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.

Tagged space:

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

The network visualization of Summer Intensive participants interviews by Dmitry Paranyushkin.

During the interviews the key concepts, terms, and names were notated using ThisIsLike.Com and related to one another. After that the data was exported from ThisIsLike into Gephi and the resulting network was visualized.

The nodes which play an important role in connecting the network into one entity (higher betweenness centrality) are larger on the image. These are not necessarily the most frequently mentioned terms, but more the ones without which the network would not be able to exist and be one connected entity. In other words, these “connecting” concepts were often evoked by participants to describe their field of interest or knowledge that usually involved other concepts. Also, these are the terms which connect different fields of interests to one another, sort of “points of encounter” which have the most potential for the production of activity within the group. 

Following this logic, “Image”, “Object” and “Reenactment” are the most important terms in bringing the network together. Also “Pieter Ampe” (because he’s introducing important peripheral information into the network) as well as “collaboration”,  ”dramaturgy”, “counterpoint”, “subjectless subjectivity”, “real-time improvisation”, and “space”.
In contrast, the most frequently mentioned terms in the interviews were “performance”, and “image”.  

Different “communities” of terms are shown in distinct colors, based on their interconnection. Those terms which are closely related to one another (within the context of the interviews) have the same color. The most prominent community is comprised of “space”, “performance”, “affect”, “network” and “diagram”. The second most prominent community is comprised of “object”, “subject”, “body”, “agency” and “sound”.  

The network also has high power law distribution (4.717). This points to the fact that it has a few very well connected (frequently mentioned) terms and that the interest is unequally distributed among the terms (in other words, a few terms have significant “power” in the network). At the same time the clustering coefficient is not too high (0.158), the density is low (0.021) and the diameter is quite high (the maximum distance of travel from one node to another is 10). This indicates that the network is generally quite receptive to new information and the average number of steps that need to be taken to reach any concept from any starting point is 4.341 (so information readily propagates within the network, but takes time to assimilate).

Navigate the network in real time

Aug 26
The network visualization of Summer Intensive participants interviews by Dmitry Paranyushkin.
During the interviews the key concepts, terms, and names were notated using ThisIsLike.Com and related to one another. After that the data was exported from ThisIsLike into Gephi and the resulting network was visualized.
The nodes which play an important role in connecting the network into one entity (higher betweenness centrality) are larger on the image. These are not necessarily the most frequently mentioned terms, but more the ones without which the network would not be able to exist and be one connected entity. In other words, these &#8220;connecting&#8221; concepts were often evoked by participants to describe their field of interest or knowledge that usually involved other concepts. Also, these are the terms which connect different fields of interests to one another, sort of &#8220;points of encounter&#8221; which have the most potential for the production of activity within the group. 
Following this logic, &#8220;Image&#8221;, &#8220;Object&#8221; and &#8220;Reenactment&#8221; are the most important terms in bringing the network together. Also &#8220;Pieter Ampe&#8221; (because he&#8217;s introducing important peripheral information into the network) as well as &#8220;collaboration&#8221;,  &#8221;dramaturgy&#8221;, &#8220;counterpoint&#8221;, &#8220;subjectless subjectivity&#8221;, &#8220;real-time improvisation&#8221;, and &#8220;space&#8221;.In contrast, the most frequently mentioned terms in the interviews were &#8220;performance&#8221;, and &#8220;image&#8221;.  
Different &#8220;communities&#8221; of terms are shown in distinct colors, based on their interconnection. Those terms which are closely related to one another (within the context of the interviews) have the same color. The most prominent community is comprised of &#8220;space&#8221;, &#8220;performance&#8221;, &#8220;affect&#8221;, &#8220;network&#8221; and &#8220;diagram&#8221;. The second most prominent community is comprised of &#8220;object&#8221;, &#8220;subject&#8221;, &#8220;body&#8221;, &#8220;agency&#8221; and &#8220;sound&#8221;.  The network also has high power law distribution (4.717). This points to the fact that it has a few very well connected (frequently mentioned) terms and that the interest is unequally distributed among the terms (in other words, a few terms have significant &#8220;power&#8221; in the network). At the same time the clustering coefficient is not too high (0.158), the density is low (0.021) and the diameter is quite high (the maximum distance of travel from one node to another is 10). This indicates that the network is generally quite receptive to new information and the average number of steps that need to be taken to reach any concept from any starting point is 4.341 (so information readily propagates within the network, but takes time to assimilate).
Navigate the network in real time

An interview between Vladimir Miller and Dmitry Paranyushkin on space strategies and how space can facilitate renegotiation of certain behaviors, interactions, relations, and thinking between the participants. 

