Koreografiska Konstitutet har utformat ett konstnärligt kedjeprojekt, Manuskriptet Dodo, som innefattar elva inbjudna koreografer och dansare. Arbetet har pågått ända sedan början av året och projektet avslutas i december med publika visningar.

Premiär den 13:e december kl. 19.00 på Weld, Stockholm.

Here is an interview between Anne Külper, Daniel AlmgrenRecén and Zoë Poluch that was made during the working process:

Zoë Poluch: This is by far what we have done the most. We’ve done a lot with the veil, and we did dance and also a version of Grey’s anatomy.

Daniel AlmgrenRecén: We did some lines as well, and filled them with movement.

Zoë: Whisper.

Daniel: Whispers.

Zoë: We did a Générique. We read the manuscript.

Anne Külper: And then we wrote something, the first day. We each made a score, which we were trying out.

Zoë: At some moments we got lost and maybe unambitious.

Anne: Waiting for something to happen.

Daniel: The first day we talked about how much responsibility we have, of what we do.

Anne: And if he is the choreographer and we’re the dancers.

Zoë: Yes, for some reason the first day there was, now when we look back, a decision that we make this a collaboration.

Daniel: Based on the thing that none of us knew more than the other one. Even though you two knew that I would come.

Anne: But, you knew you were going to have two dancers?

Daniel: Yes.

Zoë: And today I tried to change that again, saying that I would be quite happy to devote myself towards being a performer.

Anne: And I could say the same. And then, he doesn’t want to be the choreographer.

Koreografiska: You said in the beginning that this is not the proposal that you’re aiming on showing, standing in a triangle in space, wiggling and replacing weight, but the practice that you have been doing?

Daniel: Yes. So far we are not aiming at what we are showing. Or we haven’t agreed on what it would be.

Koreografiska: But you haven’t agreed neither that this is not the thing you should show?

Daniel: No. We have agreed on that we are using this time to figure out, at least that’s how we started to find out something to do together. To learn from each other and get to exploit each other a little bit.

Zoë: Would you prefer to speak Swedish? We have been doing it in English …

Koreografiska: It doesn’t really matter, it’s okay that this text will be in English and the others in Swedish.

Anne: Yes, because we have been speaking in English.

Zoë: I think for me a basic question of this entire proposal is, kind of: how to deal with difference, in terms of methodology, esthetics, style?

Daniel: Principles.

Zoë: Ideology even. And is encountering difference as such, just the fact that three people in the room aren’t choosing to be brought together, valuable? Because that is perhaps a reflection of the world, where we need to learn how to be in those situations? Or is it actually rather okay to say “You keep your thing, I keep my thing, and we go on”? And what level of contamination do you go for, to actually influence or make change? Because of anything I think what becomes really the most prominent is that I’m confronted with something and see myself more clearly. I see my discourse, my habits, my thinking, I see that really clearly. And that’s interesting – as a situation. But then, how to make a work? Then we sort of have to make shortcuts, like we know that the day before we have to figure something out. And the shortcuts, how we decide to … how we can stay with integrity with these shortcuts. Because there is a lot of compromise, or there is not actually yet. I don’t think there are tons of compromises yet, or?

Daniel: No.

Anne: See, we are more trying to figure out how it is possible to connect these different ways of working. For me it is really trying to understand the way you two work, it is very different. But I don’t know if you feel more alike?

Daniel: No.

Anne: But this is also what I’m trying to figure out from the way we’re trying to …

Zoë: But actually it makes me think that “Hm, how do I even think that I can understand him?” after four days. We might use the same terminology, but I know nothing about his experience and I read in, I project so much on what he is saying.

Anne: I guess we all do. But you have this thing that the first thing you do is to take out your computer and start to write, which I think “Ah, I never bring my computer to the studio”, I work with my body. So this, I felt, was something that was connecting the two of you. I was very curious … if you would say that you are in a reading group or writing group I would understand it more, but it’s really a big part of your life, right? I also write, but when I work with choreography I think for me the main thing is moving.

Zoë: Which then has brought us to addressing the separation between thinking and dancing, speaking and dancing.

Daniel: Or choreographing and dancing.

Zoë: And we both say that there is no division, but none the less I think that when we speak about it, there appears this division.

Anne: Or, when you try to practice it and two people sit and write on their computers and one person wants to move on the floor – there you can also see that there is a difference in approach. And I don’t feel that I’m not thinking because I’m not writing on the computer and I think you also feel like you’re dancing when you are writing, isn’t that so? It’s just that we see different sides of a process.

Daniel: In that sense, if I should address that, I see that I’m working. I don’t see that I’m choreographing or dancing, I’m working.

Anne: Working towards something, or just …?

Daniel: Yes, working on this specific project.

Zoë: I think this is also very interesting in terms of vocabulary, because you have a lot “working towards” and you have a lot “working on”.

Anne: I have really liked your score (idébeskrivningen), as we call it now, and I felt really intrigued to start on these three different things. And then I noticed that Daniel and Zoë they don’t feel the same way I feel.

Koreografiska: So what would you say is the difference in your approach? You wanted to start working on it and trying out?

