I particularly liked the fluidity of progression and the development of the performance in time. Even though we did need some time to warm up, I think it turned out to be an engaging experience for both us and the public. Perhaps next time we will get more easily in the role, or assume and maintain more clear-cut personas (that can shift and change throughout the course of the performance). My biggest concern was how to communicate our intentions to the public – the different ideas that had come up through the workshops, reflection, exploration and dialogue – but I think this was achieved in two ways. First, by staging the setting with clear and simple rules that one could follow; and second, by allowing ludic and performative activities to develop naturally, improvising new means of communication along the way. I am not sure if the ‘idea’ of the performance got across as something clear or singular; but I believe that if we ask the public what they got out of it they will certainly find something. I also like how the gallery was set up – a round table in the middle under the spotlight with a minimal outlook to begin with (especially the little pieces of blank paper!), random objects lying around and a 3-d collective collage on the one wall. If we do this again, I would be interested in adding more performative elements to the discussion, side games or impromptu instructions; and work towards developing non-verbal means of communication. Confronting the audience and making them do something (perhaps a 2-minute single-word debate or an object/gesture battle) is also something to consider in order to allow participants to go through the process and embody the experience. They might feel intimidated but they will also be prompted to overcome their inhibitions and claim their own voice – I think this is the core of the creative act in itself.
Eve Kalyva, participant Shuffle #8