Laboratory on Feedback in Artistic Processes 2

<strong>Laboratory</strong> on
in Feedback Artistic Processes in 2
Artistic Processes <strong>Laboratory</strong> on Feedback
Audiences
Audiences
16 -18th January, 2015
16 Uferstudios, -18th January Berlin 2015
Uferstudios Berlin

cover image: excerpt of the audience drawings in the
frame of „Let´s talk about dance“, try-out „mapping“
(see page 16)
2
Organised by Uferstudios GmbH and HZT as part of the project Life Long Burning /
module teachback with the support of the Culture Programme of the European Union

Table of contents
Introduction
Contributions & Public Try-Outs
“Feedback Lab goes Public” –
a collaboration with Tanztage Berlin / Sophiensaele
and mapping dance berlin / Tanzbüro Berlin
Bush Hartshorn: Liz Lerman’s feedback method: Critical
Response Process (CRP)
Jenny Beyer: Public Warm Up & Cool Down Session
Sonja Augart & Inge Koks: “let’s talk about dance”
Sheena McGrandles & Eva Meyer-Keller: feedback workshop with
Festiwalla (political theatre with and for youth)
Talks / lectures
Ana Vujanović: Feedback Practices and the Public Sphere
Sibylle Peters: The Art of Measuring
Eva Meyer-Keller: Past Works to Present
Jenny Beyer: “Ich möchte dich zu mir ins Studio einladen”
Charlotte Vandevyver: Experience “work in progress” feedback &
Group collection of feedback initiatives
Round Table Discussion, Reflection on Feedback Lab goes Public,
Observations
Short Biographies
Credits
5
8
8
9
14
16
19
22
26
29
30
32
33
35
38
47
3

4

Introduction
The “<strong>Laboratory</strong> on Feedback in Artistic Processes” dives
into the ever-growing contemporary feedback culture. It
addresses questions of value, potential, importance, and
problems of feedback in the arts. Invited professionals
working within the field of dance, come together to discuss,
articulate and think about different approaches
and aims of existing and possibly alternative methods
and understandings of feedback. In its second edition
the laboratory pays particular focus on “audiences”
feedback within performing arts.
5
Feedback is happening everywhere, and everything is
feedbackable. But what is the value of public audience
feedback? What kind of feedback is needed where? Why
do we differentiate between specialist and general public
audiences? How can we think beyond helping the
artist and making an artwork better? How can it feed the
bigger picture by enabling critical, rigorous feedback as
a development for all citizens participating in a public
event? Can public feedback then begin to shape communities
and the wider public sphere?
In all its editions the laboratory puts forward an interest
in alternatives to (artistic) exchange based purely on explanation
and justification, as is the case with the known
format of the artist talk. While the first edition specialised
on practicing established feedback methods and tools,
the second laboratory puts an emphasis on thinking
about feedback as a form of reflection that can re-feed
its audiences in a broader cultural process; rather or
more than into the artistic process, or the art work itself.

6
The second “<strong>Laboratory</strong> on Feedback in Artistic
Processes” contained presentations and try-outs of
different feedback methods and approaches. The
format “Feedback Lab goes Public” in collaboration
with Tanztage Berlin 2015 / Sophiensaele and mapping
dance berlin /Tanzbüro Berlin offered the opportunity
to test feedback methods directly with the artists and
audiences of the festival. Lectures and presentations
gave an insight into a range of experiences and aspects
on the subject of feedback, from the perspective of
theorists, curators, organisers, artists and teenagers.
Furthermore already existing initiatives and venues who
actively work with and support feedback culture were
collated. Throughout the lab three “observers” witnessed
the weekend and shared their thoughts leading to a final
round table discussion sharing individual reflections
and future perspectives.

7
What is your opinion about the ever-growing feedback
culture? How would you like feedback culture
to develop?
“What I somehow try to tackle in my contribution is
that sometimes we speak about feedback sessions
from the perspective of audience, sometimes from
the perspective of the artists, but very rarely we
speak about feedback sessions from the perspective
of the publics in a wider sense or public sphere
and then looking through that lens I also came to the
question: What do we actually react to or respond to
when taking part in a feedback session?”
Ana Vujanović

8
Contributions & Public Try-Outs
Feedback Lab goes Public
The 2015 Feedback Lab included the format of “Feedback Lab
goes Public” in collaboration with the festival Tanztage Berlin
2015 at Sophiensaele: A number of different feedback methods
and formats have been tried out together with the audience
on several performances from the festival. Some of these tryouts
took place before the actual days of the lab lead by Sonja
Augart and Inge Koks and were reported and reflected on within
the lab, and some formats were conducted directly during the
lab with Bush Hartshorn and Jenny Beyer.

Contribution
Bush Hartshorn
On Liz Lerman’s feedback method: Critical Response Process (CRP)
9
On the first day Bush Hartshorn gave a short presentation
of his version of the Liz Lerman feedback method “Critical
Response Process” (CRP). This method was applied
to the work of Andriana Seeker and Axel “Mickey” Schiffler,
“Meet me as a stranger”, at Tanztage Berlin which
the group attended as part of the Lab. The feedback and
method was then shared the following day with the artists
present.
Bush Hartshorn began working with the Liz Lerman feedback
method as an attempt to improve often rather depressing
audience talks. He starts by giving the group a
short overview of his approach to the method, a “reduced
version” as he puts it, pointing out the most important
aspects he is practicing. He refers to this method
as one that “allows you to enter somebody else’s work
gracefully”. To note, as a mediator between those who
receive feedback and those who give feedback the facilitator
sits on the side of the artists during the session.
Also the feedback happens in dialogue with one person
at a time in the group.

