Open-dialogue strategies between art figures, general public and organizers

This text is based on a talk during the conference «Cultural Education: Russia and Germany in Dialogue», St Petersburg, May 13th 2015

 

The cultural diversity of Belgium is one reason to address the topic of dialogue among art figures, public and organizers. It is caused by the fact that Belgium has a Flemish community speaking Dutch; Walloons speaking French; and a tiny German-speaking community. Co-existence of these three cultures in one country guarantees their mutual interaction that sometimes poses some problems but in general facilitates development and enrichment of each culture.

Methods of communication in the field of art, considered here, are related to my work experience in Amsterdam, at a school called «DasArts», and the experience of guiding the cultural institution Dampfzentrale in Berne, which is a site for guest performances. At DasArts, we held arrangements under the motto «Structural Workshop», aimed at offering and training students which continue their education thereat, in techniques which are categorized as creative practices in the modern science dated Y2015, but may only indirectly be related to art in the tense sense of this word. Largely, these workshops were oriented to forming and development of a certain communication type. Also we conducted the workshops to discuss the matter of «how to compose a statement in order to be heard» and feedback workshops. Although the above-listed workshops do not pertain to creative activities in the narrow sense of word, they undoubtedly are an important part of any creativity. One must have a skill of discussing his or her creative work with colleagues, co-employees, general public, and organizers. Both these communication techniques and the very project turned into a sort of sensation. The project was initiated by our dissatisfaction with conventional talks before, after or during the performance. Hence, we searched for technologies which would make the creative and communication processes richer and more diverse in terms of content and Form, both for representatives of fine arts and spectators. We called the method which was molded and efficiently used by us the «feedback method».

While characterizing this method, it should be noted that it is not related to art criticism at all. Its essence is not to pretend a clever boy or know-it-all or articulate one’s opinion, produce a sentence or give good advice. The essence of the method is to ensure that fine-arts representatives do hear a review, comment, feedback that is what will help them go further. Second, a moderator plays an absolutely nontraditional role. Strictly speaking, there is no moderator in the classical understanding in feedback; therefore, he or she is called a secretary, not the moderator. The traditional coordinator’s role of the moderator is substituted with the format of conducting a conversation, regulated by special rules. Such communication type is analogous to a play: it is necessary to act in accordance with game rules. If this holds, the moderator is not needed.

We interacted with philosopher Karim Benem within the framework of implementing the new format of communication. He said about the project that there is no fuss, useless chat which leads to the figure of a speaker coming to the main scene, not the content of communication.

So the feedback technique is not related to art criticism; rules of feedback replace the moderator; and it is oriented towards meaningful communication of fine-arts figures and spectators.

The feedback technique, developed and approbated, has formed a basis for creating new forms of communication and interaction of creative people, public and even organizers. The goal of developing new methods consisted in making talks with the public more interesting, freer and more vivid; or in a certain sense, more productive for these three groups of participants. These methods were coined on the basis of feedback, and it is a certain recursion, i.e. the format based on which one can create one more format.

Further we will present the variants of «card game» and variants of communication with the public. The first one is Open Talk and the arrangement called «Tupperware». The second variant is Вауер; it was created in Switzerland and it is used in this country in cooperation with other cities.

Aspiration to drop traditional communication forms existing between creative people and spectators is caused by the accumulated negative experience. Why was the discussion dull and languid? Why was not any question asked from auditorium although many people who were in the foyer and in the bar had some questions? Why did too little people come to discussion, considering that they did like the performance and were touched? It should be specified that the matter is theatric performances, not museum or musical events. The matter is theatric events which were warmly met by the public, though.

