BRAVE SPACE
I believe a formalized feedback method should first and foremost create a brave space, primarily for the maker, who is sharing their work, but as well for all other participants. To ensure this, I believe it’s essential to look at the power dynamics at play, acknowledge them and if needed and wanted balance them through specific action, formalized language and question.
This thought is reflected in my two main feedback sources, I am focusing on it as well, as I am influenced by researching kink and consent negotiations – as there is obviously knowledge about power dynamics, as well as by the work of Maike Plath about the Veto-Prinzip® (Veto-principle), that is dealing with balancing out hierarchical structures in group settings.
Sharing (art) work can be a vulnerable position, so it’s essential to have strategies in place to protect the maker and ensure that they don’t enter a space of defensiveness. In the framework I am proposing I use some of the know strategies:
– role of the moderator (holds the space, takes care of the participants, manages time and space)
– setting the space BEFORE the showing
– asking for consent
– use of formalized language
THE SOURCES
For designing my own feedback framework I draw my main inspiration from three different sources.
– HOME Feedback Framework
– DAS Arts Feedback Method
– Maike Bleeker’s Doing Dramaturgy: “Seven modes of dramaturgical engagement”
In some sections I state very clearly where the ideas come from, sometimes it is a bit tricky, as concepts get mixed, appear in all of the sources and I do add my own flavor as well. I do my best to be transparent about whose concepts I am using, in the particular parts.
DRAMATURG VS AUDIENCE
I chose Bleeker’s work as food of thought for this process as I like the notion of dramaturgical thinking in a feedback process, as I have met it in the HOME framework. In her book Bleeker describes modes of engagement in which a dramaturg can contribute to the work. I consider her input as valuable when arranging the different rounds. Nevertheless, in the HOME framework I experienced a lack of intuitive feedback, a space for resonance apart from strict operations – a feedback, I wouldn’t assign to the role of a dramaturg, but to a first audience. I value both perspectives, and want to include them into my framework. That’s why I choose different sections to integrate these different approaches to feedback, allowing the feedbackers to oscillate between different perspectives. For me that’s also a way of thinking of accessibility, as not every group or individual is trained in a way dramaturgical thinking. In this way the method is applicable to a variety of different groups. I suggest that the rounds (5.) Dramaturgical Operations and mayb (6.) Concepts can be removed from the script, if the artist and the moderator decide so, according to the feedbacking group.
MODERATOR
The role of the moderator is a crucial one. I see a connection between this role and Bleeker’s notion of creating conditions as a dramaturg. This involves “creating and cultivating a space for things to happen”. The person is making sure the environment is supportive and is facilitating a respectful conversation, mediating between the participants checking back with the maker and the participants if things are unclear or need to be discussed. Their responsibility is fostering a fruitful exchange.
THE STRUCTURE
1. CREATING THE SPACE (mixed sources)
For me it is important to create the space of sharing and feedback before the showing starts. Therefore as first thing the moderator creates the space, welcomes the group and has a short talk with the artist. It is a coming together and setting the mood for all participants plus an introduction into the world of the maker.
Here’s are some examples of what can be discussed in this section: Everything has to be consensual with the maker. They decide which info they wanna give before the showing, which not. Depending on what they are going to share they might not want to give away a topic or the framework of discipline etc.
What should the feedbacking audience need to know about the project?
Who are you? How do you frame your discipline?
What is the status of the work? (eg. first research ideas, close to premiere)
Is it complete or are you showing some parts?
What is the idea? What is the topic?
What is your role in the work?
If the maker wants, they can pose a question in the end of this section. They might want to have feedback on something specific, so the audience could pay attention to this while watching.
2. SHARING
The artists get ready and shares their work with the group. I intentionally called this section sharing, not showing, as I want to emphasize the collective character of a feedback session.
3. ONE-TO-ONE TALKS (source: DAS Arts)
Directly after the showing the moderator asks the group to pair up, find a nice spot – this can be inside or outside the studio – and return after 10 minutes. It might be helpful to determine a precise time when everybody has to be back. The duos are processing what they’ve just experienced, they can discuss first impressions, find words, start organizing their thoughts and if wanted take some notes.
This 10 minutes provide time for the maker to calm down, step out of the performer’s role, if they were performing, get some water and some distance to the sharing. They shouldn’t eavesdrop to the duos’ reflection, better concentrate on themselves getting in the headspace to receive feedback.
The moderator uses the time to set the space for the session. This could mean setting up chairs or floor space, preparing the flipchart and markers, checking in with the maker.
4. AGREEMENTS
After the 10 minutes the group gathers back and the moderator sets some guidelines for the session.
maker’s consent to feedback
The moderator asks the maker if they consent to receiving feedback in the agreed framework. The consent can be withdrawn any moment.
maker remains silent
From now on the maker does not comment on feedback or answer questions that come up. If they need clarification on statements form the group and the moderator doesn’t ask for clarity, the maker can ask for it.
flipchart
From now on the moderator takes notes of all the sections. It is important that this is happening on a flipchart, everyone should be able to read it and the paper will be gifted to the maker in the end.
plus one-tool (source: DAS Arts)
The moderator explains the plus 1-tool to the group, to be used throughout the session. At the beginning of each step they may remind the group to use it.
The tool is used whenever a thought is mentioned and another person had the same thought as well. It not used when the other person didn’t have the thought by themself but thinks it is a valid idea. This tool saves time and provides a weighing of some thoughts. hence when a lot of plus ones are used for a specific comment, it carries more weight than others. I believe this offers some valuable insight for the maker. The plus ones are marked with “I” for each plus one behind the comment written on the paper.
we feedback what is there, not what it’s not there
A small reminder to discuss only things that were actually in the sharing, not imagining other stuff. On the flip side the moderator ask maker if there was anything in the sharing that the group should try to not consider.