The steps to
the feedback
method
10
The Feedback session should be preferably not happen
right after the performance but a day or so later.
1. Introduce yourself to feedback receiver: establish a
contact, “my name is … I am coming from the context of
…” for example.
2. Start with something positive, e.g. what did you find
surprising or moving; affirmative feedback, e.g. what
worked and why.
3. Feedback receiver (artist) asks a question/a set of
questions setting the agenda.
4. You answer the question.
5. Then you ask a prepared open question, meaning you
cannot answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Also avoid ‘why’ questions
because they easily require defensive answers.
6. Let the artist answer.
7. Option of opinion in relation to the artist’s question: important
to ask for permission: “I have an opinion about..,
would you like to hear it” The artist can also say ‘no’.

Bush Hartshorn points out that, based on his own experience with artists at Daghdha
Dance Company Ireland, we can become unconsciously competent with feedbacking
when practicing the method regularly over time; from unconscious incompetence
becoming consciously incompetent, consciously competent, and lastly
unconsciously competent. He thus points out the importance of regular practice of
a feedback method in order to apply it successfully.
This method highlights that the way we speak to and address one another has an
influence on how we are ready, and open to receive feedback. It emphasises the
significance of when feedback is given (before/after show) and the role of listening
for the feedback receiver. Bush further states it is important that the artist wants
to receive feedback, and that where the person is speaking from is clear through
establishing contact with the feedback giver. Furthermore asking if the artist wants
to hear an opinion and giving the artist the chance to say ‘no’ is an important
guideline in this methodology.

12
Additional
considerations &
reflections
• Andriana Seeker and Mickey Schiffler’s comment
on the applied method: “Refreshing that it is short
and direct, makes the shifting of feedback easier,
instead of being bombarded with confusing statements
or comments. And there is the feeling of support
when the facilitator sits next to you.”
• It was interesting that people’s instant feedback after
the show was different to the session on the day
after - does your feedback change once you apply
a methodology?
• The challenge for the feedback giver is to make a
point.
• The feedback methodology seems to postpone
harsh criticism.
• Formulating an opinion can quickly transition into
suggestions based on what the feedback giver likes.
• Requires both feedback givers and artists to listen
and to avoid talking too much.
References
Liz Lerman Feedback Method “Critical Response Process”:
www.lizlerman.com
Daghdha Dance Company: www.daghdha.org/archive/
“Meet me as a stranger”: www.vimeo.com/111843138

Would you say there is a right moment in the artistic
process to involve the audience?
13
“I am quite critical to involve the audience
throughout the creation process, but for
me where I have seen that it has worked
throughout a process, is if it really is about
testing something very specific with the
audience members, so where it really is an
added value for the artists.”
Charlotte Vandevyver
“I think the right moment is always when
somebody really wants to have feedback.”
Jenny Beyer
“I felt that the main feedback happens
within the performance. But what I liked
very much is to share a research question
that was governing a piece or an artistic
process with a group of people. …
I address them as citizens, or as part of
a public or as experts on something and
involve them in the process of creating the
piece or in other words into the process of
research, then produce the piece in a way
as the outcome of the research.”
Sibylle Peters

Jenny Beyer
Public Warm Up & Cool Down Session
14
As part of “Feedback Lab goes Public” at Tanztage Berlin
Jenny Beyer led a physical feedback session for the audience
on the performance “Feeling real” by Alexander
Baczynski-Jenkins. The session consisted of a warm-up
taking place before the show and a cool down after the
show.
The warm up started with guiding the audience through
a range of exercises: Firstly, simple walking through the
space while sensing your body, the room and the group.
Then shifting the attention toward the eyes and vision.
Working with eyes closed, and then imagine the eyes
functioning like a camera; finding a focus, zooming in,
out and creating a frame. After that with listening, keeping
your ears firmly covered then letting go and opening
them with the attention towards sounds, and noises
near and far. In ending the session a two minute automatic
writing task was proposed based on imagining
what the upcoming performance would be like: starting
with “I imagine...” From this text everybody then chose
two sentences to write on a postcard and to read it out
aloud. These sentences were then collected and given to
the artist.

15
In the Cool Down session the audience was invited to
enter the stage and walk around in the space that had
just been inhabited for more than an hour by the performers.
As a task everyone is invited while walking to
remember moments and places of the performance and
at the same time to let movement evolve from the memory
of the performance. This might lead to trying the
movement oneself or to let it resonate in the body. Once
more the audience triggered their own feedback with
a two minutes automatic writing task, now based on “I
remember...” The postcards with the selected sentences
were collected in an envelope and given to the artists/
choreographer to take with them.
Additional
considerations &
reflections
• The exercises before watching the performance
serve all as a way to awaken and stimulate ones
own senses and awareness in preparation for the
performance.
• The exercises after watching the performance support
reflecting on it using senses and memory, including
bodily memory.

