Summer Intensive

SI. is the initiative by Christine De Smedt co-curated by Myriam Van Imschoot and produced by Les Ballets C de la B to host artists from various backgrounds to meet for exchange and develop (a part of) a project in a brief amount of time.

— @summerintensive on Twitter.

SI (short for Summer Intensive) was the initiative by Christine De Smedt co-curated by Myriam Van Imschoot and produced by Les Ballets C de la B to host artists from various backgrounds to meet for exchange and develop (a part of) a project in a brief amount of time.

What started as a two-week process later developed into ongoing interaction and exchange. This publication is a documentation of this process.

Youu can get it on Les Ballets C de la B website or view some excerpts here. 

The printed version also includes a DVD with films made by Sergio Cruz, Dmitry Paranyushkin, Nikolaus Gangsterer, and Myriam Van Imschoot.


About SI /// Download PDF 
 
 

Artists’ Contributions /// Download PDF

Apr 25

Re-figuring the figure by Pieter Ampe and Dmitry Paranyushki (with special attention on the acoustic qualities of drawing).

Dec 15

Drawing figure 1. This initial drawing serves as a starting point for a series of interpretations, conjectures, speculations performed by Christine De Smedt, Myriam Van Imschoot, Lilia Mestre, Pieter Ampe, Sergio Cruz, Lisi Estaras, Lenio Kaklea, Pieter Bogert, Vladimir Miller, Dmitry Paranyushkin and others.

Dec 15

Drawing Figures

The act of drawing and the performative potential of drawing (as a quite simple, analogue maybe even archaic medium) is to be explored and expanded as a medium of communication of ideas. Herewith I am interested in the notion of the figure and the figurative in close reference to the concept of the body. The question of the action potential of a drawn diagrammatic figure (of thought) for a human figure is fascinating me.

I want to explore with others the idea of the “figure” as something dynamic/flexible which has always specific performative aspects eg semantic figures of gestures, figures of speech, figures of lines in space, figures of movement. Based on these dynamic  figures I aim to explore the relationship between thinking, drawing, acting. (see figures)


When drawing a diagram I made this initial experience that it can serve (next to its original purpose to visualize an idea in a rather schematic form) also as a tool to explore meaning and can become a vehicle for decision making.
These ideas I wish to be practically further explored in the group by reconstructing, transforming, enhancing some of the figures which describe/depict an individual interpretation (=hypothesis).

Nikolaus Gansterer

Dec 15

SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL – this is the first thing I had to think about when I saw the logo on the flyer for SI, a few weeks before the meeting actually took place. Many links between SI and SI still stand: spectacle becomes situation (as in Sartre’s “Theatre of situations”) – the construction of situations as a setting up of environments – the notion of space (and of the diagram) that plays an important role in their ideas on urbanism, psychogeography, dérive, … the notion of PLAY also: SI as a playground for adults…

MOVEMENT – where the ordinary becomes extra-ordinary, as in Sergio’s films; or the other way around: where the extra-ordinary becomes the ordinary as in Massumi’s idea on image value that replaces use-value…

REPETITION – there is a lot of repetition involved when one talks about performing arts; repetition in the sense of rehearsal. But the repetition I’m aiming at is somewhere else. There was a repetition in the way the days were structured: meals, meetings, discussions, presentations. But always with a difference; this is where the notion of VARIATION comes in; or the notion of COUNTERPOINT (which was so important for Christine, who has been repeating so often – in and on her work). When I think about repetition, I also have to think about the idea of the one minute presentations (which took place twice), or the ten minute dances Pieter initiated and which were performed by different persons in totally different ways, or the stopwords drifting around in physical and mental space, that kept on repeating themselves: < yes, but >, but still…, although, and yet…, and so… and of course: OK. (+ EXORCISM? SPECTROLOGY? = UNLEARNING? -> repetition as what you want to get rid of; not repeating the teacher but deciding for yourself what to learn and what not). Rhythm!

