responded by Esther Pilkington
Jacob Scholz
folgt
What is it?
Michel Foucault named real places that are different from their surroundings and somehow produce their own alternative reality “heterotopias” (Foucault 1992: 34). According to him, norms of conduct are shifted in heterotopias. Furthermore, they are places of crisis and deviation, they have an entrance and an exit and are, accordingly, places that one goes through, where one gets stuck, or that one does not get into in the first place. Though ‘heterotopia’ is initially a spatial concept, heterotopias also have their own time and temporality. Many of the spaces that Foucault identifies as heterotopias are institutional spaces: prisons, cemeteries, hospitals, brothels, and theatres.
Since the 1960s, heterotopias have increasingly become a format of creation in design, architecture, fine art and live performance. The theatre had already been one of Foucault’s examples, but it seems that when live art leaves the theatre space to conquer other public spaces it takes the heterotopian potential of theatre with it and starts to produce ‘other’ other spaces through performative practices (geheimagentur/Pilkington 2019). The production of heterotopias became an intrinsic part of the participatory turn in the arts and could possibly be described as one of its primary formats.1 In the context of PABR, the research format Heterotopian Zone invents an alternative reality in a designated area, testing alternative forms of living while also observing and questioning the world outside from within the zone.
What is researched?
Foucault’s heterotopias are set against the background of normativity and the unified space of national society that is surrounding the “other spaces” (Foucault 1992: 39), co-creating their otherness through sameness all around. The rise of heterotopias in the arts (Digel/Goldschmidtböing/Peters 2019) might be spurred by the erosion of that national normativity that came along with the idea of the one public, the one society, the one code of conduct. At best, these new kinds of heterotopias are set up to negotiate what diversified common space and what commonality could be in the context of the erosion of these old Eurocentric norms. Therefore, heterotopias have become laboratories of collective research: In order to create an alternative reality, many aspects of living need to be transformed, many sub-spaces and sub-practices need to be invented to sustain the claim of an alternative reality. Many co-researchers need to be involved to set up their own sub-spaces and practices belonging to that Heterotopian Zone. Heterotopias such as the Floating University (Raumlabor 2019), Animals of Manchester (including Humanz) (FUNDUS THEATER/Theatre of Research 2019) or the Free Port Baakenhöft (geheimagentur 2017) involved different groups in their realisation. In the Free Port Baakenhöft, geheimagentur invited other Hamburg artists to propose contributions, for example to a Battle of Baakenhöft and to the African Terminal, where an exchange of used goods and a business school were set up to counteract and remember the colonial past of the warehouse where it was located. Heterotopias such as these are try-outs of alternative worlds of togetherness, worlds that are governed by a specific set of alternative rules, which can often be defined as a different set of rights that participants of that zone are entitled to. In the Free Port Baakenhöft, everybody has a right to access and use the port. Thus, Heterotopian Zones bring forth different constellations of beings and things, different practices and different subject positions. In contrast to a simulation or an immersive experience of a fictional space, they are trying to make the alternative world real, for example by holding real business school classes and engaging in real trade. A Heterotopian Zone is designed to be taken over when opened to the public. It is made for interaction and embodiment. In order to set it up, different kinds of forecasts have to be made, and different kinds of offers and impulses have to be formulated and presented. Participatory performance practices enable researchers to do that (Plischke 2020). When these forecasts are materialised, it becomes very clear whether they have been correct or not, simply by looking at the way people relate to the offer, use the opportunity, embody the alternative protocols – or not. In all likelihood, people will do these things in a way that is not quite covered by the forecast, making this deviation an important outcome of the Heterotopian Zone.
As a set-up for collective research, Heterotopian Zones allow for a multitude of different research approaches and outcomes: What is a post-colonial trade cooperative? How can a ship welcome station be constructed (Free Port Baakenhöft)? Being limited in space and time, these try-outs are not ideal spaces but daring ones. In crisis and in play, heterotopias negotiate between different approaches and practices of producing an uncommon common space. Hence, it always also researches these negotiations that bring forth a new commonality, which is partly or potentially created by the heterotopian experience in question.