Sonja Augart & Inge Koks
“let’s talk about dance”
16
During the week before the lab Sonja Augart and Inge
Koks prepared and tested four different feedback methods
with the audience at Tanztage Berlin, either before
or after the shows, or sometimes even both. In the
role of facilitators, they talked to the artists first and together
they decided which method to use also just for a
feedback session in regard to the work the artists would
present. The artists who were then present in the feedback
sessions could always ask clarifying questions towards
the end, however they could also just experience
and take with them a different perspective and form of
feedback material (text, words, images, listening to conversation
as third person and so on) other than a direct
question & answer situation.
A summary of the 4 approaches:
1. Mapping: After watching the performance the audience
is invited to enter into a silent drawing practice
in response to the work they have seen. The drawings
are then all displayed and then a tour of the arranged
drawings is initiated. The audience discusses what they
see and simultaneously shares their initial intentions of
the drawing itself. In addition the artists were present
and had the possibility to ask the audience questions for
further clarifications.
2. Physical Introduction: this is a warm up which takes
place before the performance. The audience is taught
some movements related to the work or some dance
phrases from the work in order to warm up the senses
and offer a physical/bodily awareness in relation to the
piece the spectators are about to watch.
After the show a talk takes place with the artists and audience
based on the Liz Lerman feedback method (see
also the chapter Bush Hartshorn: On Liz Lerman’s feedback
method). To note, the after talk did not strictly fol-

low the method but offered a variation: instead of artist
and interviewer talking about the work the audience was
immediately and actively engaged in the talk. They kept
the structure of the method: first asking the audience
members “what did you see, what did you find surprising
or moving?” Then the artist addressed one question
to the audience, the audience addressed an open question
to the artist, followed by the forming of an opinion
and asking the artist if she/he wanted to hear it.
17
3. Chain Reaction: this is a collective feedbacking method,
which initiates playing a game with the audience
similar to Chinese whispers but without whispering. One
person tells her/his opinion or experience on what she/
he saw. The next person uses one part of what was said
to formulate her or his opinion or experience. The artists
present get an overview of different ideas about the
work, without them having to defend or explain the work.
The artists can later ask the people who participated for
clarification of certain statements.
4. Associations: The audience is invited to write down 10
(associative) words on the work they have seen. Each
person then reads her/his associations out. Following
that, there is the option to ask someone to explain her/
his choice of words. This method can be a good base for
further discussions about the work, when more moderation
is utilised. The artists are present and can ask clarifying
questions. Since all audience members participate
with a fairly easy assignment, involvement is not ‘scary’
and artists are not put in a difficult position to answer all
kinds of questions.

Additional
considerations &
reflections
• Positive reaction to the set up is that artists can say
themselves what method would most suit them as a
way of feedback.
18
• The Liz Lerman based after-talk creates an atmosphere
in which people are engaging in a more fluid
exchange, rather than being busy with the expertise
and professionalism of both maker and interviewer.
• It is important to introduce the feedback method as
well as possible, so the audiences understand it and
can easily participate. In all tested methodologies it
turned out that one needs at least 45 – 60 minutes.
• The applied methodologies resulted in different
talks than the usual after talk. Still it would be interesting
to try out different ways of moderation to
see if a more thorough discussion about the work
or thematics in the work could be developed in the
group, on the basis of the information gathered by
the different methodologies.
• After applying all the methodologies and overviewing
the outcomes, the question of why audiences
would want to participate in such formats came to
the fore. It is another kind of information participants
get out of it, but less defined and very much
based on the person’s own involvement. Therefore it
would be good to consider what one wants to achieve
with these methods (information on the piece, exchange,
feedback, connection with the work or with
theater/festival a.o.) and how to realize this more
transparently.
References
Let’s Talk About Dance. Feedback Lab goes Public.
www.sophiensaele.com/produktionen.
php?IDstueck=1293&hl=en

Which feedback methods have worked well for you and why?
19
“What has worked for me in feedback situations is to switch
roles. So, where it is really the artists questioning the audience,
not like where the artist is in front, this genius figure who has to
explain or argue why they took this or that decision, but rather
the artist questioning the audience.”
Charlotte Vandevyver

Sheena McGrandles & Eva Meyer-Keller
Feedback workshop with Festiwalla (political theatre with and for youth)
20
As part of the lab Sheena McGrandles and Eva Meyer-
Keller initiated a feedback workshop with Festiwalla, a
youth theatre company based in Berlin. The workshop
facilitated a space to exchange and discuss methods
that each participant had encountered and practiced,
through their work as an artist or as part of the group
Festiwalla. As basis for this exchange they started with a
method from Susan Rethorst, adopted by Eva Meyer-Keller
(see publication of 1st edition of feedback lab, 2014).
This particular method allowed each of the participants
to adopt various roles of maker, feedback giver and feedback
receiver. From the experience and reflection of this
method, the group shared further approaches to feedback,
which were actively practiced in the theatre work
of Festiwalla, such as “titles to scenes”. This involved
identifying scenes in the work and then applying titles
to them.
As a method Sheena McGrandles and Eva Meyer-Keller
used creative visual feedback approaches with the Festiwalla
group to trigger a feedback exchange. Based
on the methods shared the workshop group developed
a feedback method and gave feedback on Noha
Ramadan’s performance by working with the following
format:
1. Define scenes in the work and give them titles (i.e “Im
pact”, “A shot for every death”)
2. Share an existing image that relates to work
3. Give descriptive feedback, “I saw…”
4 . Questions from the artist to feedback givers

Two young artists from Festiwalla then joined the laboratory
to share their visions and work. As a main belief
and concern in the youth productions of Festiwalla they
specifically mentioned the triangle of racism, sexism and
capitalism: if you want to fight one, you have to fight all
three.
21

