The Making Of The Making Of e The Making Of The Making Of Residency May - June 2006 Mette Ingvartsen 2a 05 PART

ONE: methodology, research and process orientation INVITATION To all who might be interested, Mette Ingvartsen This is an invitation. A fi rst attempt to start something that could (with potential contributions) develop into various proposals on how to distribute and circulate general questions about performance practices. For the moment working on how artistic processes can be shared, not only through the production of collective artistic works, but also through producing other forms of exchange, confrontation and discussion between multiple artistic disciplines and discourses is a way to expand possible perspectives in the fi eld. Below you will fi nd a series of questions relating to methodology, written in order to initiate longerterm exchange and communication about different working methods and their respective results. These questions are not intended as fi nal proposals but can be continued or completed. This is an invitation for you to do so. Feel free to take, use, develop or question anything you might fi nd of interest in this text. A response can be anything from answering the questions to re-writing them entirely, to stating why this is not answerable or something completely different. Please reply to the questions in whatever way you fi nd is relevant to you, your work, the fi eld of performance, theory, thought or practice. The basic idea is sharing how to think of work protocols as a way of working together without a particular objective (such as making a performance) aside from the discourse produced. For larger 19 20 groups of people to engage in this form of collaborative exchange, you are also invited to pass this text or you own response to it on to other people who might be interested in participating. Answers, rewritings, statements or whatever you decide to respond with can be sent by mail to a slowly growing network and at the same time be posted on www.everybodys.be in order to make it available for others. Potential re-writings/improvements of the basic questionnaire can be made available for further

rewriting. A potentially large number of questions, questioning methodology 1) In the book Bersonism Deleuze writes Intuition is neither a feeling, an inspiration, nor a disorderly sympathy but a fully developed method. What do you think about this statement or simply the idea of intuition as methodology? 2) Do any of the following methods appeal to you and why? collaboration as methodology improvisation as methodology secrecy as methodology chance methods concept as methodology transparency as methodology sensation as methodology overproduction as methodology appropriation as methodology ever changing methodologies as methodology open source as methodology hijacking as methodology 3) What kind of ideological positions do you think these respective methods relate to? 4) Do you think methodology and aesthetics are directly connected/refl ected in the artistic product? 5) Do you think methodologies in art practices are objective or subjective. If objective, then how can they be shared? 6) Can you think of a method that is not yet established in the performing arts? 7) Do you think product-oriented processes exclude research? 21 8) How would you defi ne research as a methodology? 9) What do you think about using scientifi c research methodologies in art, or rather how would you defi ne the differences between scientifi c and artistic research methodologies? 10) How would you defi ne the organizing principles behind your current method of working? 11) Do these principles produce stability or instability in relation to the process of working? 12) Is being clear about the method you use an important tool for developing your work, or does the process of defi ning fi x the potential directions you could move in? 13) Is the sharing of your work directed towards the moment of presentation or is it also happening during the process of working. How? 23 METHOD MONSTER Eleanor Bauer In the performing arts our media and means of making include, among other things: the body, some level of collaboration, communication, or co-construction when not working alone and hence a certain degree of inter-subjectivity, and memory physical memory as well the mental traces of conceptual developments and progress. These are not media of