Artistic means
Creating a Heterotopian Zone is a complex undertaking on many levels, including logistics, resources, permissions, crafts and techniques, concept, communication, design, performance, decision-making and care. It is necessarily based on the collaboration of a heterogeneous and transdisciplinary team. It is essential for heterotopian research to adopt a form of collaboration that reaches beyond all kinds of thresholds – institutional, disciplinary, social – and that is driven by vision, desire and curiosity. Many meetings and assemblies are to be hosted in the process of preparing a Heterotopian Zone. In this process, it is important to devise and host all these gatherings in the spirit of the Heterotopian Zone and follow the respective concept as closely as possible. The specific quality of the process will define the quality of the zone. Arguably, this practice of collaboration is the most important “artistic means” in this kind of research, a practice across divisions, collaboration driven by the question of how to make the alternative, the improbable and often supposedly impossible come true.
Claiming an alternative zone obviously does not mean that existing laws and rules do not apply. Therefore, the team creating the zone has to identify those rules that will produce conflict between the claim and the given order of things and either redefine or try to bypass them. In this context, understanding this process of creating the zone as research means that conflict will be intentionally sought out, it is already a result of artistic experimentation and should be made visible. In the Animals of Manchester (including Humanz) all animals, including humans, have equal rights. If it is impossible to overcome rules which restrict movement of certain animals in the zone, then human animals also have to be subjected to these rules, thus achieving equal rights and making existing rules and legislation visible.
Potentials, problems and outcomes
Heterotopian Zones facilitate engagement and interaction with their publics by artistic means. Concurrently with the interaction, visitors are also invited to engage in research from an individual perspective. Heterotopian Zones potentially enable everybody to not only think about an alternative concept of living, but to also experience and embody it temporarily: How does it feel to be an animal amongst animals? How does it feel to be surrounded by co-species, to be part of a trade network, to wave your human privilege? This artistic aspect makes the research format of the Heterotopian Zone very accessible. It allows for a huge spectrum of different approaches and various levels of engagement. A playful example of research offering an accessible approach and inviting diverse forms of engagement is Constanze Schmidt’s The Centre for Vocational Design: 1st Vocational Orientation Fair (2017), which took place in the FUNDUS THEATER/Theatre of Research. Together with students of the Goethe Gymnasium in the Lurup quarter of Hamburg, the researchers transformed the theatre into an exhibition centre with five different exhibition stands at which new professions and new forms of vocational orientation were invented and designed. Entering this Heterotopian Zone, visitors were instructed to orientate towards known as well as unknown professions and ways of working.
When the public enters the Heterotopian Zone, the research is intentionally diversified and distributed. The desired outcome is not one single result, but a multitude of perspectives. Thus, the question of documentation becomes important. Which outcomes should be documented and how: Is there a scribe taking down what happens in the zone? How can participants become co-researchers by having their voices heard and recorded, by being more fully included in the research process?
Meanwhile, it has to be kept in mind that in other areas of culture and leisure heterotopias as such are not necessarily research-oriented or visionary. Heterotopias today cannot only be found in the arts and in those institutional contexts where Foucault had originally located them. ‘Heterotopia’ has become a crucial concept for urban planning (Digel/Goldschmidtböing/Peters 2019). Considering furthermore the rise of tourism as a key sector of the global economy, it seems clear that heterotopia – as spectacle – has become a product: Cruise ships, wellness resorts, exclusive conference environments, resident estates, they all are ultimately trying to sell a heterotopian experience.2 Therefore, the research format Heterotopian Zone, which is supposed to be a set-up for collective research, has to resist from turning into an experiential product, as, for example, in the context of festivalisation (Bennett/Taylor/Woodward 2016).
Finally, a word of warning: The large scale and great variety of practices are key to designing a Heterotopian Zone. This will almost inescapably push core members of the research team to the limits of their resources.
Sibylle Peters, Maike Gunsilius
___
1 The memorials by Thomas Hirschhorn are outstanding examples from the world of fine arts: The memorial (Hirschhorn, Gramsci Monument, 2013) is reinterpreted in Hirschhorn‘s work as a heterotopian space in which practices of gathering, learning, relating and remembering are hosted, triggered and performed. Another example is Banksy’s Dismaland (Banksy, Dismaland, 2015), a dark version of Disneyland set against the background of migration and European crisis. Dismaland also reminds us that the fairground and the circus have always been heterotopian experiences and at the same time shows us how Banksy turns the amusement park into an artistic format.
2 See Heterotopia: Designing Our Mindscapes by Jason Silva, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKxQMyBl22o, last visited May 3, 2019.