Additional
considerations and
reflections
• Do visual feedback approaches help enhance feedback
exchange with teenagers and kids?
22
• Interesting to invent feedback methods from already
existing ones, cut and copy approaches to suit the process
and format.
• For an artist it was insightful to see a range of images
that the work had conjured in others, which also offered
another field of references and associations that sat
outside of language.
References
Festiwalla: www.grenzen-los.eu/festiwalla
Susan Rethorst: www.vimeo.com/user3138418 and
“A Choreographic Mind: Autobodygraphical Writings“
(2012)
Noha Ramadan: www.noha.emerald-organ.net/
How would you like feedback culture to develop?
“I think the really important elements are to be very clear about
what you are using this tool of audience feedback for. So is it
to increase the competence of your audience, is it to expand
your audience, is it to bring the artist into account, to stand up
and be accountable for what they have done, is that what we
are trying to do? Are you wanting to help the artist clarify their
communication? Who is the feedback for? Is it for the artist or
for the public?”
Bush Hartshorn

Ana Vujanović
Lecture: Feedback Practices and the Public Sphere
In Ana Vujanović’s reflective theoretical contribution she
proposed to discuss the phenomenon of public feedback
with the political agenda of democracy. Her presentation
circled around the notion of creating a public sphere, as
an imagined aim, as well as a hypothetical premise of the
“feedback culture”. The talk introduced the historical beginnings
and phenomenon of public feedback culture in
the early bourgeois society in the middle of the 18th century,
when freedom of opinion and speech were introduced
into society. Here Ana Vujanović gave the example of the
coffee house culture in the 18th century and described its
discussions as ones without knowledge or legal rights of
the ones participating in them, and that the nature of these
talks was often insulting. Art and the discussions about
the artworks strongly influenced the shaping of the public
sphere and the way early modern society developed. Nowadays,
with its different groups of people (publics) and
the democratization of society the public sphere is less
homogeneous. Artists receiving feedback are somewhat
in a vulnerable and fragile situation. In this regard Ana
Vujanović pointed out an ethical problem of two different
situations where feedback is applied: The field of education
where students or young artists are supported in their
development, and the field of artists that already make public
work and consciously put themselves out there.
23
Ana Vujanović mentioned that artists are constantly exposed
to many different opinions about what they should do
in and with their work. In regards to feedback, what does
the artist choose to take on-board and listen to? The audience,
on the other hand, is trying to understand what
the artist wants to say. Instead of answering the question
of how and why to involve audience in a feedback session,
Ana Vujanović asks: Do we need authors involved? This comes
from one of her main questions: What do we respond
to when giving feedback: to the artist or to the artwork?

24
As an example for feedback discussions where the artist
is not present, to train the artist and the audience
as the public, Ana Vujanović mentions the project of
TkH (Walking Theory) collective called illegal_cinema
(Belgrade/Paris/Bilbao). In the Parisian edition, the
author was forbidden to be present at the discussion
after her/his film screening, in order to avoid that
she/he is considered as the main or only source of
knowledge in regards to the artwork. On the notion
of opinion and judgement she quoted from Criticism
& Perception by John Dewey (2005): “Judgement is
an act of intelligence performed on perception for
the purpose of more adequate perception”. She also
pointed out that there is a difference in juridical judgement
and a statement of response (impressionist
critic). From that Ana concludes that we can hone
impressions and develop critical thinking through
discussion, that in the long run artists should not be
excluded from public feedback but be seen as equal
citizens, and that she considers creating feedback
encounters as cultural activism or theoretical activism,
not as social work.

Additional
considerations and
reflections
• To re-think the social status of the artist in modern
western society: the artist as a genius or pupil being
in a weak/vulnerable situation in front of the audience,
or the artist as the maker of the work, being
seen as the main source of knowledge
• By excluding the (role of) artist from the feedback
talk, we can train the public and audience to be a
public. Instead include the artist as an equal citizen
who takes part in the public debate.
25
• How can we sharpen our impressions through discussions?
• In the development of the public sphere it is important
that citizens take part in a public discussion
even if they “dislike” an art work.
• An issue of free speech and social consciousness: If
I want to criticize severely, does the artist as a person
get insulted? So how can we achieve a situation
where we freely discuss art works without insulting
people around us?
• It allows the feedback giver to affirm, deny but also
to transform or specify previous statements made
by others.
References
illegal_cinema. Belgrade/Paris: www.leslaboratoires.
org/en/article/illegalcinema-story
Walking Theory series of public critiques in Belgrade:
www.tkh-generator.net
John Dewey, “Criticism and Perception” in Art as Experience,
Perigee Books: 2005

26
“What I liked a lot about the Illegal Cinema is the attempt
to include different, not so apparent ‘audiences’
participating in the debates about the work. The construction
of an accessible feedback/debating structure
helps people to engage. It is for me another way of
feedbacking, in which people express their experiences
and appreciation of the already existing art work,
giving artists the possibility to understand how people
perceive it and what people find important and actual
in their lives. It could help them in the creation of future
works, their position as artists and the impact of
art works.”
Inge Koks