5. DRAMATURGICAL OPERATIONS (source: HOME)
The group collects all the dramaturgical operations in use, they have seen in the sharing. when an operation is stated the person needs to refer it back to what was happening in the sharing and why they think this operation is in place.
6. CONCEPTS (source: HOME with a twist)
The group states all the theoretical and artistic concepts, they have perceived throught the sharing. They do so by using the formalized sentence:
“I see the concept of … , because …”
This means the feedbackers have to explain their statement. This can be either done by referring to dramaturgical operations, as it is established by the HOME framework. But it can also be done by bringing up associations, interpretations induced by the sharing.
I am introducing this extension to not only value the dramaturgical reading but the lived experience of educated audience as well. The dramaturgical lens is precious, but so is personal experience. I want to embrace the feedback of dramaturges, at the same time, the feedback of a first audience as well.
This round, together the previous one is connected to Bleeker’s notion of analyzing. It’s about to see how the work is constructed and pointing out implications of this structure, as well as analysing how things trigger associations and interpretations.
Moreover I see a link to Bleeker’s mode of articulating. She refers to the term of active mirroring which is a way of “using language to put into words one’s observations and what these evoke in terms of associations and interpretations.
7. AFFIRMATIVE FEEDBACK (source: DAS Arts)
After scanning the work for operations and concepts it’s time to focus on the strengths of the work. By using the sentence
“What worked for me …” and explaining “Why”the group states what is already functioning to them. I believe this is a powerful tool as, for me personally it is a good thing build on things that already are in there and work. I usually learn from encouragement the best. I am aware that this is feeding the ego, but being in the vulnerable position of sharing unfinished work, anyway questioning choices a lot myself, it can be soothing the be gifted something to hold onto in the process of the feedback session, as well as the process of the project itself.
8. PERSPETIVES (source: DAS Arts)
In this section the moderator invites the group to adopt a particular perspective, speak from it and articulate their needs. They use the sentence:
“As a … I would need … ” and if needed a short description “why”
The perspective can be a position the person holds in reality not. So the feedbackers might also take on imagined roles. According to what perspective are chosen this can offer a wide range of insights. It can be looked at a professional toolbox, when referring to roles in or around the field: choreographer, dramaturg, costume designer, musician, theatre pedagogue, scholar, journalist etc. It can also be spoken from a perspective of an audience member, human, or even imaginary like alien, animals, plants etc. – depending on the verbalized needs.
This round offers a space for critical thoughts. I am aware that these comments are highly subjective, but through the stated perspective this becomes transparent. Hence, like in the concept round I wanna emphasize the lived experience.
9. OPEN QUESTIONS (source: DAS Arts)
The group gathers open questions.
Why – Who – When – What – Where – How
Obviously the maker doesn’t answer but can take those question for future processes. This round is opening up new spaces of reflection, the feedbackers can put emphasis on specific things. they think are important and want to encourage the maker to take a closer look.
I connect this round with Bleekers’s dramaturgical mode of questioning, in which the dramaturg is raising awareness about choices, decisions and consequences. Drawing from the work The Practice of Dramaturgy (Georgelou, Konstantina et al) who mentions the notion of dramaturgical questioning, that is understood as activation of potential. The mobilizing questions serve as a catalyst that redirect “attention from creation as expression of personal intentions and ideas toward the logic immanent to the creation-in-becoming.”
10. PEER WISDOM (mixed sources)
In this round the group is invited to share references, advice, solutions, technical knowledge and everything else the group needs to state. I am proposing to ask for specific consent before stating the thought, which means to describe what you are intending to share and why you think this can be valuable.
This section connects to Bleeker’s notion of feeding, as the dramaturg’s task is feeding all kind of information to the artist, from theirs own experience to theoretical background info. Depending on the maker and their work’s status, this might be helpful of not, that’s why I insist on asking for consent.
11. OPEN DISCUSSION or GOSSIP ROUND (source: DAS Arts)
The maker get to choose if this round is conducted as an open discussion or as a gossip round.
open discussion
As the name reveals, it is an open format of discussing. The maker is allowed to speak, but makes sure not to go into defending the work. They take the lead in the discussion and decide about the focus.
gossip round
This round is about simulated gossip, which means the group forms a circle -without the maker and the moderator- and talk about the work as if the artist weren’t there.
12. PRESENT and MAKER’S WORDS (mixed sources)
It is very important to me to understand receiving feedback as receiving a gift. This notion of the present is a kind one and a way of respecting the feedbacker’s time and effort. On the other hand, as I wrote in a former blog entry, if you don’t want to accept a present you don’t need to, as noted by Buddha in a famous telling of him.
I want to emphasize this notion of a present by the action of the moderator who is taking all the leaves of paper that have been written in the session, rolls it and hands it to the maker as a gift.
With this concluding action, the moderator also gives the floor to the maker, who can say some last words to the group, reflecting about the process.
13. ECHOES
After the maker has finished the moderator takes over one last time explaining the very last thing to the group. They are asked to let everything sink in, continue their day and some hours later, maybe in the evening at home, they send a message to the maker. This has a quite personal touch, it is up to the individual if they choose text or voice message, email, letter or other channels. This message can contain any leftover thoughts, personal ideas, advice, associations, experiences that connect to the work. What did resonate with you from the sharing or the feedback session?
I am proposing this round with the thought of a delayed feedback. Time is an important factor as the feedback session is quite strictly organized. Sometimes we need time to digest, sometimes valuable things emerge after some time has passed. Furthermore I want to acknowledge that people have different ways of flourishing, of sharing their thoughts. I believe it’s essential to factor all this in.
I am very curious to try out this framework.