References
Bennett, Andy/Taylor, Jodie/Woodward, Ian (2016): The Festivalization of Culture. London: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel (1992): “Andere Räume”, in: Barck, Karlheinz/Gente, Peter/Paris, Heidi/ et al. (eds): Aisthesis: Wahrnehmung heute oder Perspektiven einer anderen Ästhetik. Leipzig: Reclam, pp. 34–46.
Digel, Marion/Goldschmidtböing, Sebastian/Peters, Sibylle (2019): Searching for Heterotopia. Hamburg: adocs.
geheimagentur/Pilkington, Esther (2019): “Other other spaces”, in: Digel, Marion/ Goldschmidtböing, Sebastian/Peters, Sibylle (2019): Searching for Heterotopia. Hamburg: adocs. pp. 76–85.
Plischke, Eva (2020): Zukunft Auf Probe – Verhältnisse von szenischer Kunst und Zukunftsforschung. HafenCity University. Available at: https://edoc.sub.uni-hamburg.de//hcu/frontdoor.php?source_opus=519&la=de
Works / Projects
Banksy, Dismaland, 2015, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, England. http://www.dismaland.co.uk
geheimagentur, Free Port Baakenhöft, 2017, Hamburg.
Hirschhorn/ Thomas, Gramsci Monument, 2013, Bronx, NY, USA. http://www.thomashirschhorn.com/gramsci-monument/
Raumlabor, Floating University, 2019, Berlin. https://www.floatinguniversity.org
Schmidt, Constanze, The Centre for Vocational Design: 1st Vocational Orientation Fair, 2017, Hamburg.
FUNDUS THEATER /Theatre of Research and Live Art Development Agency, Animals of Manchester (Including HUMANZ), 2019, Manchester, UK
folgt
folgt
response Hannah
response von Liz
What is it?
A participatory performance is an event with a beginning and an end, in which participants are invited to interact with performers. As an artistic format it has been developed in between experimental theatre and live art practices (Fischer-Lichte/Roselt 2001, Umathum 2005). It can be used and further developed as a format for Participatory Art Based Research. Artist-researchers host the event, devise its settings und presentational elements, initiate interaction and provide specific protocols and means for doing things together. The format is devised to present, test and critique hypotheses concerning phenomena, problems and potentials of being together. Rehearsing participatory performances means forecasting and simulating public interaction. In consequence, the participatory performance as such partially becomes a rehearsal itself: It can be understood as a try-out – a “preenactment” (Plischke 2020) – in which concepts for a wider understanding of public interaction and cultural practices can be tested and alternative models of being together can therefore be rehearsed. Testing in Performance can be used for opening art-based research to a wider public, making its processes transparent and inviting the public to take an active part in developing new public practices.
The modes of participation can differ widely; participants are invited to perform a range of roles suggested to them. Depending on the set-up and their own choices, they can be observers, experts, they can be tested, or they can become co-researchers. They are invited to try out acting in and interacting with unforeseen or unusual settings.
In consequence, impulsive action and intuitive decision-making can take place in the framework of a theatrical as-if setting. Testing in performance often requires a performance space that is less formal than conventional theatre settings.
In Hello, March! Collective Walking Performance for Followers and Pacesetters (2017), Liz Rech, for example, used a participatory performance in public space to investigate the act of marching in political demonstrations. Rech invited participants to join the performance of different modes of marching and holding objects to examine their performativity in artistic political demonstrations.
What is researched?
Research topics include questions of group dynamics, social processes, practices and/or codes of behaviour. Intuitive implicit cultural practices and incorporated knowledge that would not come to light in a questionnaire or by mere observation of the everyday can be tested and observed in shared action. The performance assembles a group of people that are willing and interested to act with and/or perceive each other. The performance setting offers the option to amplify or dissect actions that, in an everyday context, are layered with other practices. In isolating different patterns of actions, the participants’ are given a choice between them. Researchers can then analyse which elements lead participants to choose a specific course of action, for instance external elements such as a particular spatial formation, or internal dynamics such as picking the easiest option.
Testing in Performance can also take the form of assigning a task to participants. The range of different knowledges of the participants will result in a spectrum of possible solutions.
The process of translating the subject matter into the performative setting and acting it out together in rehearsal is already an act of research. In going public, the test results from rehearsals are shared and tested by and with participants. Rech for instance presented the first outcomes of her research on marching in protests and demonstrations in her performance >>> Marching Session I-VI____>>>> (2016), which was framed as a lecture performance to an audience. In a second step, she invited the audience to follow her on stage to test her findings in a participatory marching session and afterwards answer her questions in a questionnaire. Here, the timing was crucial: If successive commands were given too rapidly, the whole marching group would fall apart, which highlighted the importance of timing and rhythm when guiding marching participants.