Sibylle Peters
Lecture: The Art of Measuring
Sibylle Peters introduced a research project completed
by the Theatre of Research Hamburg and through this
shared her main question of interest: Can artistic processes
be designed as feedback-loops for social systems?
She listed examples of existing feedback systems such
as the GNP (Gross National Product) governmental and
political feedback systems (e.g. statistics) and pointed
out the financial crisis as proof that those feedback systems
do not really work as a means of measurement.
The Art of Measuring is based on measurement as feedback
and measurement of well-being.
27
The project is based on an earlier piece about time measurement
as a basic social feedback loop, that took
place in schools, as our social practice with time is established
throughout childhood and youth in the context
of schools (e.g. you learn to do something now, so you
can do something else later).
In general children are measured a lot and learn to measure
a lot. What they do not learn, and actually citizens
in general don’t, is how to invent a new way or device
of measuring. At the same time the desire to invent, on
the other hand, is something that, Sibylle Peters stated,
children, artists and scientists have in common. So, the
Theatre of Research founded the Society for the Invention
of Measuring Devices, a research group consisting
of children, artists and scientists who invented ways to
measure their well-being together. In measuring wellbeing
the possibilities, opportunities and choices people
have are as important as material standards. So, how to
measure them?

28
In addition Sibylle Peters identified the “problem of evaluating
art” as opposed to science and why this is important
especially for those who make art and cultural work:
all science is based on measurements, therefore we can
calculate, analyse and accurately measure its value and
thus feedback and report on it. In opposition to this, Sibylle
Peters stated, we assume that there is something
“unmeasurable” about art, its quality – the very idea of
measuring the arts is abhorrent to many. This situation,
however, creates the problem that the definition and value
of art is placed below science, if it comes to evaluating
an impact on society. As artists, she added, we need
special skills for this as in reality we have to be able to
evaluate our artistic work. For reasons of writing reports,
submitting applications for funding and so on, and on a
cultural level we need it to better understand the impact
of art on contemporary society.
Additional
considerations and
reflections
• Artistic intervention (in schools) as feedback from
children
References
Theatre of Research Hamburg/ Kinderbank project:
www.kinderbank-hamburg.de/Kinderbank/Home.html
Cybernetic Feedbacking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cybernetics
PTB - The National Metrology Institute of Germany: www.
ptb.de
First daily german newspaper as example for feedbacking
things into urban society:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Carolus

Eva Meyer-Keller
Past Works to Present – a process of giving feedback to oneself
Eva Meyer-Keller’s contribution was based on a self-reflection
as an artist. Some time ago she started to go
through her archive, clean up, digitalise files, “an attempt
to get control”. This made her look back on her
own history, what she has been interested in, identifying
topics, questions, ways of working, forms, formats and
how they were/are connected or not.
She invited the group to look at her past, and artistic trajectory
since the beginning of her performance work in
1995. Sitting at a desk in front of an overhead projector,
she started by stating that she is here posing questions
without answers. Eva Meyer-Keller was curious if this experiment
holds a valuable discovery from this past for
her future. She added that for her there is always a possibility
of embarrassment when sharing the private self
with the public and that this is also part of being confronted
with public feedback.
29
On a big screen we saw various Polaroid® photographs
from several of Eva Meyer-Keller’s works, self portraits
and group constellations, private moments as well as
questions and topics written on post-its. We hopped and
scaned through the earlier body of her works, and thus it
seems that this presentation created a feedback image
about Eva Meyer-Kellers work, with its own rhythm and
dynamic.

Additional
considerations and
reflections
• It is interesting to think how the personal archive
can help oneself to create feedback on past works,
serving to further think about the future.
30
• The way an archive ‘speaks’ to oneself and/or
others is also dependent on the materials you can
find in the archive. This touches on the issue how
artistic processes are documented, for which purposes.
How could you conceive and practice documentation
as an on-going feedback tool as part of
the artistic process?
References
www.evamk.de
What is your experience in conducting feedback formats
for the public?
“So we don´t usually do after show talks but rather introductions
and we have informal meetings at the bar after
the performance. We want to bring people into dialogue
with each other and with us, the Tanzscout team. We are
also offering some information on the work but very little
so we don´t give a lecture nor do we want to give a distinct
image of the work. So we don´t say, this is what you
have to see, this is the interpretation.”
Angela Mayer-Deutsch

Jenny Beyer
“Ich möchte dich zu mir ins Studio einladen”
Jenny Beyer presented her current dance project “Liebe”
and the initiative “Ich möchte dich gerne zu mir ins
Studio einladen”. The new work deals with possibilities
of proximity and touch between spectators and artists.
With a series of OPEN STUDIOS she invited the public
(means also: potential audience members) to join the
rehearsal process, witness her artistic practice and contribute
to/affect the creation process. The idea is that
the work is made transparent and developed in collaboration
with audience.
31
The invitation is usually personal – either Jenny Beyer
sends a postcard “I would like to invite you to my studio”
or an email to someone she wants to invite. The studio rehearsals,
which are open regularly, have been followed
by a consistent group of people.