consistency; we are dealing with materials that are always shifting and changing day-to-day, and hence are not easily conducive to maintaining the consistency of a purely methodical procedure. When it comes to materializing method and what actually happens in the studio, even with methods that are built to create their own contradictions and bifurcations, I am suspicious of the performing artist who claims to control her or his variables, following strict methods and plodding along scientifi cally to identify results. Either because of the reasons stated above that our media dont offer themselves easily to such procedures, or because there are always choices that escape such procedures, aesthetic or personal, attractors and desires that push the work in one direction or another, because we are people and busy with producing experiences. But it must be more than laziness and simply seeking our own entertainment in the studio that constructs the familiar artistic discourse of rejecting/releasing hyper-control, seeking the unexpected and unpredictable, searching for the anomalies and mutations, inviting infl uence and confl uence, including disturbance, etc. As trite as these things sound by now, or whether they are merely a part of contemporary cultural and theoretical obsessions with inclusion, fl uidity, the leaky and the impure, especially in regards to the corporeal, the frequency of these kinds of aims are a practical indication that a majority of artists and art makers in the fi eld of performance today dont plan a, b, c, in order to see a, b, c executed. Perhaps because the work is not in making art objects, but in making something performed, there is an investment in the outcome as a working process, the execution as a renewal rather than a repetition, a real-time making in itself, an updating that activates itself within the act of performance and in each performative step of the process. It is my experience that method in performance-making practices seems more aptly to be something always in formation, temporarily crystallizing to the extent that it serves progress, and just as quickly being replaced or altered to adjust to whatever is learned along the way. We can fi nd exceptions often in performance crossovers with the visual arts, when inanimate matter is involved and what is done stays put, as a permanent materialization of the method by which it is produced. But when the media are subjects, as mentioned above, a method is never sealed from corruption. You could argue that the work of Merce Cunningham is made by a methodologically regulated process, but the effects of this method on and within the bodies, the way it is realized, executed, embodied, and passed on as repertory constantly escapes the regime. A

few instances 24 within performance in which I can imagine method working without infection by unaccountable circumstances, are in examples from the Fluxus movement, which did not, by the way, identify itself as performance, though many Fluxus happenings and objects were highly performative. In these cases I have in mind, the work is methodical in order to be methodical, and in a sense the method is the art itself. With many Fluxus scores, the authorship lies in the conception of the method more than seeing it through: EVENT SCORE Arrange or discover an event score and then realize it. If the score is arrived at while awake, then make a dream realization, that is, note all dreams until a realization of the score has been discovered in a dream. If the score is dreamed, then make a waking realization, that is, search in your waking life for whatever dream or part of a dream constitutes the score George Brecht The text itself is performative. Brechts method is to describe a method that lives in its description. The imagined experience of fulfi lling it and the thoughts that come to mind of its realization create an experience that is self-suffi cient, a serendipitous little performance between the reader and the text. Its a virtual performance, a performance of potentiality, richer as such than it could be in any materialization. Yoko Onos paintings often underlined this emphasis on the method being the art itself, as in the original, instructional version of Painting to Hammer A Nail which denotes a painstakingly consequent method for producing a painting, but itself is a painting not made by the method described. The painting describes a score for an event through the painting as an art object itself, as loud as the content of its text. Paintings made by the process described in Painting to Hammer a Nail were indeed made, but as live performances of this methodical process, again emphasizing the process itself as the art more than the integrity of the art object produced from it. Strict methods with dependable results have their artistic utility within the Performing Arts Proper indeed, not just for performing methods, but as methods for making something else than the method. As my friend Trajal Harrell recently said, What do you do when you get in the studio? Theres nothing to do there! The empty room gives us nothing, nothing but space and time. A sterile luxury. Advantages of having methods we are aware of using are that we have things to do when we get into the studio and that the work is stronger than the constant shifting of our interest, confi dence and motivation (which becomes even more important when we are working with others).

Understanding the way we work in terms of methods can provide us with tools to apply when we are stuck, directions to move in when we are not sure, a feeling of purpose when we are working like dogs and dont yet know what towards. Yet the moment when the tools disappear is the crucial moment of transformation, when you begin to make something besides an answer to a question or a materialization of a method, a 25 moment in which the method begins to serve something besides its own verifi cation. I think methods are useful that produce the desire to work, the desire to look farther. Hence tasks as methods, impossibility as method, and the use of productive paradoxes. Deborah Hays method, for example, is to work always and only on impossible scores in order to produce interest. Unless it is completely impossible, there is always the option of fi nding a clever solution and being done with it, so in order to never be fi nished but always busy she writes impossible scores. Completely opposite from the Fluxus examples, her scores must be performed in order to be activated, exist always and only as a performance practice, and the language of the score is so physio-perceptual that just reading one invites physical investigation. Hays is a method for producing physical curiosity and continuous work, with an open range of acceptable results. The method is the stable underpinning, the consistent base to the unruly possibilities, and the daily work of not knowing what will be produced and reinventing/refi ning the parameters of what can be produced. There is also a way in which what we do when we are moving forward without a method in mind is producing its own methods. I dont think that making work always requires knowing what tools you are using and how and why, because we are smart and we are interested and we are makers and every so often that is enough (granted that we of course are smart, interested, makers in this case). When we want to move quickly and something feels correct in one way and not any other way, why not trust that intelligence called intuition and use the time later when that momentum disappears to look back and say: what did we do fi rst, then what did we do second, why did we make these choices? Through this retrospective reasoning, methods are revealed based on the interests followed or the manner of relating to the work, and can be re-used, re-applied, transformed into tools for later use, in short, methodized. When I am excited about making and feeling productive, capable, and dare I say, inspired, I am working with a surplus of ideas, problems and solutions, and perhaps 90% of them are utterly useless, but to stall this movement of thought and productivity is to eliminate the 10% that