Difficulties such as these, which can occur in preparation and in the public performances, are often important results of the research process. The format offers the possibility to collect quantitative data about how many people are deciding for one option or another, or qualitative data about how they interact with a certain task, problem or setting. Testing in Performance can also be complemented with a questionnaire or interviews with participants to pair the observable results (for example from a video-based movement-action analysis) with the experiences of participants and performers (Lippens 2007: 104–06).
Artistic means
The format Testing in Performance is often a hybrid between research and artistic practice. Both dimensions need to be productively linked. The research aspect calls for a clear concept of what is tested and how results will be gained and documented. The artistic practice provides framing, impulse, inspiration and flow to keep audiences engaged and willing to participate. This includes an introduction that creates interest in the proposed activity and prepares audiences for their participation. Such an introduction can take the form of a lecture that explains the research question in relation to the setting and possible activities. In a less transparent approach, researchers can create an alternative or even fantastic reality for audiences to engage with, without sharing a clear intention for the research. Creating situations that arouse interest and pleasure can engage audiences to join activities on many different levels. A safe space and a low threshold are needed to support participation. Using the theatre apparatus can motivate and guide attention. Often, there is not only one theatrical focus but instead there are distributed, parallel actions and plural focal points: Music and flexible spatial settings help participants overcome performance pressure. The different options for interaction can be coordinated by the spatial set-up, by a master of ceremonies, by performers who act as guides, facilitators, role models or agents provocateurs.
Hannah Kowalski framed her performance Yes No Maybe (2013) as research and gave an opening lecture on the topic: In her ‘theatre of decision-making’, Kowalski invited participants to explore the role of performance in the act of voting. For her performance, she created and suggested new ways of voting such as navigating golden rolling chairs to fields on the floor marked ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or using lights and laser pointers to vote. As a master of ceremonies, Kowalski led through the performances, explicitly asking the audiences to evaluate the suggested ways of voting.
Potentials, problems and outcomes
The potential of the format Testing in Performance is that it can be used for presenting research results to a wider public, as well as inviting them to test research results themselves and in cooperation with the researchers, who are in turn testing the participants’ actions and choices.
Since it is performed in a limited amount of time, the performance can easily be documented by video and later reviewed. Following the tradition of performance analysis, the observation of the performance and the events that have taken place supports the research argument. Furthermore, the potential repetition of testing in a series of participatory performances generates differentiated results. It allows for a comparison between different kinds of interaction observed for different groups of participants and for different contexts in which the performance has taken place. If the testing is carried out only once in a single performance, irregularities and coincidences can distort the research result. This can happen easily when most of the participants are friends of performers, students, or performers themselves. Repetition of the testing can highlight an overarching pattern and help identify exceptions. Moreover, seemingly irrelevant small events can come to the forefront when they reoccur in repeated performances.
Problems can also arise with the initial framing of the participatory performance in question: If the invitation for an action/activity is unclear or vague, audiences will remain in a passive role and no interaction with or participation in the setting can be observed. If the invitation is too narrow, audiences will act according to the demands of the setting and the assumed intention of the initiators. Each research team has to find a framing that navigates the fine line between explanation, invitation, between indicating or determining activities and creating a space where anything is possible.
In x/groove space (2016), which was part of the groove space-series, Sebastian Matthias tested everyday urban choreographies in Tokyo, Japan, and in Düsseldorf, Germany. Initially, it was assumed that Japanese audiences would be quieter and more respectful in the interaction with performers. Only a series of performances in Japan and Germany was able to prove this cultural stereotype wrong.
References
Fischer-Lichte, Erika/Roselt, Jens (2001): “Attraktion des Augenblicks — Aufführung, Performance, performativ und Performativität”, in: Fischer-Lichte, Erika/Wulf, Christoph (eds): Theorien des Performativen. Berlin: Akademie, pp. 237–253.
Lippens, Volker (2007): “Analyse des Bewegens und der Bewegung. Perspektiven einer Bewegungshandlungsanalyse im Tanz”, in: Gabriele Brandstetter/Gabriele Klein (eds): Methoden der Tanzwissenschaft – Modellanalysen zu Pina Bauschs ‘Le Sacre du Printemps’. Bielefeld: transcript, pp. 101-129.