OBSERVER – this has to do with my own role in SI and my experience as an observer. SI made more than ever clear that any observer is always already an actor and a spectator at the same time. You cannot isolate the one from the other. Therefore, this notion of the observer, is linked to notions of PUBLIC, of WORK, and (thinking more in particular about Matter of Act) CRITICALITY. AMBIGUITY may also become important here, as borders constantly shift or disappear. (also related: the observer as AGENT; the AGENCY created by subjects and objects…)

OPEN, EMPTINESS – these notions come with the notion of STRUCTURE in/behind SI. I had the feeling that, the less programmed, the less this meeting was centred towards a public, the more open it became (and paradoxically: the more receiving towards the public). The emptiness it brought with it, seemed very fruitful for the dynamic of SI. 

SPACE – this is probably the key concept of SI, where all other concepts meet. Openness, emptiness, situation, playground repetition, variation, etc… There is also this notion of the BUBBLE and the FOAM that formed on its edges, like tiny ANTENNAS – made clear in Dmitry’s diagrams.. 

MANIFESTO – or maybe: the need for a PLATFORM – Swedish Dance History as a manifesto of/with manifestoes; as manifest bricks in and around space; as repetition (p. 964: to repeat is somehow a failure). 

DIAGRAM – we saw several of them: in Dmitry’s work, or in Nikolaus’. Vladimir suggested it could be the link between SPACE and IMAGE – the other key concept in Dmitry’s final diagram of SI. (the third key concept in there was OBJECT)

MATTER and/or AFFECT – I think of course of Lilia’s Moving You, which says a lot about relations between subjects and objects. I also think of the way things, objects, get agency in Latour’s thinking: the shift he makes from matter of fact to matter of concern. (see Brian Holmes’ affectivist manifesto)

SIMULTANEITY – is linked to SPACE, but also with TIME. Something that came up when I watched Pieter’s ten minute dances: thinking and talking and dancing at the same time – therefore it also has to do with openness, trust, doing (acting), …

LEARNING – this is what SI was all about: coaching, exchange of experiences (see also REPETITION or RE-ENACTMENT) (cf. UNLEARNING -> EXORCISM, SPECTROLOGY: the ideas that haunt us). Rancière’s INTELLECTUAL EMANCIPATION

INTERVIEW – this is a suggestion from Myriam. The interview is not only important in her own artistic practice, but also played a major role in Christine’s work; Dimitri created his SI diagram through interviews; Vladimir’s communication sculptures (most notably the dialog box) triggered interviews, etc… CF. PORTRAIT???

SHARING – this is something else that came up while discussing these keywords on Saturday. Not everything is shared; there is also a space of non-sharing, of privacy or secrecy. If not this meeting would have become rather totalitarian. It has to do with the partiality of observing. (cf. PARTAGE in Rancière)

CURATORIAL PRACTICE? Cf. 6M1L: curating processes, not products. 

FUN! Extra-ordinary makes people laugh – performers succeed when the laugh becomes ordinary (check: Bergson: Le rire?); we had a lot of laughing during SI!

Sep 21

Second week of Summer Intensive

Sep 05

voicing objects/ moving spaces / a practice

project by Lilia

concerns:
 

 

how to render visible the affective movement of a working area? how do people do establish the relation between their desire, their act, their needs , the other? Can we reveal its social/ affective environment through a set up of sounds / vocabulary given to objects?

 

sound as thought, sound as action, sound as the matter in between which I like to call relation.

 

the process of learning a vocabulary/ language/ code for the distribution of affect in a given area that has its own materials, set ups and energy.

 

the phenomenon of being a part of and being an agent of change between other multiple agents of change.

 

the place of the other (objects, thought, matter,…) in the making of a situation.

 

affect as orientation towards something. Constant movement (=change). 

 

the act of modeling ways of living and modes of action within the existing real.


Sep 04

Based on the interviews with Summer Intensive participants made by Dmitry Paranyushkin with ThisIsLike the visualizations above were created in Gephi. They represent the field of interests, concerns, and research for each participant that came up during the interviews.

