WEEK 1 TALK 0, 03-11-2020 AMSTERDAM




To get some context of the conversation please access with material about the project No Travel

- A full scale exercise to rase questions about the future of institutions

- How can a show tour without travelling?

- How to still maintain international characteristics?

- How to deepen the relations between Locally and internationally

- They are working with an idea of a Regiebuch, a Script

- It is not only what is going to happen on stage

- Its about creating and finding practices that can be developed by local artists

- A script that would bring questions (philosophical ones) to be answered locally

- In the end Mitchel and Jerome are initiators and not exactly directors

- NO TRAVEL PROJECT: to spend less carbon, to create sustained activities

Questions that were brought by the audience participants:

- Isn't important to acknowledge that the choice of not travelling is a choice that privileged people can make?

- Why the project decided to invite a white male artist to be in the power position of coordinating the project?

- How to deal with the idea of authorship in a project like that?

- Wouldn't be interesting if the project could be reshaped as a self-exposure act? We expose the traditional ways in which this institution works in an attempt to change ways of working and ways of relating.

Some of the answers that came from Théâtre Vidy-Lausanne

The project started with the reflection that we are all white, we are mostly male, we travel a lot, we are privileged, we have power (considering the institute that we are), and therefore we decided to invite these super-powerful directors to try to provoke a change. The wish is to give agency to locality.

Some reflections from Lab 1 participants:

This space that we are proposing in Das Talks is a space that brings somehow a room for discussions on a public sphere level. It's an open space where participants from Das Theater, invited guests and normal audience are free to access and act. The NO TRAVEL project brings lots of polemics around its objectives and therefore the discussion upon it yesterday evening, was also quite proactive. We reflect on the importance of having open spaces like that where conflict can emerge. We claim the importance of spaces for conflicts without the need of neutralizing polemics. How can we moderate debates that bring burning issues without throwing cold water on the arena, when the temperature goes high? And how to find the ethics of polemic?