Plischke, Eva (2020): Zukunft auf Probe. Verhältnisse von szenischer Kunst und Zukunftsforschung. HafenCity University Hamburg. Available at: https://edoc.sub.uni-hamburg.de/hcu/frontdoor.php?source_opus=519&la=de
Umathum, Sandra (2005): “Performance”, in: Fischer-Lichte, Erika/Kolesch, Doris/Warstat, Matthias (eds): Metzler Lexikon Theatertheorie. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 231–234.
Works / Projects
Kowalski, Hannah, Playing Decision-Making, 2014, Hamburg.
Matthias, Sebastian, x/groove space, 2016, Düsseldorf.
Rech, Liz >>> Marching Session I-VI____>>>>, 2016, Hamburg.
Rech, Liz, Hello, March! Collective Walking Performance for Followers and Pacesetters, 2017, Hamburg.
response von Moritz folgt
What is it?
The format Laboratory Series is an investigation and improvisation set-up with an overarching question, task, or subject matter, that is based on the isolation and reduction of elements with controlled variations in a repetitive pattern. Similar to proceedings in a laboratory (Rheinberger 2015), this format is intended to gather effects, characteristics, and dynamics of a research topic, which often cannot be fully grasped or perceived at first sight. In proximity to rehearsal and creation processes in the arts, a series like this is often conducted in a rehearsal space or studio. The controlled setting allows for a clear selection of elements in the room, including tasks, instruments, specific participants or co-researchers, as well as protocols of interaction and documentation. As the series continues, the participants can either stay the same or change from session to session. This approach allows for adjustments of the set-up – introducing new elements, tasks, or instruments – and for referring back to results of previous experimental sessions. In difference to a rehearsal process or to a training these adjustments are made to further explore the overarching subject matter, rather than to produce some form of showing.
The repetition creates a familiarity with the matter at hand, in which a spectrum of approaches can unfold, which in turn sharpens the researchers’ perception for the subject matter, material or question. Operations need to follow a formal structure or score to document changes and enable comparisons. As in a scientific laboratory, discussions and findings that might lead to modifications of the setting and/or subsequent testing, have to be based on documentation of former experimental results (Plischke 2020, Matzke 2012, Latour/Woolgar 1986: 47).
The same group can handle the complete investigation together or new constellations (see Improbable Assembly) of co-researchers can reassemble for each new encounter. In case there are different groups, the research leader ensures that the laboratory setting is maintained and that the results from the different groups are secured within the same protocol of documentation. For her investigation on the practice of marching, Elisabeth Rech organised seven workshops with different co-researchers. Participants came from dance, music, visual arts and activist backgrounds and looked at the act of marching focusing on different aspects such as objects, sound, choreography, etcetera. (>>> Marching Session I-VI____>>>>, 2016)
This research format aims at experts working together and can be designed for groups with heterogeneous knowledges. Each new test is structured and marked by gradual shifts of perspective or new ways of approaching the task. This shift in perspective might simply occur because a day has passed, or it might result from a new constellation or a reformulation of how the score is implemented, based on the experiences and results of the sessions carried out before (Matthias 2018: 67-74). If the instalments of a series do not differ much in regard to the elements present in the room, the series might aim at a familiarity with the material, which can open up new perspectives that would remain invisible if the elements and scores changed every day. The experimental system is defined by a specific relation between continuity of practice and material on the one hand and different access points on the other (Rheinberger 2015: 313). A rotating system of acting/performing and observing as well as the diversity of participants’ experiences and inputs structure the collective investigation. Action-based and discursive parts are combined to generate and share experiences.
What is researched?
The human body and its habituated practices are one major topic of this research format. Questions concerning bodily activities, skills, sensations, emotions, or perceptions are investigated in the set-up. Often, interactions of human and non-human agents are explored. The collective negotiation in the laboratory brings the subjectivity of each participant’s experience into a productive relationship with the group – physically and discursively. Sequences of acting (Post-Production Workshop 2013)and observing each other enable dynamics of intuitive feedback processes. As the group of researchers is confronted with the same task, different knowledges are triggered, collected and combined. This produces a spectrum of results that forms the basis for new modulations. The duration and continuation of the experimental series enables the participating bodies to bring forth new practices, as they slowly adjust and develop their processes. It goes along with the development of perception – new ways of seeing and reading bodies. Perspectives are broadened and changed in relation to the material at hand. Variation in repetition therefore is key for this format.