The terms / concepts that are bigger within the network are sort of “junctures” through which most of the other concepts are realized, sort of important passageways for the meaning (in terms of network analysis they have high “betweenness centrality”). These are not necessarily the most frequently mentioned ones, but rather the ones without which the network as a whole could not function, the most influential nodes within the network. 

The communities (indicated with the color of the nodes) are comprised of the nodes that are very well interconnected between each other, more so than with the rest of the network. 

The table at the bottom gives an insight about some main parameters of each participant’s network of interests. Those that have low power law distribution are the ones where the importance is distributed more or less equally between the concepts. While the ones with the high power law distribution indicate the networks where one or two concepts have much higher significance than the rest. The clustering coefficient indicates how embedded the nodes are into their neighborhood. When it is low it indicates a network that has more sparse connections, has more branches on the periphery, and could be more open to learning.

To see the network of the whole group of artists from Summer Intensive click here.

Aug 28

First week of Summer Intensive. Photos by Pavel Brunner.

Aug 28

From an interview with Hans-Ulrich Obrist via Johannes Wengel

Aug 28

“The interesting thing was that artists did their experiments, and scientists did their experiments. It wasn’t necessarily about forcing artists and scientists to collaborate. They all did their own thing, but yet it happened in the same space. And there is the possibility that certain encounters happen. What I have experienced is that very often these things take a lot of time. For me, it’s never a question of doing these things in a rush, because very often they trigger something. It is like a butterfly effect. It is maybe five or ten years later, and two of the people who met there are doing a book together.
For me, it is very important to trigger these possible sparks, and it is very organic. Freeman Dyson was saying on Edge that the 21st century will be biological. I think it is also very possible to think about exhibitions and conferences in biological terms, as growing over time, and not just as these sorts of one-off events. We are living in an event culture where we always switch on and off, and it’s very unproductive because we move on to the next thing.

For me, it is very important to work on these things as if it were long distance running, over many years. Little by little, new ramifications happen. So, the answer to your question of how one can bring these things together is by, first of all, not rushing them, and, secondly, not jumping from one project to the next, but instead having sustained projects that evolve over a long time, through different chapters. It’s about making mistakes, learning from those mistakes, and then making new mistakes.”

SI Documentation Published

SI (short for Summer Intensive) was the initiative by Christine De Smedt co-curated by Myriam Van Imschoot and produced by Les Ballets C de la B to host artists from various backgrounds to meet for exchange and develop (a part of) a project in a brief amount of time.

What started as a two-week process later developed into ongoing interaction and exchange. This publication is a documentation of this process.

Youu can get it on Les Ballets C de la B website or view some excerpts here. 

The printed version also includes a DVD with films made by Sergio Cruz, Dmitry Paranyushkin, Nikolaus Gangsterer, and Myriam Van Imschoot.


About SI /// Download PDF 
 
 

Artists’ Contributions /// Download PDF

Re-figuring the figure by Pieter Ampe and Dmitry Paranyushki (with special attention on the acoustic qualities of drawing).

Drawing figure 1. This initial drawing serves as a starting point for a series of interpretations, conjectures, speculations performed by Christine De Smedt, Myriam Van Imschoot, Lilia Mestre, Pieter Ampe, Sergio Cruz, Lisi Estaras, Lenio Kaklea, Pieter Bogert, Vladimir Miller, Dmitry Paranyushkin and others.

Drawing Figures

The act of drawing and the performative potential of drawing (as a quite simple, analogue maybe even archaic medium) is to be explored and expanded as a medium of communication of ideas. Herewith I am interested in the notion of the figure and the figurative in close reference to the concept of the body. The question of the action potential of a drawn diagrammatic figure (of thought) for a human figure is fascinating me.

I want to explore with others the idea of the “figure” as something dynamic/flexible which has always specific performative aspects eg semantic figures of gestures, figures of speech, figures of lines in space, figures of movement. Based on these dynamic  figures I aim to explore the relationship between thinking, drawing, acting. (see figures)


When drawing a diagram I made this initial experience that it can serve (next to its original purpose to visualize an idea in a rather schematic form) also as a tool to explore meaning and can become a vehicle for decision making.
These ideas I wish to be practically further explored in the group by reconstructing, transforming, enhancing some of the figures which describe/depict an individual interpretation (=hypothesis).