proves workable. What can be done then is a negotiation between foresight and hindsight, and when its not, there stakes are not as high in the doing because the process has been sealed from producing anything one couldnt have known before. Method is one way to view what is happening in the work, one lens, and there are many other things happening in the process of making that are more or less helpful frames at different times. Therefore, and if only in my own work, I am for method-awareness. I am not for procedureobsessed methodmadness. I am not for chaotic method ignorance. I am for a hybrid of foresight and hindsight, method implementation and alteration, needing method and escaping method, creating methods from antimethods, responsible irresponsibility, seeking the method within the madness, the method monsters. The work is the monster of the method(s). Monstrous because it is irreproducible and a product of connections between the method you planned and the method as it became, the method as it is infected with other methods in order to become something else, specifi c to the project, something not universal or re-applicable, something unscientifi c, something you can never do the same because all of the circumstances cannot be reproduced and the methodology acknowledges and is a synthesis of that specifi city. 27 Andros Zins-Browne 1) In the book Bersonism Deleuze writes Intuition is neither a feeling, an inspiration, nor a disorderly sympathy but a fully developed method. What do you think about this statement or simply the idea of intuition as methodology? 1. Intuition is a methodology without a technology. Everyone uses it but no one can teach it. Or no one can teach it to someone else - but I think intuition becomes a method when you can teach it to yourself; that means learning when and when not to listen to yourself. Everyone has intuition, theres nothing special about that. The problems that I see with regard to intuition usually have to do with the romantic notion that intuition has an inherent value, or the neo-liberal/humanistic notion that everyone has intuition and that this fact itself is worth expressing in art practices because of the difference or diversity that this produces. Whats often ignored is the material aspect of intuition. Not all materials allow me to work intuitively, or in a way that intuition becomes more relevant and productive than construction, for instance.

As someone proposing projects to a group this becomes a particularly interesting question: what proposals can allow a group to work intuitively - in a way in which the material is not the object of knowledge of the choreographer. In this way thinking how to produce intuition becomes a methodology. 2) Do any of the following methods appeal to you and why? collaboration as methodology improvisation as methodology secrecy as methodology chance methods concept as methodology transparency as methodology sensation as methodology overproduction as methodology 42 appropriation as methodology ever-changing methodologies as methodology open source as methodology hijacking as methodology a. Collaboration as a methodology isnt interesting to me. Collaboration as a necessity is much more interesting. b. Improvisation isnt in itself an interesting methodology for me. There have already been many interesting methodological uses of improvisation, some of which Ive studied, but they arent my own. What is still interesting to me about improvisation and what I still feel requires a method is the fact that every performance is improvised and knowing how to take advantage of this fact. By this I mean that if every performance were set we would feel the same after each performance of the same piece. Why is it that not a single performer ever gets off stage feeling the same about a performance on two separate nights. This is an interesting question for me at the moment, or its implications are interesting in that they point to the fact that there are many unset factors in a given performance - timing, communication with the audience, real-time experience of the performance on stage, the relation with a given environment (and each audience in each theater on each night is different). Any performance with all its set lights, choreography, costumes, etc. has to cope with this. But how to make using these factors, including them into the performance (as they are anyway already included) is still a matter of blank improvisation which for me requires a methodology. c. Secrecy as a method isnt interesting for me, just as overexposure isnt interesting. I like transparency, but secrecy might be a necessary method for certain problems as long as it isnt mystifi ed - the work of the Atlas Group comes to mind as a good example of secrecy as method - where the