As research processes, Laboratory Series should include formalised protocols of feedback, to report and collect individual experiences. Adjustments of settings should be accounted for with reference to documented data. This could, for example, be done in a collective writing practice, in which all participants face the challenge to find words for their experience. However, a notation or mapping system can also be used to organise the feedback process. In the research process to The Bodies We Are (2016), Antje Velsinger protocolled the discussion with the performers after each set of improvisations. As in a laboratory (Latour/Woolgar 1986: 87), the co-researchers are constantly adding modalities, citing, enhancing, diminishing, borrowing, and proposing new combinations in movements or practices. Conducting a Laboratory Series will always also create knowledge about choreographies, bodies, artefacts, and ways of collective working.
Artistic means
The research format Laboratory Series has a proximity not only to the laboratory but also to art practices that use limitations to provoke and spark creativity (Stravinsky 1947:65). Under these circumstances, first ideas and superficial approaches are spent quickly, making way for deeper understandings and innovative interaction. Through playful and non-judgmental attitudes, the group can encounter a question over and over again and look at the matter at hand in numerous unforeseen ways. To overcome or even utilise boredom in this durational process, all participants need to stay focused and disciplined, but also open for unexpected and seemingly silly impulses. Over time, new skills are developed that can lead to a virtuosity of practice. Repetition supports the development of skills and techniques that can manifest in the researchers’ bodies and change the range of physical coordination. For example, when investigating the interaction of human and non-human agents in the construction and use of barricades, Moritz Frischkorn limited the elements present in the laboratory to wooden euro-pallets, tires, cobblestones and dancers as co-researchers. He hosted a series of daily improvisations, each lasting one hour, for the duration of six weeks (A Careful Process of Composition, 2016). He limited the options of co-researchers even further by imposing silence.
As a result, interactions between human and non-human actors emerged which, whilst being artistic, nonetheless revealed a dynamic inherent to barricades, related practices, and politics.
Potentials, problems and outcomes
The development of skills and an innovative virtuosity of practice are common results of this research format. With the developed technique, new perspectives can be opened that were not physically possible before. The development of skills runs parallel to a sharpening of the perception. Knowledge derives from repetitive practices, which are embodied, shared and observed, and is inscribed in the movement repertoire and the bodily skills of participants. In Laboratory Series, dynamics often manifest physically first and then are grasped intellectually.
Through the reduction and isolation of actions, the affective dimensions of contributing elements are uncovered. Though artificially enlarged and detached from everyday reality, the new skills researchers experiment with highlight formerly hidden perspectives. This finally enables an informed transfer into a performance or a performance lecture that makes the research accessible to a wider public. This often is in itself a test (see Testing in Performance) to find out whether the outcomes of a laboratory series are received as innovative or have become too far removed from established perspectives on the matter and from sensible applications to be relatable.
The format Laboratory Series can also be opened to the public in order to either widen the outside observation process or the testing situation. If opened to a public, the same method of feedback and documentation should be applied as in the preceding laboratory situation.
References
Latour, Bruno/Woolgar, Steve (1986 (1979)): Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Matzke, Annemarie (2012): Arbeit am Theater. Eine Diskursgeschichte der Probe. Bielefeld: transcript.
Matthias, Sebastian (2018): Gefühlter Groove. Kollektivität zwischen Dancefloor und Bühne. Bielefeld: transcript.
Plischke, Eva (2020): Zukunft auf Probe. Verhältnisse von szenischer Kunst und Zukunftsforschung. Phd. HafenCiy University.
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (2015): “Labor”, in: Badura, Jens/Dubach, Selma/ Haarmann, Anke/Mersch, Dieter/Rey, Anton/Schenker, Christoph/Toro Perez, German (eds): Künstlerische Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Zürich: Diaphanes, pp. 311–314.
Stravinsky, Igor (1947): Poetics of Music – In the Form of Six Lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University
Works / Projects
Frischkorn, Moritz, A Careful Process of Composition, 2016, Hamburg.
Matthias, Sebastian, Post-Production Workshop, 2013, Hamburg.
Rech, Elisabeth, >>>>> Marching Session I – VI________ >>>>> – An Interactive (Lecture) Performance for Followers and Pacemakers (2016)
Velsinger, Antje, The Bodies We Are, 2016, Hamburg.
Page 2 of 3