Speaking more generally, these questions deal with the matter why it is very hard to begin communicating in a situation when both parties, both spectators and creative people are interested in it. What is a hindrance to such interaction and what prevents to break the ice in relations between the communicators? I think the answer is related to a complicated dilemma: what should remain personal and what can be shared with the others, what should be made public. The answer to this question consists in trust, i.e. in spite of temporal limitations, the parties in the talk should be confidents. How to achieve over so brief a term that completely unacquainted people who, moreover, are not experts in this field, could openly discuss their impressions, received during the performance, or speak about memories, evoked by it? How should it happen in the presence of other people? This is a purely human problem, that is: the problem of trust to strangers, and it should be solved by «human» means, i.e. we should create something which will allow one to escape this difficulty. However, before disclosing two formats solving the problem above, I should consider classical formats of talking. There are classical methods of communication. The moderator starts the interview of the creative man, asking him about his works, the process of their creation, motives and biography. In the best case, it bears information, but only with good luck, the bravest spectators, who are experienced speakers, involve in the conversation. As a rule, the actor receives little within that framework of talking. He or she answers the questions and shares some information but rarely receives something in exchange. It is for this reason that we have created the format called «card game», which helps escape this problem or overcome the so-called human barrier, or communication barrier.

This format consists of few stages. First, I discuss the format of the supposed talk with the actor and obtain his or her agreement. Upon the performance, spectators who would like to speak of the creative process or communicate with the actor gather in the auditorium. At the entrance, each visitor gets a card and a pencil and then takes a seat. The importance nuance is that the actor is absent: he or she freshens himself up and fine-tunes for future communication.

Then I ask the spectators: «Please write two things on your cards. We have just watched the piece which has the name but does not have a tagline. I would like to ask each of you to provide the tag to this piece, to this performance». What does the tagline mean? As a rule, it describes the type and nature of what was watched just before and gives a definition to it. Usually it is a couple of words; maximum, one sentence. The tagline concretizes the more or less abstract title; it is relatively definite, or precise, to put in in a scientific manner. Sometimes, subtitles are far from the piece; they are only a «phantasy» as the French would say, but this phantasy discloses much of the author’s personal experience. In addition, I ask the spectators to put down a question about the actor’s personality or his or her creation.

For a certain period of time, nothing happens – at least, it looks so. Everybody is busy with attempts to invent as elaborate tagline as possible, puts it down on the card and formulates the question. I have to restrain myself constantly so that this process is not terminated too early. It is really crucial. What happens at that moment is the piece analysis; in few minutes, the cognition of what the man saw takes place, which is limited only to the space provided by the card. The advantage is that nobody is forced to stand up with a microphone and directly say: «I have some questions». Everybody may solemnly and silently formulate it and write on the card. Then all cards are gathered. Ideally, by that moment, the actor has left the shower and sits with us. I have agreed with him or her that there will be no moderated dialogue. As the moderator, I have no right to put everything in order, structure or control whatever is on hand. I am only an intermediary. I gather the cards and read the first one out loud. We have already agreed with the actor that he or she may comment, specify or add something any time. If anybody has something to say, he or she may say it any time. There is no introduction, body, or conclusion. Also, there is not any plan, nothing is prepared in advance; everything happens absolutely spontaneously and naturally. There is nothing to scare. The cards help «break the ice» between the talkers. If the actor is communicative and garrulous, he or she will always find what to say and comment on every card. Also the actor may ask: «How did you invent such a tagline?»  For instance, if he or she raises such question, the spectator will have no problem to give his/her explanations; and this is already a dialogue. Nobody needs to stand up and say: «I would like to note this and that»: the conversation has been launched although nobody has stood up and formally triggered the conversation.

The next great advantage of this conversation format is that the artist does not only share information, describe his/her work but he or she receives much in exchange due to the spectators’ feedback. Eventually, it is more interesting for the actor to read subtitles than merely answer every sort of questions. Thus, working with these cards unites us. The moderator, being a more experienced person and having certain knowledge of the field, may designate key topics and raise questions. But it is not regulated by anybody, it goes a natural course: sometimes the public involves in the talk, and sometimes, it is the actor who speaks. One should see how the conversation unwinds for a certain time period, look at its dynamics. However, as a rule, it has been started already, and in the situation which favors «hookup» of the actor and the public as its development depends directly on the topic, not on the moderated participation of other people who need first voice their wish to speak in order to get such opportunity.