32
This has created proximity, physically as well as in terms
of getting to know people. Jenny Beyer gives an example
from one of the sessions: Chris Leuenberger, one of the
performers, is dancing with his eyes closed. The visitors
could decide how close they want to come to him, just
watch him or even touch him. So, the usual performeraudience
relation is transformed, instead of the performer
coming close to the audience the audience could
come closer to the performer.
The OPEN STUDIOS is part of the long term project
ZOOM that Jenny Beyer develops during her conception
funding from the Hamburg Department of Culture from
2014/15 till season 2016/17 approaching the topic of
reception and sensual perception of dance.
Additional
considerations and
reflections
• To what extent can the presence of spectators and
the way they inform and affect the artistic process
can be regarded as a feedback practice?
• What kind of relation between artistic process and
feedback is in place here?
References
ZOOM/ OFFENE STUDIOS
www.jennybeyer.de

Charlotte Vandevyver
Experience “work in progress” feedback & Group collection of feedback
initiatives
33
In her contribution Charlotte Vandevyver reflected on
her previous experiences with “work in progress” feedback
at Workspace Brussels and invites the lab participants
to collect and map out existing initiatives and
places supporting feedback culture.
Charlotte Vandevyver started with an association game,
applied with test audiences at Workspace Brussels, for
warming up the participants playfully: e.g. place an object
in the middle of the circle (or imagine the seen work
as the object in the middle) and everybody throws in an
associative word going round the circle several times.
You could do the same game, everyone writing 3 associative
words, and then organising them on a big board.
It helps to break the ice first and start the conversation.
The applied method at Workspace Brussels has been the
DASarts method, and Charlotte Vandevyver pointed out
that it is important to know the method well in order to
make use of it.
As most feedback tools come from educational practices,
she added that it might not be so easy to apply them to
public contexts. Charlotte Vandevyver suggested that
we need to think more about distinguishing methods.
How can we apply different approaches to feedback
depending on the context, and whom it addresses, such
as school/education, artistic creation processes/work in
progress, finished works and so on.

Group collection of feedback initiatives
34
• Compañeros (Buda Arts Center Kortryk): www.budakortrijk.
be
• Wisper: courses for amateurs 18+; collaboration with Stuk
Leuven: http://www.wisper.be
• Nordpulse Hamburg (backstage experiences): www.hamburg-tourism.de/sehenswertes/kultur-in-hamburg/backstage/
• Freie Volksbühne (Charlottenburg, Berlin): www.lustaufkultur.de/
• Meeting Choreographers / K3 Hamburg (course parallel to a
piece): www.k3-hamburg.de
• Mezze Talks/ Het Veem Theater: www.hetveemtheater.nl
• X-factor Kampnagel (blind date): www.kampnagel.de/de/
programm/xfaktor/
• Frascati / 3h evening programme (moderation: estafette):
www.frascatitheater.nl
• Conversation kitchen (Copenhagen): www.nikolajkunsthal.
dk
• De Zendelingen (Antwerp): www.facebook.com/zendelingen
• Incubate: www.incubate.org
• The Fieldwork method: www.thefield.org
• Kitchen Talk HZT ( 2 people from different fields coming in):
www.hzt-berlin.de
• Contemporary Arts Alliance (Berlin) witnessing response of
artists: www.caa-berlin.org
• Tanzscout: dialogue between company: www.tanzscoutberlin.de
• Mobile Academy Model (one table for each member of a
group): www.mobileacademy-berlin.com
• Blog Culture
• Feedback of clapping (“cluckers“)
• Le Patron (try-out system: non artist commission & work, coming
from communities)

Additional
considerations and
reflections
• It seems important to test different feedback
methods for public contexts over a longer
period of time, as most of the established
ones come from an educational practice.
• Art initiatives that bring together and spread
out to family, friends and neighbours, the
sort of smaller community next to the established
art audience and the wider public.
35
References
Workspace Brussels: www.workspacebrussels.be
DASArts feedback method: http://www.ahk.nl/en/
search/?q=feedback&id=1587&L=1

Round Table Discussion, Reflection on Feedback Lab goes Public,
Observations
36
On the final day the three “observers” shared their
thoughts as witnesses of the weekend, leading to a final
round table discussion, below are some questions and
thoughts that emerged from the dialogues and observations.
Feedback and Publics
How can we further understand feedback procedures to
offer the chance to generate public discourse, and shape
the public sphere as part of democratic processes?
As art is often funded through public money, to what
extent does or should the audience have the right to intervene?
And what responsibility should the artist carry?
Why would the audience be motivated to participate in
a public feedback session? Is there a value of being able
to communicate critique without becoming personal? As
an audience member do we want to do this to help the
artist? Or does the participation in feedback sessions
allow the audience to cultivate and articulate an own
perception of the work?
More than verbal feedback
What other ways are there than verbal feedback? And
how can they be useful? Could we experiment more with
other forms of communication? What contexts can we
apply this to and how can we make non-verbal feedback
sharable? Can we actively practice methods of feedback
on artistic processes through drawing, images,
using your body, games and so on?
Feedback can cultivate perception and democratic processes
but also the question comes up if there aren’t
some artists who do not need or want feedback as they
get feedback through what they do directly (e.g. Wiener
Aktionisten)

Final Remarks
The term feedback is very broad and in general it seems
to be desirable in terms of ‘best practice’ to achieve
transparency, what seems to be important is to distinguish:
37
• Who is the initiator?
• What is the agenda behind it?
• What is the context (education, rehearsal process/
studio, theatre programme/festival etc.).
• How important is the practice of diverse feedback
methods (to experience different roles, e.g everybody
gives and receives feedback).
Challenges

