (folding and unfolding them) that confirms each other’s maps. It could be interesting to observe what kinds of practices are addressed depending on what layer you focus on and how the meaning/usage keeps on changing and more relevant, what kind of participations, positioning does demand from us.
What is the current mapping I can make to work with now, here, in this venue, place, with this people in this city?; What are the possible journeys that can we address with our different maps? 
Maps are not just explained, talked about; but rather “proposed” and “experimented with” the outside.
Another aspect we could pay attention to is the articulation of the individual maps: how do we transmit them depending on the medium we are busy with or choose for doing so? how do we communicate them, articulate them, and in return how the others negotiate with them?. So transmission, articulation and negotiation seem to be tools we should make available creatively in order to allow the exchange of individual maps and their potential practices. In relation to this, “timeframes” are also interesting to play with, and also games like the currency one. Perhaps we should make them behave more strategically in order to not simply “play them’ but to bring more discussions, openings…etc. To prepare these strategies, when needed, with you is also a way to keep on exchanging with each other and build up complicity. These are good points, I think to develop in order to keep on perceiving “working” in different ways and to keep on dinamizacing the overall timeframe of the lab.
I propose to check again the proposed texts for the participants and to maybe see how the texts could be introduced (maybe not all, but the self-writing one and so on), and to ask the participants to prepare with a bit of content (map or written form or any other form) for the proposed entry.
And, to don’t forget: I’m interested to keep on addressing the ethic/aesthetic aspect of this project and to perhaps frame it more in terms of content (this is for you and me when reflecting each day of the lab) the micro and macro political spheres that could potentially be addressed for discussion.
I see 4 spaces in the lab, not necessarily in the order mentioned bellow…it should be related all along the workshop:
Project’s space:
Mapping space/articulating map 
Working space (practice)
Guest’s space:
Guest’s entry presentation 
Working session with guest’s entry
an entry is an access point. It is “something to do with”.
An entry is an access point that someone uses in order to map its current ideas, and possible modes of operation in a certain context. Definition may be part of the investigation that one goes through but not the goal. An entry is a conceptual tool that one uses in order to engage in a practice. An entry can be also an access point, which is a practice, and that involves learning/knowledge about a concept. An entry is not transcendental.
Project’s vocabulary
ABOUT PROJECT 
ethics 
aesthetics 
poesis 
application 
situated context
ENTRY 
idea 
concept 
access point 
passage 
term 
notion
HOW TO SPEAK THROUGH IT 
Knowledge 
learning 
proposal 
teaching 
articulating 
experience 
discourse 
tool>utility/usage
MAIN TERMS FOR PARTICIPANTS 
discourse 
practice 
address/offer articulation 
knowledge/learning 
tool/utility/application 
context/application 
questions 
word/world 
theory/practice
p. 2008-02-23T11:27:49Z 31 true what-we-did-in-amsterdam

2008-04-21T08:32:15Z