Thus, it was the narration of the first format. The second format which I wish to describe is Open Talk. Open Talk integrates talks with the public before and after the performance. Here I again need to introduce one little comment. There is a certain belief that in the first order and only individual perception of works of arts has the «right to exist». A historical classification, the story of perception or biographic motives is, so to speak, removed from the mainstream. In my opinion, post-modernism and recognition of one’s own truth as the dogma pushed out cliché statements of many conversations. Attention is focused on the spectator and his/her feelings, and only it is true and sacred. There is nothing especially wrong about it, but… I always liked classical introductions. You merely receive information using which you often can easier support your stance. It seems to me that they perfectly cope with the earlier mentioned «human problem of confidence», which we face so frequently. I am sure that many spectators merely have got tired to speak wholeheartedly, based on the experience and perceptions of their own. In such circumstances, some information is needed often to build on the idea of an alien and with its help express one’s own thought. So I think that classical introductions, which, besides, do not highlight the personality of the moderator or speaker and simply inform on some facts; it is the excellent tool which is often neglected by my colleagues.

Open Talk and introductions differ to certain extent from each other but have some similarities. There is a small pause before the performance, during which the group of spectators meet. But instead of the talk with the expert who would professionally characterize the performance, they face a joint discussion of the coming event. Each shares some information. Someone tells about the actor, another one know something about the play, just another one explains his or her choice of this performance, the motives and expectations. Stating a fact is not a must: spectators often speak out loud about their feelings or the so-called spectator know-how: what was the reason, what forced me to buy the tickets, why my neighbor came. Ohm, that’s why he came. It is a very democratic principle due to which the audience is able to communicate without the experts, on a parity basis. The volume of information eventually gathered is always astonishing. Then the group comes to the auditorium, watches the play and gathers its numbers after it. The new task is to tell what novel they learned, whether their expectations were satisfied and so on. The spectator’s know-how can play its role here.

It is something special. What to do if the seat is uncomfortable? Will I dare to bring water on me to the auditorium? These matters may also be discussed, and the process of talking becomes increasingly simple and pleasant.

This format has one variation which differs in somewhat other shape of the after-play talk with the spectators. A role play replaces the usual conversation. Though, a person who will to some extent control the process is necessary. But it should not mandatorily be the moderator or the expert; merely a person is needed to control the happening. I have participated in such role play once. The spectators were divided into two groups and instructed that one group is spectators and the other is the actor or actress. Both groups were to imitate the talk post performance. At that, the second group performs the role of the actor while lacking any additional information about him and his work. Those spectators who champion the performance or back the actor start perceiving the play and speak of it in absolutely other manner. Then the roles can be exchanged.

It is the second format which we use in Dampfzentrale. The third format was not invented by us – I learned about it from Frie Leysen, the festival organizer from Belgium, but its idea did not belong to her either, she borrowed it from somebody else. The format is called Tupperware, representing the try to find such approach to the public, with which the discussion will occur at another level and in another form which we are used to. Here, more careful preparation is necessary. At first, one needs to find the group of people who probably pertain to our institution or support this event and are ready to arrange the reception at home. I agreed about it with the board members of the Berne Dampfzentrale or with team members. Someone said: «OK, I am ready to shoulder it». Then I invite 10 - 15 people of my close circle to the dinner. We ask the hosts to invite those who love arts but cannot afford to buy tickets to the play. Then I got the address and deadlines from the host and go. I am not acquainted with anybody save the host. In this intimate circle, I introduce myself as the composer of the program (in this case, the program of a certain festival or whatever you like). I do my best to rely first on my own experience and experience of communication with the actors. I tell why some actor impressed me, what I value in this actor and what motivated me to invite this or that play members to Berne. This form of communication differs from standard and absolutely different techniques and skills than we get used to are required. I think the decisive trait here is that not an expert who produces scientific classifications and cultural-historical explanations talks with the people; the speaker is the usual spectator who is fond of art and its cognizing. The speaker says things from the open heart, he or she shares own thoughts and motives which led him or her to invite this actor team to Berne.

The last format is called Vouayer; it is a youth project and it is held by Berne’s Dampfzentrale in cooperation with Basel-based Kaserne at the site of the Berne theater «Schlahthaus» and other sites. First, the youth group is formed. The group must have a curator. But the main and decisive difference of this group is that their project is not «lump-sum»: young people undertake to go to theater each Thursday during the year. It is a mandatory part of their weekly itinerary, like soccer training or musical exercises. Chaos like «Oh, let engage in our project today» or «do we need to go there once more?» is strictly prohibited as the decision was made in summer that the duration of the project would be one year. One need not look for explanations: nobody asks why football training is held only three times a season and violin classes – once in four weeks. Due to such prescriptions and the necessity to choose this or that event once a week (Let me go to … my master advised …), the group members naturally develop their personalities, get acquainted with each other and, surely, grasp the experience: forty visits to theater per year will leave trace.

