the political
I don’t know where to begin.
Igor and Nicole introduced this first morning, and talked about each of us attempting to identify something that could be an issue, or method/procedure, or concern that is personal, and that is ‘bothering’ us at this time. This was in direct contrast to our biographies. In other words, by presenting such an issue the idea was to “singularise” each of us. In listening, Igor suggested that we “abstract the context in our imaginations” - to make us more lively in our observation, and to increase the chances of us “not knowing” as we were observing. In other words, to find a way resist our biases as viewers/listeners.
Cosmin Manolescu presented some ideas (and examples) of his work. He talked of collecting, and connecting with people. We spent time (initially) in the streets performing a Lisa Nelson exercise with one person blindfolded and the other supporting them.
Cosmin’s work seemed (in his own words?) to talk to the policitical. We witnessed some overtly political symbols - flags as underwear for example – and Cosmin said that he could not “deny” his political activism.
Igor suggested that the biggest level of the political is perceptual. How our senses are managed (Later he and I talked of how dictatorships fail because they are too overt, and that it is the way in which (for example) consumer capitalism operates at a profoundly ‘under the radar’ level that makes it so successful).
Tom Dale suggested that the political has to do with levels of organisation. I felt like that discussing the political was inevitably about questions of change (or the desire for).
Other questions. What does it mean to intervene? (I thought of Richard Layzell’s very gentle interuptions of work). Igor suggested a question that is stimulating to him is how we might be ‘political’ (in the theatre) without radical interruption of the classical theatre form (audience/performer and fourth wall). (“Can you intensify the relationship without breaking it?”). We talked of Bel’s “The Show Must Go on” as an example. Rui was desperate to know WHO was responsible for this political act - Bel? The venue? The producer? Nicole and Igor both talked to the possibility of history (and various contexts) leading to ‘revolution’. We discussed questions of ‘will’ in relation to resisting the hegemony, and – on the other hand – being a ‘victim’ (my word) of a series of circumstances.
It’s late. So much to record. So much to contemplate. I have not done this session justice at all.