position and currency of truth in the performance is secret or at least always evades becoming transparent. d. Chance - no e. Concept is a basic necessity but how its used and what role it takes always requires a kind of method I think. f. Transparency - as I already said, I like it. g. Sensation cant be a methodology but can be a means of discovering a methodology. The work of Body-Mind Centering (BMC), Cranial-Sacral work, and Feldenkrais come to mind here. We all sense, so what? But how sensation can become articulated, logical, systematized, is for me completely fascinating. I dont think that William Forsythe thought about how he could develop a method to deconstruct the language of Ballet. Rather, I can imagine that years of Ballet training produced a set 43 of sensations for him - an organizational system that within an individual body with a certain (then) contemporary cultural awareness created the event of the deconstruction of that language. This as an event is really fascinating to me, and I think its only possible because the sensation and not only the form of the language was understood and personalized. For me some of the strongest methods come from sensations precisely because sensation isnt articulate and therefore it necessitates articulation/ systematization in order to be useful to others. This means that it has to pass through a lot of resistance from being a highly subjective set of experiences in order to become a reliable way of arriving at that set of experiences - from the personal to becoming a more objective common knowledge or tool. Of course sensation itself cannot be communicated, only the conditions and ways of arriving at it. But this can be very diffi cult, and Im sure that there are many practitioners who have a strong personal understanding of sensation but are unable to articulate this. More often than not though its the form developed from sensation that becomes the methodology. If its really a methodology it should have no prescribed form, but should be a way to arrive at many forms, experiences, sensations etc. which is one of the reasons why I like Feldenkrais work so much which never works with sensation but the specifi c information that might lead to sensation - and BodyMind Centering less, which for me works directly with sensations. h. Over-production as methodology would be more interesting than over-production as symptom. i. Appropriation as methodology is quite close to the work Ive been making the past three years at P.A.R.T.S. I wouldnt say that I have a method of appropriation. I would say that thinking a social

problem which leads to the conceptualization of a context (sport, prison, concert etc.) has been a sort of post-factum methodology - it has just been the way that has seemed to make sense for me to work. When I started ballet at age 7 I could never remember the combinations so I was always copying others. Copying and doing at the same time turned out to be a great practice for me. Imitating, copying, and appropriating - moreover making this copying authentic and ones own has been productive for me and has also maybe had an important political signifi cance. Appropriation has appealed to me because I no longer believed in the currency of original movements - not that they dont exist but that they could no longer have the political and aesthetic impact that they had for me when I began to study contemporary dance. This meant that I could only realize my relation to movement and all of the desire for individual language related to that, through what I could already imagine existing in the world. As I started last year to work with groups of people I found this gave easier access to them than something to learn from me - there was something more common to approach. This made the working relationship less hierarchical even if I proposed the angle from which to approach a given problem. Appropriation was also a way for me to work with meaning in the sense of aboutness. Without using material from the social world - contextualized material - I found no access to aboutness in dance. Maybe this is becoming less and less important for me, but the pieces Ive made so far have run a bit to me like abstracted essays on virtual or real social or cultural situations and for this I found appropriation to be a necessary tool to communicate what I wanted the performance to speak on. But I think appropriation is a bit over. Im still thinking though about how to overappropriate. How to appropriate enough languages and synthesize them (not do them simultaneously, 44 but appropriate them separately and allow them to synthesize in the body) that they produce their own language. But this is maybe just a method that seems like it should make sense because of an actual ambivalent desire to still use appropriation but go back to creating individual dance language (!) -Case in point that methods arent necessarily good - they can also be a way to explain away your hidden desires and make them sound completely necessary! This must be avoided. But I dont know yet what this over-appropriation would be about, or I have some interests in it but no method yet until I start to work on it! j. Ever-changing method is necessary. Im skeptical of anyone who uses the same