Anne: Using the suggestions you had.

Daniel: But there I can’t agree. I mean, you can’t say that I’m doing the same as Zoë with it.

Anne: I don’t think you are doing the same.

Zoë: We decided that every day we would do a close reading of the manuscript and then maybe a speculative

performance, like how we could imagine the performance to be – a fictional performance. We didn’t actually do this practice, but we did the close reading.

Koreografiska: But how would you describe it, because you feel this difference is in the approach? Did you discuss how to deal with it or begin to work, or how did you start?

Daniel: Well, in that sense we started with deciding to make a work together, in terms of hierarchies – who are making decisions. And then we looked at the manuscript, tried to clarify what the manuscript was saying and out from this write down thoughts.

Koreografiska: Okay. Which you tried, or?

Daniel: We did.

Koreografiska: And you tried each other’s practices or suggestions?

Daniel: We tried.

Koreografiska: How did you approach idébeskrivningen? You know there is another person who has written it.

Anne: We decided to each make a score. I tried to make a score that included these suggestions that the other person had written in the manuscript.

Zoë: And my interpretation of the close reading was your “egen koreografi”, and I wrote in the beginning a short story that was about these three people’s choreography in the past. So, it was not about my old choreography or hers, but it was about our fictional old choreography.

Koreografiska: Like a fictional history?

Zoë: Yes.

Koreografiska: Which you have also been working with?

Zoë: We did a Générique … I mean, I think for me that’s the only entrance, because I think so much “work” and

“how you work”, and even questions “why you work”, is based on history. And if we decided to do it together, what is our common history – and we have none.

Daniel: Or, we haven’t found it yet.

Anne: I guess we have some maybe, but they are very different.

Koreografiska: But you are creating it now.

Zoë: Yes. I don’t want to have to feel like I’m preaching my discourse. Everybody should have their own space for their discourse.

Koreografiska: You talked a bit before about how you chose to be equal within the group, and you said something about how everyone had the same information in the beginning and nobody knew something more than anyone else, was this why you made this decision?

Daniel: I would say that’s why I proposed it, because I don’t feel any more attached to the concept or the manuscript than any of the others …

Zoë: Other than being designated a role, that you were the choreographer.

Daniel: Yes.

Zoë: I wish I had paid more attention to that decision, because in retrospect I think maybe we fucked up.

Daniel: We can still change it. We can still change this.

Zoë: Because also I think that these solutions that we have come up with is this really kind of … it feels like settling, it’s like democracy. It’s like “So you get a day, you get a day, I get a day”, “You get a thing, you get a thing, you get a thing”.

Daniel: But this is the problem that we also were talking about, that we wanted to actually get a sensation of the other persons ideologies or specificities.

Anne: It’s a way to get to know each other, and how can you if you don’t have a space where you can somehow …?

Zoë: But I am definitely getting to know you now.

Anne: Yes.

Zoë: I mean, absolutely. In a way, what you proposed when it was really only your score, I got to know you in one way, but the way that I get to know you now is definitely as detailed and as much information.

Anne: As a choreographer or as a person?

Zoë: As a person in this room, and as a choreographer. I mean, the way you talk about dance and the way you talk about when you worked in the past, this is all very revealing. And it makes sense then when I see your score.

Anne: I think it is good to know something about it, but I mean, I could talk for days of all the things I’ve done, but I don’t think that’s relevant either. It’s more like, the way I would do it if I had been the choreographer … and I would have been more comfortable if you, Daniel, would have taken the role of the choreographer, and I would have been happy to be a collaborator, but to have somebody who says “Okay, let’s try this, or let’s try this”… And now, we have just been waiting and waiting and waiting.

Zoë: But wait a second!

Daniel: But we made this decision together, no?

Koreografiska: This is interesting, because somehow you anyhow agreed on making it an equal collaboration?

Daniel: At least that’s what I thought.

Koreografiska: No matter how you did it, you are now doing it. You can of course choose something else also but… it is also interesting if there were different expectations because of the roles from the beginning, although you made a new agreement, which still affects the collaboration now.

Anne: Yes, because if you work with people that you have known for a long time it is much easier to have this open collaboration. It’s an interesting process but I don’t know what the aim is, and it is changing every day of course.

Zoë: And me, I thought, like the other day, the most beautiful moment was when we decided to have Daniel’s – it was his little “Grey’s anatomy course” – and we did exercises, and it was so great. These ankle-wiggly things that I would never do. Then I thought “Oh, but this is brilliant – we’re sharing our knowledge and experience”, and we get this time and this space to really share what we know. And regardless of having to hypothesize and project, and try to make this amazing piece – because I think to make an amazing piece in two weeks is a miracle – and I don’t care about making an amazing piece, quite frankly. So to have this time together, to have this space, where we can learn from each other and share, was like the best-case scenario. But in a way, there is not enough desire yet, there is not enough like “I really want to do this”, “Can you try this”. So how do we make desire?

Koreografiska: Because, as you said, there is also a limited time frame which is part of the structure of the project, as well as other aspects that all constellations have to deal with.