Nikolaus Gansterer

Keywords from Pieter Van Bogaert

SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL – this is the first thing I had to think about when I saw the logo on the flyer for SI, a few weeks before the meeting actually took place. Many links between SI and SI still stand: spectacle becomes situation (as in Sartre’s “Theatre of situations”) – the construction of situations as a setting up of environments – the notion of space (and of the diagram) that plays an important role in their ideas on urbanism, psychogeography, dérive, … the notion of PLAY also: SI as a playground for adults…

MOVEMENT – where the ordinary becomes extra-ordinary, as in Sergio’s films; or the other way around: where the extra-ordinary becomes the ordinary as in Massumi’s idea on image value that replaces use-value…

REPETITION – there is a lot of repetition involved when one talks about performing arts; repetition in the sense of rehearsal. But the repetition I’m aiming at is somewhere else. There was a repetition in the way the days were structured: meals, meetings, discussions, presentations. But always with a difference; this is where the notion of VARIATION comes in; or the notion of COUNTERPOINT (which was so important for Christine, who has been repeating so often – in and on her work). When I think about repetition, I also have to think about the idea of the one minute presentations (which took place twice), or the ten minute dances Pieter initiated and which were performed by different persons in totally different ways, or the stopwords drifting around in physical and mental space, that kept on repeating themselves: < yes, but >, but still…, although, and yet…, and so… and of course: OK. (+ EXORCISM? SPECTROLOGY? = UNLEARNING? -> repetition as what you want to get rid of; not repeating the teacher but deciding for yourself what to learn and what not). Rhythm!

OBSERVER – this has to do with my own role in SI and my experience as an observer. SI made more than ever clear that any observer is always already an actor and a spectator at the same time. You cannot isolate the one from the other. Therefore, this notion of the observer, is linked to notions of PUBLIC, of WORK, and (thinking more in particular about Matter of Act) CRITICALITY. AMBIGUITY may also become important here, as borders constantly shift or disappear. (also related: the observer as AGENT; the AGENCY created by subjects and objects…)

OPEN, EMPTINESS – these notions come with the notion of STRUCTURE in/behind SI. I had the feeling that, the less programmed, the less this meeting was centred towards a public, the more open it became (and paradoxically: the more receiving towards the public). The emptiness it brought with it, seemed very fruitful for the dynamic of SI. 

SPACE – this is probably the key concept of SI, where all other concepts meet. Openness, emptiness, situation, playground repetition, variation, etc… There is also this notion of the BUBBLE and the FOAM that formed on its edges, like tiny ANTENNAS – made clear in Dmitry’s diagrams.. 

MANIFESTO – or maybe: the need for a PLATFORM – Swedish Dance History as a manifesto of/with manifestoes; as manifest bricks in and around space; as repetition (p. 964: to repeat is somehow a failure). 

DIAGRAM – we saw several of them: in Dmitry’s work, or in Nikolaus’. Vladimir suggested it could be the link between SPACE and IMAGE – the other key concept in Dmitry’s final diagram of SI. (the third key concept in there was OBJECT)

MATTER and/or AFFECT – I think of course of Lilia’s Moving You, which says a lot about relations between subjects and objects. I also think of the way things, objects, get agency in Latour’s thinking: the shift he makes from matter of fact to matter of concern. (see Brian Holmes’ affectivist manifesto)

SIMULTANEITY – is linked to SPACE, but also with TIME. Something that came up when I watched Pieter’s ten minute dances: thinking and talking and dancing at the same time – therefore it also has to do with openness, trust, doing (acting), …

LEARNING – this is what SI was all about: coaching, exchange of experiences (see also REPETITION or RE-ENACTMENT) (cf. UNLEARNING -> EXORCISM, SPECTROLOGY: the ideas that haunt us). Rancière’s INTELLECTUAL EMANCIPATION

INTERVIEW – this is a suggestion from Myriam. The interview is not only important in her own artistic practice, but also played a major role in Christine’s work; Dimitri created his SI diagram through interviews; Vladimir’s communication sculptures (most notably the dialog box) triggered interviews, etc… CF. PORTRAIT???