method (maybe besides the method of intuition, although its good if you can change your intuition too) in two separate projects. k. Open source is a great possibility both as a methodology and for fi nding methodologies. This was for sure the case in the last project Limewire, in which we could develop movement methods from the peer-to-peer fi le-sharing program Limewire. To describe very briefl y, a problem which we worked with was the question of what a contemporary youth movement would be today. One of the answers that we came to was the program Limewire in which users download music and other fi les from each other. But, we said, in this case the mass youth movement behaves fi rstly as a network rather than a mass and secondly via the logic of the copy. This means that rather than sharing something immaterial en masse, the system absorbs all difference in order to materialize, individualize, copy, and make property. Of course, in the network everyone owns, but what one owns is always connected to the others. There is no individual and there is no group. Every individual difference is absorbed into the evolution of the network. To give a simple example, if I am connected to Limewire and I am the fi rst person in the world to own the unreleased System of a Down song, my difference from the network is immediately absorbed into the system- everyone else can immediately have it too- hence the idea that a counter-culture is impossible within a network structure. No matter how different the information is - it is immediately absorbed and connected into the system. But we were also interested in how it is connected. Limewire and other peer-to-peer programs behave quite interestingly in that they often source a given fi le from several users in order to compile a copied fi le. This means that to download the System of a Down song Fuck the System, I might receive bits of that song from several users in order to download my copy of the whole fi le. In the Limewire project we translated these principles into a methodology for movement practices. Three basic techniques that we developed through this section of the piece are 1) Using a loop (within the language of rock, hardcore, metal, punk etc. concert expressions) we break down the material to singular body parts and copy and reassemble each of the parts to make a unison expression between all of the performers. So from fi ve expressions in loop breaking into fi ve parts of expressions re-combining into one full-body unison expression. 2) morphing unison expressions until they differentiate and then synthesizing parts - I copy As left hand and Bs right hand, while keeping my own head. Like this there are parts

shared between the performers which are always morphing and changing and following each other in and out of parts of unison but everyone shares only parts of each other. 45 3) group unison in which all difference is consumed into the unison. This means that by using unison loops of these counter-cultural expressions, performers morph the loop into differences which are immediately consumed and absorbed by the group so that unison is always evolving but always maintained by absorbing all differences to the system. Smells like teen spirit... l. Im in an airport in London as I write this, in one of the most over-secure environments Ive ever been in, so even writing the word hijacking makes me a bit nervous. But yes, hijacking as a methodology sounds good. If for nothing else it might force one to look for those things that are still considered sacred and private, which in performance isnt always an easy thing to do. 3) What kind of ideological positions do you think these respective methods relate to? 3) It really depends. I use appropriation, Martha Graham used appropriation; obviously we dont come from similar ideologies, and indeed there is a difference between appropriation for critical and non-critical purposes (THX, B.C.!) But I think that everything that had been thrown out in art in terms of methods (chance, trance, or mysticism) is an open possibility now - which is one of the things which is so great about making art work in this time. There are no extinct ideologies because ideologies have no value in themselves anymore. Ideologies can be appropriated or imitated because I can be convinced that not having any ideology is my ideology. Of course I have ideology (THX, B.C.!) But I can also divorce myself from that ideology or borrow others for the sake of a performance. There is no need, as there was up until and through Modernism for the work to represent ones own ideology. I can take LSD for 5 months and live naked in the desert painting animals, given that I approach this method with the right irony and distance (this is one of the things that make Werner Herzog so great). Its really this ability to assume and immerse oneself in an ideology while having a kind of distance, or at least awareness of it and what it might achieve - which is interesting - much more interesting than respecting the stable identity of ideologies and therefore subscribing or rejecting methods of working that might represent these ideologies. 4) Do you think methodology and aesthetics are directly connected/refl ected in the artistic product? 4) Methodology and aesthetics are almost inseparable. I feel more and more that

