Month: January 2026

When I was drafting my feedback framework I was thinking big -and I ran into some issues since then. So it’s time to rethink some choices and see if I can find a structure that ‘works for me’.
Designing the draft I had the goal to find a framework that works as a multitalent, that can be used in a broad variety of cases, ones that can fulfill every need ….silly me. Early on when we were engaging in our different proposals, trying out stuff I came to the conclusion that I don’t want to create one framework, but more think about different modules, building blocks that can be used to cater to the current needs/state/composition of the maker, the feedbacking group.
For me it’s very interesting to think about feedback also outside our MA-program, as this is something I am doing with my peers at home and now I’m even more motivated to engage with it in the Viennese scene. Nevertheless, for now, for this framework design I will focus on our little peer group and the circumstances we have here at HOME.

self-facilitating
Although I’m a big fan of the role of the facilitator (I like doing it, and as an artist, I like the relaxation that comes with not being responsible for the space and organization, leading me to be more open and receptive for the group’s comments ) I came to realize that during the creation periods at home there is never enough time to really get into explain what the artist wants in terms of feedback, it is very last minute, insecurities stay with the facilitator, which is shown during the sessions. The facilitator feels the need to check back a lot in with the artists, which makes their role kind of absurd. As an artist, I feel, having a facilitator needs giving up control on my side. In order to do so, I need to feel trust towards the person and have enough time to explain what I want (if it’s not something they know). Since this, I guess, won’t be the case in our future sessions, as everyone is busy with their own thing, I think I will stay with self-facilitating.
[As a sidenote: Facilitating is also a skill that needs to be trained. We never really talked about what it takes to make everyone feel safe. As I remember apart from time keeping, we didn’t really thematized the role on a deeper level. Dealing with that topic as a group could maybe lead to more engagement with that role]

less is more
During all the feedback sessions realized that proposed rounds need to be able to breath. We need to set aside time for explanation and answering questions for clarity. In my experience it was more enjoyable (as the maker and also as the feedbacker) if there were less rounds and therefore we could go deeper into it. Sometimes thoughts need more time to settle in, conversations evolving, so cutting everything to a minimum time frame can risk leaving the feedback on a surface level.

supporting the feedbackers
Thinking about how I can support the group, make them feel comfortable and not ask too much and overload them, I would like to refer to the two previous sections. When I am giving feedback I feel comfortable when there is a person in charge of the room (doesn’t matter if it’s the maker or a facilitator) It’s nice when someone takes responsibility for example after the showing’s applause and not leave the group hanging, not knowing what’s coming next.
Time pressure was a bit stressful and for me counterproductive in the sessions. Someone announcing: “2 minutes left for this round” felt a bit strange. I believe I’d like to play the timing issue more naturally, of course setting estimated time frames for myself, but when there is a lot to discuss, giving it the times that needs. Best letting things come to an end naturally. This needs a framework that is not fully packed with various different rounds. So maybe three max 4 rounds in 45 minutes seem ok. If it’s more it becomes again stressful for the group to jump from one mode to another, getting explanations quickly to save time and pressuring them to produce thoughts in a very limited time.

My Framework

1. Mind Map (individual, ca 7 min, the paper stays with them throughout the session so they can scribble)
2. Assigned roles (might include “What worked for me…”, Questions, Opinions, Open Discussion)
3. Peer Wisdom (Tips/Tricks, The Field (References), Production Team, Open Discussion)

The underlying structure that follows this framework is:

1. Artistic, intuitive answering
 For now I chose the Mind Map, but it can be replaced by other artistic, intuitive rounds such as
– story building
– artistic responses as performance
– a performative setting like the sun
– gossip round/bar talk

This round gives the feedbackers time to digest what they have just experienced, plays a bit more into the experience, rather than brainy, dramaturgical dissection. And at the same time prepares the group for the upcoming round, where we dive more into analyzing concepts.

2. Discussion about the work/ the topic
I find the assigned roles very informative, but it could be also be a round or a combination of:
– debate
– dramaturgical operations/concepts
– answering to conceptual keywords
– open discussion
– open questions
– open discussion with or without an artist’s question
– Affirmative round (What worked for me…)

This is the core of the framework. It gives the chance to dive into the concepts and dramaturgical issues

3. Peer Wisdom, depending on the state of the project.
– Tips/Tricks
– The Field (References)
– Production Team
– Open Discussion, with concrete questions

After a deep interaction with the work and concepts this last round should help me as an artist to find some help, maybe get some ideas on how to put the discussed things into practice, get references. It can be a lot more practical than the round before with a clear focus on the future development of the work.

Through these modules I can stay flexible and adapt to my and my work’s current needs. Sometimes I might need more reference, sometimes I have some issues with sound design that need attention. Sometimes I need some affirmation, sometimes I might need to be reminded what my concept wants to tell. I believe these three parts can serve that and carry me and my work through different stages. The big structure is easy enough to follow and at the same time adaptable with it’s subcategories. Of course I didn’t have the chance to try it, but I’m excited to do so and if needed further develop it. I believe my framework, like my artistic work, must be in constant change and it can be fruitful to observe where the needs develop and stay open for adaptation.