SHARING – this is something else that came up while discussing these keywords on Saturday. Not everything is shared; there is also a space of non-sharing, of privacy or secrecy. If not this meeting would have become rather totalitarian. It has to do with the partiality of observing. (cf. PARTAGE in Rancière)

CURATORIAL PRACTICE? Cf. 6M1L: curating processes, not products. 

FUN! Extra-ordinary makes people laugh – performers succeed when the laugh becomes ordinary (check: Bergson: Le rire?); we had a lot of laughing during SI!

Second week of Summer Intensive

voicing objects/ moving spaces / a practice

project by Lilia

concerns:
 

 

how to render visible the affective movement of a working area? how do people do establish the relation between their desire, their act, their needs , the other? Can we reveal its social/ affective environment through a set up of sounds / vocabulary given to objects?

 

sound as thought, sound as action, sound as the matter in between which I like to call relation.

 

the process of learning a vocabulary/ language/ code for the distribution of affect in a given area that has its own materials, set ups and energy.

 

the phenomenon of being a part of and being an agent of change between other multiple agents of change.

 

the place of the other (objects, thought, matter,…) in the making of a situation.

 

affect as orientation towards something. Constant movement (=change). 

 

the act of modeling ways of living and modes of action within the existing real.


Based on the interviews with Summer Intensive participants made by Dmitry Paranyushkin with ThisIsLike the visualizations above were created in Gephi. They represent the field of interests, concerns, and research for each participant that came up during the interviews.

The terms / concepts that are bigger within the network are sort of “junctures” through which most of the other concepts are realized, sort of important passageways for the meaning (in terms of network analysis they have high “betweenness centrality”). These are not necessarily the most frequently mentioned ones, but rather the ones without which the network as a whole could not function, the most influential nodes within the network. 

The communities (indicated with the color of the nodes) are comprised of the nodes that are very well interconnected between each other, more so than with the rest of the network. 

The table at the bottom gives an insight about some main parameters of each participant’s network of interests. Those that have low power law distribution are the ones where the importance is distributed more or less equally between the concepts. While the ones with the high power law distribution indicate the networks where one or two concepts have much higher significance than the rest. The clustering coefficient indicates how embedded the nodes are into their neighborhood. When it is low it indicates a network that has more sparse connections, has more branches on the periphery, and could be more open to learning.

To see the network of the whole group of artists from Summer Intensive click here.

First week of Summer Intensive. Photos by Pavel Brunner.

Summer Intensive

Posted on Saturday August 28th 2010 at 05:30pm. Its tags are listed below.

“The interesting thing was that artists did their experiments, and scientists did their experiments. It wasn’t necessarily about forcing artists and scientists to collaborate. They all did their own thing, but yet it happened in the same space. And there is the possibility that certain encounters happen. What I have experienced is that very often these things take a lot of time. For me, it’s never a question of doing these things in a rush, because very often they trigger something. It is like a butterfly effect. It is maybe five or ten years later, and two of the people who met there are doing a book together.
For me, it is very important to trigger these possible sparks, and it is very organic. Freeman Dyson was saying on Edge that the 21st century will be biological. I think it is also very possible to think about exhibitions and conferences in biological terms, as growing over time, and not just as these sorts of one-off events. We are living in an event culture where we always switch on and off, and it’s very unproductive because we move on to the next thing.

For me, it is very important to work on these things as if it were long distance running, over many years. Little by little, new ramifications happen. So, the answer to your question of how one can bring these things together is by, first of all, not rushing them, and, secondly, not jumping from one project to the next, but instead having sustained projects that evolve over a long time, through different chapters. It’s about making mistakes, learning from those mistakes, and then making new mistakes.”

From an interview with Hans-Ulrich Obrist via Johannes Wengel