Aug 24

Dialogue box used to have conversations during Summer Intensive. By Vladimir Miller and co.

Aug 24
Dialogue box used to have conversations during Summer Intensive. By Vladimir Miller and co.

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!

Summer Intensive

Posted on Thursday August 26th 2010 at 07:14pm. Its tags are listed below.

The network visualization of Summer Intensive participants interviews by Dmitry Paranyushkin.
During the interviews the key concepts, terms, and names were notated using ThisIsLike.Com and related to one another. After that the data was exported from ThisIsLike into Gephi and the resulting network was visualized.
The nodes which play an important role in connecting the network into one entity (higher betweenness centrality) are larger on the image. These are not necessarily the most frequently mentioned terms, but more the ones without which the network would not be able to exist and be one connected entity. In other words, these &#8220;connecting&#8221; concepts were often evoked by participants to describe their field of interest or knowledge that usually involved other concepts. Also, these are the terms which connect different fields of interests to one another, sort of &#8220;points of encounter&#8221; which have the most potential for the production of activity within the group. 
Following this logic, &#8220;Image&#8221;, &#8220;Object&#8221; and &#8220;Reenactment&#8221; are the most important terms in bringing the network together. Also &#8220;Pieter Ampe&#8221; (because he&#8217;s introducing important peripheral information into the network) as well as &#8220;collaboration&#8221;,  &#8221;dramaturgy&#8221;, &#8220;counterpoint&#8221;, &#8220;subjectless subjectivity&#8221;, &#8220;real-time improvisation&#8221;, and &#8220;space&#8221;.In contrast, the most frequently mentioned terms in the interviews were &#8220;performance&#8221;, and &#8220;image&#8221;.  
Different &#8220;communities&#8221; of terms are shown in distinct colors, based on their interconnection. Those terms which are closely related to one another (within the context of the interviews) have the same color. The most prominent community is comprised of &#8220;space&#8221;, &#8220;performance&#8221;, &#8220;affect&#8221;, &#8220;network&#8221; and &#8220;diagram&#8221;. The second most prominent community is comprised of &#8220;object&#8221;, &#8220;subject&#8221;, &#8220;body&#8221;, &#8220;agency&#8221; and &#8220;sound&#8221;.  The network also has high power law distribution (4.717). This points to the fact that it has a few very well connected (frequently mentioned) terms and that the interest is unequally distributed among the terms (in other words, a few terms have significant &#8220;power&#8221; in the network). At the same time the clustering coefficient is not too high (0.158), the density is low (0.021) and the diameter is quite high (the maximum distance of travel from one node to another is 10). This indicates that the network is generally quite receptive to new information and the average number of steps that need to be taken to reach any concept from any starting point is 4.341 (so information readily propagates within the network, but takes time to assimilate).
Navigate the network in real time
The network visualization of Summer Intensive participants interviews by Dmitry Paranyushkin.
During the interviews the key concepts, terms, and names were notated using ThisIsLike.Com and related to one another. After that the data was exported from ThisIsLike into Gephi and the resulting network was visualized.
The nodes which play an important role in connecting the network into one entity (higher betweenness centrality) are larger on the image. These are not necessarily the most frequently mentioned terms, but more the ones without which the network would not be able to exist and be one connected entity. In other words, these &#8220;connecting&#8221; concepts were often evoked by participants to describe their field of interest or knowledge that usually involved other concepts. Also, these are the terms which connect different fields of interests to one another, sort of &#8220;points of encounter&#8221; which have the most potential for the production of activity within the group. 
Following this logic, &#8220;Image&#8221;, &#8220;Object&#8221; and &#8220;Reenactment&#8221; are the most important terms in bringing the network together. Also &#8220;Pieter Ampe&#8221; (because he&#8217;s introducing important peripheral information into the network) as well as &#8220;collaboration&#8221;,  &#8221;dramaturgy&#8221;, &#8220;counterpoint&#8221;, &#8220;subjectless subjectivity&#8221;, &#8220;real-time improvisation&#8221;, and &#8220;space&#8221;.In contrast, the most frequently mentioned terms in the interviews were &#8220;performance&#8221;, and &#8220;image&#8221;.  
Different &#8220;communities&#8221; of terms are shown in distinct colors, based on their interconnection. Those terms which are closely related to one another (within the context of the interviews) have the same color. The most prominent community is comprised of &#8220;space&#8221;, &#8220;performance&#8221;, &#8220;affect&#8221;, &#8220;network&#8221; and &#8220;diagram&#8221;. The second most prominent community is comprised of &#8220;object&#8221;, &#8220;subject&#8221;, &#8220;body&#8221;, &#8220;agency&#8221; and &#8220;sound&#8221;.  The network also has high power law distribution (4.717). This points to the fact that it has a few very well connected (frequently mentioned) terms and that the interest is unequally distributed among the terms (in other words, a few terms have significant &#8220;power&#8221; in the network). At the same time the clustering coefficient is not too high (0.158), the density is low (0.021) and the diameter is quite high (the maximum distance of travel from one node to another is 10). This indicates that the network is generally quite receptive to new information and the average number of steps that need to be taken to reach any concept from any starting point is 4.341 (so information readily propagates within the network, but takes time to assimilate).
Navigate the network in real time