This week’s round of creation and feedback was somehow special, because we, as a group put the emphasize more on working together than towards the outcome. We developed this methodology of shifting roles and fields of responsibilities in the process hourly. Ruminating on our feedback session we had three aims:

1. Similar to last week, take the opportunity to try out something new. Which I believe we did throughout the whole structure we set up. I would like to highlight our interest in performative spacing, which we took from last week’s ‘gossip round’ and wanted to take a step further. That’s why we came up with the sun, creating a spatial and a bodily condition, reminiscent of star gazing and cloud watching. I found this particularly interest as the group came out of discussing and sharing mode when we invited them to lay down together. It took a while to relax, people were active, maybe a bit nervous, but once settled in, the calmness was embodied and we could dream and phantasies a bit together about the piece. I found it super interesting to see what some moments of silence could to, shifting the body’s state, the tone of voice and thus influence how we think, how we reflect on things, what we share and how we communicate with each other. For me it felt a bit like a collective meditation about the piece/process.

2. As the process was that important to us, we wanted to share not only the outcome but also the mode of working together. Having in mind questions that came up during this module in conversation with my peers like: Who is the feedback for? What is the benefit, not only for the maker but also for the feedbackers in the process? As we thought of our process as very valuable for us, we wanted to share that with the class, that they could be part of this learning experience as well. Therefore we took some time to explain what we did and then reflect together about issues we had, how it affected the outcome etc. Although this round was as well a chance of reflection for ourselves, I believe it was more dedicated to transmit our experience to the group. A moment of giving back, not only taking from the feedbackers.

3. As we worked with assigned roles in our process, we wanted to have that mirrored as well in the feedback session. The feedback session in a way was still also a sharing of the working method, as we chose to assign different roles to small groups of the feedbackers. That way we wanted to give the group the chance to feel how it is to work with roles artificially assigned from the outside and at the same time get feedback from different perspectives we chose and felt fitting for the work. We chose two ‘professional’ roles from the field (choreographer and dramaturge) and two ‘private’ ones (for the lack of a better word I call them ‘private’) (Noemi’s mum – a stand in for a ‘normal’ person who might not watch performances a lot and activist. Each person was part of one of each category. This round was amazing for me. Especially the activist role was very valuable, as it puts on a political perspective, but doesn’t necessarily declare which one or what the starting point should be. I believe everything is politically all the time, so is my art and I want it to be read like that. Putting in that perspective, hearing different interpretations was very enriching and gave me food for thought. Probably I will keep this method and especially this perspective in my framework. The mum role was also very interesting. Given that I want to make art not only for a high art/academic audience it was good to hear more mundane comments, things that are easy to overlook when busy with our complex concepts and issues. It was also a lot of fun seeing my peers embodying this role (I think because it’s kinda of the opposite of what we are doing int his program) and I had the feeling it was also fun to do it for them.
Having said that the two ‘professional’ roles felt a little more ‘basic’ for our cohort, as these are the perspectives we often try to hold when we give feedback. Nevertheless I think it is nice to have a clear distinction (in our case choreographer and dramaturge) to refine our thinking and practice out of which perspective we say what – and subsequently leave this categorization again – but it’s good training!

In my opinion this week’s feedback session worked out very well, as we intended it to be. We got a lot of impressions, interpretations, ways of reading it. With the process as a center point we discussed about taking on roles, in an artistic process as well as in feedback giving. The week before we did also a round with perspectives, where the role could be feely chosen according to the comment that was made. That didn’t work as well as this week with the ‘fixed’ assigned roles. We didn’t get so much tips and tricks, references etc, but as we won’t continue this work, it was more useful to design a framework to concentrate on how things are perceived than thinking about how to continue this work.
If I have to choose one thing that I will implement from the actual feedback (not speaking about the framework) I would choose the topic of ‘helpers’ on stage. There was a discussion about the people who were not the ‘solo’ performer but helped with lighting, music, throwing potatoes. we didn’t give these roles much thought, as some practical tasks had to be fulfilled. Reading us four as the group of creators created some curiosity in the feedbackers on how those practical roles could play a part in the meaning of the artwork (eg. the supplier of the potatoes = holder of power) Moving forward this can be an interesting notion, when working with stage hands, technicians, also musicians, riggers etc. if and how they can be part of the art work. How do I want to deal with practicalities artistically? Hide them, give them a stage, a purpose, emphasize them and their importance? -I know that is not exactly something concrete, but for sure a negotiation I want to engage in when thetime has come.

Something that I am doing for a for a long time, but came to realize in this program how important they are when thinking of feedback : Here’s to bar talks! A short appreciation post at this point is a must. Hear, hear!

Next to all formalized feedbacking we are engaging with I found that a relaxed atmosphere, fewer people (maybe even one-on-one or two or three) and some wine can open up very honest reflections about each other’s art. Also before I stated this program I had amazing, inspiring bar talks with friends, peers, playing ideas through in our heads, back and forth between each other, reflecting on our approaches to art and politics. These situations are perfect to digest what had happened and look into the future – future as a broad idea, but also more specific in terms of a certain project. It builds community and the trust in each other. We are not alone in art making, sharing problems, discussing solutions is sometimes the most valuable feedback we need to get.
Cheers!