when I see a good piece, I think how did they make that? and when I see a bad piece I think well, thats probably how they made that. But as I said before, I think methodology is a bit of a pretentious term. I think most good pieces are the writing of a methodology in their production. Rather than having the wisdom of a method under their wings, most interesting works for me seem to have found a method in their way of working and that is an aesthetic which I defi nitely like to see. 5) Do you think methodologies in art practices are objective or subjective. If objective then how can they be shared? 5) Its strange because methods are objective, and yet when I learned Forsythe improvisation 46 from Betsy Corbett - all my highest respects to her - it felt like it was defi nitely something else. This means to me that methodologies, even strong ones that you can make CD-ROMS out of or whatever, still have a high degree of subjectivity to them - methodologies are specifi c to the context in which they are created and they have to be necessary to the problem which they wish to approach. I cannot, now that Ive learned Forsythes techniques, approach the question of youth-movement now with videoscratching or room-writing. This is perhaps more an educational problem but I dont think methods should be taught as techniques. They are not techniques - one cannot go and use them in their next piece. Whats good is to learn how developed a method can become and how different methods make very different products. But to be given a book on composition by Thierry De Mey or a CD-ROM of Bill Forsythe is an interesting historical document maybe but a very bad artistic tool. 6) Can you think of a method that is not yet established in the performing art? 6) Like I wrote earlier - how to engage with the real-time aspect of the performance how to engage with the public and with the other performers in real-time, how to make a performance particular to that space and time - how to make a performance an event which is much more manipulative and intentional than the Fluxus happenings - this still requires a method for me. DJs have this as a methodology -they have to read the party and which kinds of intensities will stimulate and which will turn off the partiers given the environment and the music thats already been played. They have to rehearse a lot, but they have to read the room and their performance relies completely on the feedback they receive from the audience. I think we in performing arts could learn a lot from DJs.

7) Do you think product oriented processes exclude research? 7) No 8) How would you defi ne research as a methodology? 8) Research needs methodology so it acquires it in the way of working. The research of the meaning and uses of methodology is a methodology which is necessary to this research. I think it works like that. Unfortunately I think weve gone through, maybe still are a bit in this period of an aesthetics of research and this has been a bit of a fart in the wind but maybe also a necessary one, I dont know. There are some people whose work is research and this is great. For me I am always thinking research of what, for what. Even if the ends I hope for are missed completely in the result. For many makers and programmers research has become an excuse though, and then it loses its necessity, loses its possibility in fact to develop and necessitate its own methodology. 9) What do you think about using scientifi c research methodologies in art, or rather how would you defi ne the differences between scientifi c and artistic research methodologies? 47 9) Oh science is so sexy in art nowadays! In terms of scientifi c methodologies I think I learned a lot from THE SCIENTIST, Xavier Le Roy when he mentored our project this year mostly very unsexy things that scientists do - like test something several times before throwing it out, changing one variable at a time, measuring change and development, setting up the conditions for something to happen, letting it happen or not happen and then observing. These are all very good to practice. 10) How would you defi ne the organizing principles behind your current method of working. 10) My organizing principles are about to change a lot I think, that could be wishful thinking, practical realization that I am no longer in a school so my principles of work must and will change, or intuition. But a bit of all I think. My organizing principles have been different for each project but most commonly1) have a problem, something that interests, or stimulates me positively or negatively. 2) Collect images where this problem might couch itself. 3) Read and watch fi lms, have discussions with the right people, write a lot about this interest. 4) Make some kind of formal proposal and in it try to think how can I imagine this problem in terms of a physical problem, dynamic, practice, or context. 5) Ask the right people to join in to collaborate. 6) Work in a way that stays close to my initial intentions but never tries to fi t these intentions into becoming. It is always based on what material does to the interest and what