The network visualization of Summer Intensive participants interviews by Dmitry Paranyushkin.

During the interviews the key concepts, terms, and names were notated using ThisIsLike.Com and related to one another. After that the data was exported from ThisIsLike into Gephi and the resulting network was visualized.

The nodes which play an important role in connecting the network into one entity (higher betweenness centrality) are larger on the image. These are not necessarily the most frequently mentioned terms, but more the ones without which the network would not be able to exist and be one connected entity. In other words, these “connecting” concepts were often evoked by participants to describe their field of interest or knowledge that usually involved other concepts. Also, these are the terms which connect different fields of interests to one another, sort of “points of encounter” which have the most potential for the production of activity within the group. 

Following this logic, “Image”, “Object” and “Reenactment” are the most important terms in bringing the network together. Also “Pieter Ampe” (because he’s introducing important peripheral information into the network) as well as “collaboration”,  ”dramaturgy”, “counterpoint”, “subjectless subjectivity”, “real-time improvisation”, and “space”.
In contrast, the most frequently mentioned terms in the interviews were “performance”, and “image”.  

Different “communities” of terms are shown in distinct colors, based on their interconnection. Those terms which are closely related to one another (within the context of the interviews) have the same color. The most prominent community is comprised of “space”, “performance”, “affect”, “network” and “diagram”. The second most prominent community is comprised of “object”, “subject”, “body”, “agency” and “sound”.  

The network also has high power law distribution (4.717). This points to the fact that it has a few very well connected (frequently mentioned) terms and that the interest is unequally distributed among the terms (in other words, a few terms have significant “power” in the network). At the same time the clustering coefficient is not too high (0.158), the density is low (0.021) and the diameter is quite high (the maximum distance of travel from one node to another is 10). This indicates that the network is generally quite receptive to new information and the average number of steps that need to be taken to reach any concept from any starting point is 4.341 (so information readily propagates within the network, but takes time to assimilate).

Navigate the network in real time

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

— 

An interview between Vladimir Miller and Dmitry Paranyushkin on space strategies and how space can facilitate renegotiation of certain behaviors, interactions, relations, and thinking between the participants. 

Summer Intensive

Posted on Tuesday August 24th 2010 at 07:10pm. Its tags are listed below.

Dialogue box used to have conversations during Summer Intensive. By Vladimir Miller and co.
Dialogue box used to have conversations during Summer Intensive. By Vladimir Miller and co.

Dialogue box used to have conversations during Summer Intensive. By Vladimir Miller and co.