This project is very fruitful; besides, in the city like Berne, there are no problems with the cultural program, one has a place to go any time. At last, one may simply go to cinema. The project is only two-year-old and I think… the project has a perfect curator, the young guy who is representative of the same generation as the participants. There is not a gap between them; he sometimes dislikes the same as they or vice versa. It seems to me that due to this system and dare to state openly: «why we, figures of culture and enlighteners, do not have such rights as soccer instructors?»… It seems to me this is the warranty of success of the youth project on attendance of theaters.

 

 

Секция 5.

«Искусство речи и слова»

 

УДК 165.6+124.3

 

Лисанюк Елена Николаевна

ЧЕТЫРЕ КОНФЛИКТА И АРГУМЕНТАЦИЯ ^[1]

Введение

Конфликт – это состояние несовместимости действий или взглядов, вызванное разнонаправленностью действий или несовпадением позиций агентов по какому-либо вопросу.^[2] Конфликт выступает социальной, когнитивной и функцио­наль­ной причиной для того, чтобы его стороны дали старт аргу­ментации как средству его разрешения, поэтому аргументация и конфликт прочно связаны в социальных коммуникативных практиках людей. Аргументация есть средст­во преодоления конфликта, если то же самое выразить кратко.

Такое утверждение рискует сделаться тривиальным и потому на практике бесполезным, если не обращать внимания на одно краеугольное условие, а именно: конфликт и аргументация связаны только в том случае, когда конфликт не носит экзистенциального характера и стороны конфликта равным образом видят его в функциональном ключе. Это условие является необходимым для того, чтобы стороны конфликта вступили в аргументативный диалог ради его разрешения. Вместе с темдостаточного условия для этого подобная функциональная и агентная трактовка конфликта не представляет, ведь осознав, что они находятся в конфликте, агенты не обязательно прибегают к диалогу и аргументации, чтобы его разрешить. Они могут оставить его неразрешенным или прибегнуть к другим способам его разрешения, включая внеречевые. По этой причине важно выяснить, разрешению каких конфликтов способствует аргументация как позна­ва­тельная деятельность людей, осуществляемая в форме речевого коммуникативного диалога. Ответ на этот вопрос будет одно­временно и ответом на вопрос о том, с разрешением каких конфликтов так понимаемая аргументация вообще не связана. Для того чтобы ответить на поставленные вопросы, мы сначала кратко обсудим, почему для ответа на них необходимо использовать понимание аргументации как познавательной деятельности, и не следует опираться на иные, более широкие трактовки аргументации. Подобные трактовки предполагают, что аргументация сама по себе может быть не только познавательной, но и стратегической деятельностью. Если аргументацию считают стратегической деятельностью, то тем самым полагают, что она включает в себя многообразные способы влияния одного участника конфликта на другого с целью достижения победы, например давление, обман или манипулирование. Аргументация как познавательная деятельность опирается на равноправие сторон конфликта в том смысле, что его стороны признают свойство быть рациональным и разумным агентом спора как характеризующее каждую сторону конфликта в равной степени.

После этого мы перейдем к классификации конфликтов при помощи двух критериев, предметного и процедурного. Предметный критерий заключается в том, каким образом стороны конфликта видят его предмет, процедурный критерий говорит о путях разрешения конфликта, которые стороны считают приемлемыми. Двигаясь в этом направлении, мы получим четыре разновидности конфликтов и увидим, что, строго говоря, аргументация, трактуемая в познавательном ключе, связана только с одним из них – с динамическим функциональным конфликтом, и не может без ограничений служить способом разрешения ни в одной из трех остальных разновидностей конфликтов.^[3] В функциональном статическом конфликте так понимаемая аргументация может служить способом разрешения при условии, что аргументация опирается на логически строгие правила рассуждений.