38
Short Biographies

Sonja Augart
Sonja works as an independent artist, performer, dramaturge and curator.
After finishing her studies in the Netherlands she made different works, which contained
site-specific work, choreography for theatre and time-related performances.
As a curator she worked for Theatre Frascati Amsterdam (Something Raw Festival)
and the Incubate Festival Tilburg. Beside her own work, Sonja Augart performed
with Jerôme Bél, Forced Entertainment, Fréderic Flamand, Vivienne Newport and
collaborated with Jasna L. Vinovrski (Public in Private). In 2003 she established
FRAGMENTA, an association for the support/ production of dance related projects.
At the moment she develops the radio program ‘Choreographic Radio’ and since
2015 she is vice chairman of the association ZTB Berlin (contemporary dance berlin
association). www.fragmenta.nl
.
39
Jenny Beyer
Jenny studied at the Hamburg Ballet School and the Rotterdamse Dansacademie.
In 2007 she was a resident choreographer at K3 – Centre for Choreography/
Danceplan Hamburg. Her works tour internationally (Spring Dance Festival in Utrecht
and at the ImPulsTanz Festival in Vienna, among others). She is the co-founder
of the Sweet & Tender Collaborations artist initiative. In the seasons 2014/15-
2016/17 she receives the conception funding of the Hamburg Department of
Culture. The trilogy that she will produce at Kampnagel Hamburg in the context
of this funding focus on different aspects of the relation between audience and
dance: LIEBE (2015) possibilities of proximity, GLAS (2016) reception and FLUSS
(WT, 2017) participation. During this long term project she introduces a new form
of public rehearsals: In a series of OPEN STUDIOS audience is invited to witness
and join rehearsal processes. The choreographies are developed in continuous dialogue
with potential audience members. www.jennybeyer.de

Josephine Findeisen
40
Born in 1990, Josephine studied at the National Circus School of Tunisia and ‘Interdisciplinary
Arts’ at the Academy of Fine Arts and Design, Maastricht. Her artistic
practice, influenced by visual and performing arts, investigates the bodies physicality
and other materials. She does this in order to question the way memory, history
and knowledge is constructed and embodied/materialised in a society. Since
2013 she studies ‘Dance, Context, Choreography’ at Hochschulübergreifendes
Zentrum Tanz Berlin.
Nik Haffner
As dancer and choreographer Nik Haffner is involved in projects that he often develops
together with collaborators, amongst others with dance artists Christina Ciupke
and Mart Kangro. This interest has also led to collaborations and educational
projects with artists from different disciplines. Since 2008 he has been teaching at
HZT - Interuniversity Centre for Dance Berlin. In 2012 he has been appointed Artistic
Director of the HZT Berlin. 1994 until 2000 he was dancing in William Forsythe
company Ballet Frankfurt. During this time he co-developed the media-publication
„Improvisation Technologies“ in cooperation with ZKM, Centre for Art and Media
Technology in Karlsruhe. In 2011-13 he worked together with the choreographers
Jonathan Burrows and Matteo Fargion on their online score „Seven Duets“ as part
of the web-publication MotionBank.org.
Bush Hartshorn
Until January 2015 Bush was the Artistic Director of Dansehallerne in Copenhagen
Denmark. Throughout the nineties he was Artistic Director of the Green Room
Manchester UK, one of a few venues in the UK to support innovative performance
work at that time. He then relocated to mainland Europe to work as a festival
Director and Dramaturge in Belgium and the Netherlands (De Beweeging and
Rotterdam Festivals) returning to the UK in the early twentieth century to direct one
of the National Dance Agencies, Yorkshire Dance. He led an annual mentoring
programme for Daghdha Dance in Ireland in addition to mentoring young artists
in Germany, Sweden, Poland, Italy, UK and Denmark. Throughout the last thirty
years he has formed and contributed to a number of international networks and
various artistic juries and councils.

Eva-Maria Hoerster
Eva Maria is an organiser, dramaturge, curator, and teacher, currently in charge
of project development and coordination at Hochschulübergreifendes Zentrum
Tanz Berlin (HZT). Before, from its formation in 2006 until June 2013, she was the
managing director of the HZT Berlin. In 2013 she curated the international dance
festival „passage-recherche“ at the Deutsches Nationaltheater Weimar. 2003-06
she was the artistic director of Tanzfabrik Berlin, where she worked since 1995 as
a project manager and dramaturge; co-initiator and co-curator of „Tanznacht Berlin
/ Tanz made in Berlin“ (2000-2004); dramaturge with Tanzcompagnie Rubato
(1998-2000, 2015). Founding member of Zeitgenössischer Tanz Berlin e.V. (ztb);
co-initiator of the network TanzRaumBerlin; since 2014 member of the ‚Rat für die
Künste’.
41
Inge Koks
After her studies in cultural anthropology Inge mainly works as a freelance curator
and producer. As a curator - with TANZTAGE BERLIN, Theater Frascati and
Stadsschouwburg Amsterdam. She curated the 2012 edition of TANZNACHT BER-
LIN, in which Berlin dance was being mapped out by it’s interrelated and urban
dimensions. Now Inge is collaborating with theatre Podium Mozaïek in Amsterdam
which aims to be a true intercultural and interdisciplinary platform for meeting
and exchange. The anthropological perspective remained important in Inge’s work,
initiating or participating in projects which focus on community, solidarity, public
space, diversity, and working with people of different ages, social status, education
and cultural background. She founded her own organisation Stichting Publieke
Werken. The first project 100% Amsterdam by Rimini Protokoll took place in
December 2014.
Angela Mayer-Deutsch
Angela is a free lance dance scout in Berlin. She did a PhD in Art History at Humboldt
University of Berlin and an M.A. in Psychology at University of Vienna. In
2014, after years of art historian and interdisciplinary research, of curating and
organising exhibitions in Vienna, Budapest and Berlin, she decided to follow her
ongoing passion for the dancefield. Thus, she chose mediation of contemporary
dance art as her new professional focus, and works for TanzScout Berlin, developing
at present among other ideas the form TanzScout Senior.