interest does to the material- switching a lot between thinking something is related and then trying it, letting it have a life of its own until it seems unrelated, then choosing if its more interesting unrelated as it is, or would it be more interesting if I were to go back or try to reconnect more to some of the more initial problems/ interests. Finding situations or scores that reproduce the problem within the working situation and to put us in that situation and see what happens- what is interesting and what is cheesy. 7) throw away the 95% that is cheesy. 11) Are these principles producing stability or instability in relation to the process of working? 11) Stability and instability are both necessary in the working process. Its good to have the stability of I know what Im interested in with the instability of this is how I think we can get at it. Its good to have the stability of developing a body practice with the instability of how it will be interpreted and/or utilized, its good to have the stability of my own aesthetics with the instability of not knowing and having to negotiate the aesthetics of others and their not knowing mine and having to negotiate theirs with mine. And so on. 12) Is being clear about the method you use an important tool for developing your work or does the defi ning fi x the potential directions you could move in? 12) I dont think its useful to defi ne your method in process. As I think I said earlier I think defi ning methods is useful probably for grant proposals and otherwise for performance after-talks and 48 refl ections on fi nished work because they help enhance the knowledge of the fi eld of performance making. In process its much more interesting to be clear about the intentions and especially the interests. Why you think that one mode - you could say method but its a bit of a stretch - of investigation might have certain results and why you think what youre doing is pertinent to what youre looking for. But I think work should be used to develop methods in situ, not try out already clarifi ed methods. The event of a way of thinking or processing- what we can later call a method - is what I try to work for because thats when you can understand the work youre working on. 13) Is the sharing of your work directed towards the moment of presentation or is it also happening during the process of working. How? 13) In the last project, Limewire, I have been very open throughout the process. Thank god. There have been so many people who have participated in the rehearsals, either as supposed performers, or

just as guests that I cant really remember how many now. I often invited friends to come to rehearsal and just rehearse with us, even if they came for a couple of hours between other rehearsals of their own. I held a workshop with the second year students of PARTS with some scores that I made for iPods - which eventually lead to the structure of the beginning half of the piece, and of course there were the usual very bad showings and invitation of friends and mentors to see what we were doing and comment. But for me the revelation of the project was for sure inviting others into the rehearsal process. This helped to make sure that the piece never made itself precious, or as Xavier Le Roy said of the piece, everyone can do it, but not everyone can do it. And I think this is a great quality to go for. It became a sort of method to have others involved, but it was also that the material lent itself to this kind of sociality. Im much more in for continuing to make work shared in process - if you can make something that people want to participate in, theres nothing better -I also think that this kind of working helps shift the work away from object and into event, which is just a more interesting fi eld to be engaged in. 49 MODE OF PRODUCTION - ? 51 Procedure for overproduction Mette Ingvartsen you make something you make something out of the something you have just made you make something which cannot be bought you make a gift you make something which is the opposite of what you have just made you make fake money and you sell it for real you make a little note inviting people to invite other people you make a meeting about what other people are making you make communication you make a trailer for a movie somebody else once made you make a performance for webcam that no one will watch you make an animation you make yourself into an animation fi gure who can make other things than you can, so you make an album you make voice expressions that no one can read but everyone can understand you make something which has no physical existence you make thoughts make other thoughts you make a lecture performance you make a text out of the lecture and publish it on the net you make a video registration which is so long that no one will ever look at all of it you make a compressed version so they might anyhow you make sure not to make compromises you make a space

you make a workshop in the space you make a fi ctional documentary about the workshop you already made in the space you make a chair you can sit in when you have made enough other things you make a choreography for furniture you make sure not to make anything that cannot also be used to make something else you make functions change you make people go look at a squash match and call it a performance 52 you make someone write that it was a great show you make things up you make small lies you make people curious by being secret you make up a strategy you make a party that no one knows where the DJ plays the music you make people move you make a fake fi ght in the party you make a rumor about a scandalous performance you make a discussion you make yourself misunderstood in order to be able to change direction you make a lunch meeting for everybody you make a text about the discussion which can be rewritten by others you make a collection of the texts and redistribute them you make a library you make a book about the making of the library you make something that can go on when you cannot anymore you make a recording you make cinematic expressions you make a casting for a fi lm which will never take place you make the making more important than the result you make other kinds of products you make products circulate you make circulation 17 supported by: de Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommissie van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, de Vlaamse Overheid,de gemeente Elsene/commune dIxelles DINA 2 Residency: May - July 2006 Mette Ingvartsen The Making Of The Making Of Published in November 2006 by nadine Herderstraat/rue du Berger 30, 1050 Brussels email; [email protected] http://www.nadine.be part One and Two of this publication fall under the creative commons licence: You are free: to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work to make derivative works Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specifi ed by the author or licensor. Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Texts in part Three are reprinted here with the kind permission ot the authors. falsifi cado em Portugal ipaepuafa-u_