Tampere’s response to Hanna’s lecture (Johanna, Naresh, Nese)

Tampere’s response to Hanna’s lecture (Johanna, Naresh, Nese)

Looking back on the keyword lecture by Hanna our discussion began reflecting on the curatorial work (in performance context). The following thoughts came up. We could think of the curatorial task in terms of mapping and framing.

We noticed how in our respective countries of origin there were differences in curatorial tradition and practice. The lecture brought to our attention the ethical responsibility of curatorial task but also the problematics of taking part in the global economy (of projects). Curatorial work involves “radaring”, tutkiminen of the terms/people/projects it functions with.

This is actually a difficulty we face since the beginning of the week. The hardest part of the keyword/lecture responses was not the within group discussions or coming up with ideas, but to put them in a written format that would be presentable/consumable in the international/cosmopolitan/transnational/multicultural blogspot that we share with our “hybrid” MAIPR colleagues. Similar to the curator’s work, there is this layer between the execution and the presentation of the project/discussion. Moreover, there is the multiplicity of propositions. Dealing with that multiplicity includes negotiation and compromises to say the least. To account for all the forms and ideas that are proposed in a group work, so much is lost in transmission to written form/expression. While reading the blogs, nobody hears the tears or sweat we shed on each other.

This brings us to another discussion that came up in Hanna’s lecture: What/How is the methodology of performance research scholar?

Remember the blank sheet in Hanna’s lecture? It had the title ‘What about performance research?’ We talked about the impression that maybe a week ago, or earlier for some of us, the blankness of the sheet could have been scary AND/OR caused long walks in the forests of Tampere looking for berries that have been already picked by others, AND/OR chain smoking in the freezing backyard of the non-smoking student housing with the company of hedgehogs AND/OR could have interfered with the loving conversations you could have over Skype with your wife …”My God”…

But rather that blank sheet was welcoming and welcomed. We thought it was leaving us the flexibility and responsibility about what we choose as long as we are ethical and able to justify it. Accountability and responsibility to your object of study, we thought, was at the heart of scholarly research, distinguishing it also from a scientific approach as mentioned by Hanna. We want to listen to our objects of study, to each other but also to ourselves and hopefully come up with a framework of what we have experienced. Challenge remains in keeping a reflexive attitude towards the relational space between the doer/done/how/about of the research.

Johanna & Naresh & Nese