Sheena McGrandles
42
from Northern Ireland, graduated with a BA in Dance Theatre from the Laban Centre,
London (2007). She completed her MA in Solo/Dance/Authorship at HZT Berlin
and from 2012-2013 she was a choreograpaher in residence at K3 Hamburg. Currently
Sheena is artistic research associate on the BA “Dance, Context, Choreography”
at HZT. Her artistic practice, both performative and visual is concerned
with queering the body in performance, drag and the representation of women on
stage.
Eva Meyer-Keller
Eva works at the interface of performance and visual art. Her working method is
marked by a constructive disregard for the imposition of any boundary between
visual and performing arts. She has presented her work internationally in a wide
range of contexts and sites. These include the performances DEATH IS CERTAIN
(2002 performed in more than 200 venues around the world), PULLING STRINGS
(KunstenFestivaldesArts, Brussels, 2013) and HANDMADE (NGBK Berlin, Bonniers
Konsthall Stockholm, Palais de Tokyo Paris). Eva develops projects alone and in
collaboration with other artists, such as Uta Eisenreich, Sybille Müller and Kate
McIntosh. She has worked with Baktruppen, Jérôme Bel, Christine De Smedt/les
Ballets C de la B (9x9), Juan Dominguez and Agnes Meyer-Brandis..
Sibylle Peters
PD Dr., researcher, performance artist, studied literature, cultural studies and philosophy,
and worked at the universities of Hamburg, Munich, Berlin (FU), Bale,
Wales and Gießen. She is currently head of the PhD Program Performing Citizenship
in Hamburg. As a freelancing performance artist she realized lecture performances
and performance projects focussing on participation and collective research
(often in cooperation with geheimagentur performance collective). Peters
is founder and director of the Forschungstheater/Theatre of Research situated at
the FUNDUS THEATER Hamburg, a theatre, where children, artists and scientists
meet as researchers.

Olive Schellander
Based in Vienna, Olive is involved with various artists in the roles of a dancer-performer,
collaborator and choreographer. She obtained a BA Dance Theatre (Laban,
UK) followed by a MA Choreography at the Institute of Dance Arts (AT, 2011). Her
first own works have been presented in England, Austria and Sweden. She received
a Performing Arts Grant from the Austrian Ministry, a training scholarship at Tanzquartier
Wien, and has facilitated feedback sessions for artists that allow artistic
sharing of ideas and practices. In 2015 Olive was part of SuSy (LifeLongBurning
Programme) at Uferstudios Berlin..
43
Charlotte Vandevyver
Born in 1982, Charlotte holds a master degree in Art History and Theatre Studies
from the University of Ghent and is in charge of the dance program at STUK: House
for Dance, Image & Sound. She was the artistic director of workspacebrussels
(2010-2014) and president of the dance commission of the Flemish Government
(2008-2015). Prior to that, she worked as editor, producer and assistant programmer
for numerous organizations (BUDA, Vooruit, Troubleyn/Jan Fabre, Etcetera,
Masterplan for Dance) and as coordinator for Sarma and the Advanced Masters in
Theatre Studies at the University of Antwerp, lecturing dance theory. She is regularly
involved in jury’s and expert panels for amongst others P.A.R.T.S., SNDO, DasArts,
Kunstenfestivaldesarts and Impulstanz.
Ana Vujanović
Ana Vujanović, Ph.D. is a freelance cultural worker in the fields of contemporary
performing arts and culture. She is a member of the editorial collective of TkH
[Walking Theory], a Belgrade-based theoretical-artistic platform, and editor-inchief
of the TkH Journal for Performing Arts Theory. A particular commitment of
hers has been to empower independent scenes in Belgrade and former Yugoslavia.
She has lectured and given workshops at various universities and independent
educational programmes throughout Europe. She participates in art projects
as a dramaturge, co-author and artistic collaborator. She has published a number
of theoretical articles and authored four books, such as Public Sphere by Performance,
co-authored with Bojana Cvejić (Berlin: b_books, 2012).

44
The <strong>Laboratory</strong> on Feedback was initiated by Uferstudios Berlin
and HZT Berlin (Inter University Centre for Dance), in the frame of
‘Teachback’, one of the modules of the project ‘Life Long Burning‘
(www.lifelongburning.eu).
This brochure intends to serve as a documentation and summary
on the feedback laboratory for those who have participated in
the two feedback labs so far, and others who are interested in
this topic. It contains brief descriptions of the contributions and
possible manuals for try-outs. It also includes individual interview
quotes from the participants, which took place during the lab
weekend. In addition an audio recording from each contribution
is available on the HZT homepage.

45

46

Credits
Participants
Sonja Augart
Jenny Beyer
Josephine Findeisen
Bush Hartshorn
Eva-Maria Hoerster
Angela Mayer-Deutsch
Sibylle Peters
Charlotte Vandevyver
Ana Vujanović
Observers
Nik Haffner
Inge Koks
Olive Schellander
Moderators
Sheena McGrandles
Eva Meyer-Keller
Visual and Audio Documentation
Julia Wallner
Text and Editing
Sheena McGrandles
Olive Schellander
Eva-Maria Hoerster
Layout
David Eckelmann
Organisation
Barbara Friedrich
Uferstudios GmbH
HZT Berlin

www.lifelongburning.eu
www.uferstudios.com/
www.hzt-berlin.de/
ISBN 978-3-00-050330-6