Zoë: But maybe it is a clear desire, because there have been a few moments where Anne has asked Daniel: “But what are you interested in?” like “What do you want with this?” And this reveals two different ways of approaching a thing to do, and I think that is a kind of general thing of where desire comes from “Is it from a commission, is it from having to fulfill a thing or is it like an ongoing interest in life, like a long-term interest?” And I think we are all very different in that.I don’t know what I want from this situation.

Koreografiska: How did you relate to Manuskriptet Dodo? Did you feel that you had to follow it or is it something that you are relating to more freely?

Daniel: For me it’s more like a dialogue. You get something to bounce against, I would say.

Anne: Just having read it a few times, the words are in you and it’s there, somehow, even if you don’t consciously really try to do it you just have it somehow …

Koreografiska: Have you been thinking about who wrote it and what this person has been thinking about the project?

Anne: Not so much, no.

Daniel: No, in this sense I don’t feel a voice or a direction. I come across words, descriptions of a setting … and then it’s very much up to me to make a choice, or to associate with it. And there, of course, there are differences of how to deal with this. To go against it, to go with it, to go … to do … to do it differently. I had five of these, which were great – how to approach an instruction.

Zoë: Yes, I mean, maybe we could, if we feel so lost, we could go into the manuscript and rewrite it, and make it tighter and more directive, and make useful material for all three of us. You know, like it says “Person one, two and

three – person 1: take an old choreography, person 2: we take their hobby, person 3: we make wear a veil”, or something. To make it bear more influence on us.

Daniel: But in this sense I don’t think it’s hard to make a performance of it in terms of fulfilling the things that are written, but is that the way we want to approach it? That’s another question.

Zoë: No, but making the score, making the manuscript suitable to our needs is yet another step in our process for me.

Daniel: For sure.

Zoë: To just fulfill that manuscript, of course we can do that, but that’s not very fun I think. That’s just executing the thing. But then to further articulate what that score could be, for all of us, then maybe.

Koreografiska: It is interesting how one chooses to approach something. You said from the beginning that you do feel a responsibility and that you have to make choices of your own, but you could also do the opposite – but maybe this relates to how you see your role as an artist or in this project, or how you are usually working?

Daniel: Yes, how you see your role, how you become creative, how you get inspired, how do you get further. These kind of things.

Koreografiska: Do you anyhow feel like you have to make something or work in a way that you can be responsible for yourself and for what you are doing in the project? Or is it different between you?

Zoë: I think that I can only be responsible for myself. I think the situation isn’t going to take care of me. If I feel

something that I really want to try, I think I have to be active in that way. Which is interesting, because I think possibly the performer role is a different type of activity, and we had this misunderstanding, conflict, I don’t know what you call it, today, about when we were going to do something. Daniel proposed a score and I immediately went into “How if we try it like that, or turn it upside-down or we could open it up like that or …”, and it changed really quickly. And Anne said that she wanted to just try it like that, as it was from the beginning. So there is a different speed.

Koreografiska: The differences are interesting.

Anne: Yes, I think so as well. We have different ways of … It’s also a thing that I’m not so, even if I have worked with words, but I have not worked so much with speaking and talking, that we talk and talk and talk. It’s a lot of talking, and I almost feel strange that I like to dance … but it is like this – I really like dancing.

Daniel: Me too.

Zoë: But me too, so bring on the dance! Come in tomorrow morning and say “Hey, we’re going to dance for two hours, I really want to dance!” And you know, in that case I’m like “Of course!” this space is also for you.

Anne: This is really the way I’m not, because I would feel like a dictator. I’m trying to be very open and let your ideas come in.

Koreografiska: How would it be like then, if you from the beginning would have been chosen the choreographer and Daniel and Zoë would be chosen as dancers, would you also feel as a dictator when proposing things?

Anne: No, then I would feel like the way I have been working as a choreographer, and I’ve always asked the dancers to be collaborators but I somehow hold the structure and suggest things, and then people can come with suggestions, but I’m the one who says “We’re going with this” or “We try this”.

Koreografiska: Who makes the decisions?

Anne: Yes. And I don’t feel like a dictator then, but like a facilitator.

Koreografiska: So, how do you think of authorship within this project?

Zoë: I think you, Rebecca and Marie, are the authors.

Daniel: Yes.

Zoë: I think the idea is very much the idea of this organization, passing-along, all these small details with secrecy and passing on a note to someone, the selection and turning over who selects who. All of this I think is the choreography.

Daniel: I agree there, and that is also why … if … to take on the role as the choreographer here, and claim some kind of authorship through that, would also feel … it would feel weird.

Koreografiska: It’s interesting because when we made this project one of the main ideas was how to let go of this kind of authorship. Of course we came up with the idea of the project, but after that we have been sort of letting go, we haven’t been writing the idea, one of the things that usually are characteristic for claiming authorship.

Daniel: But there you have created a quite clear choreography, or score, which maybe we could say that we are improvising with. And this score in itself is still somewhere over the whole thing. It’s the umbrella, let’s say, that we are hanging down from.

Zoë: I know, sometimes I feel like a puppet. I mean, in a way of … like actually I can maneuver until this point. Which isn’t true because, we thought about “How can we have more an idea of this entire context?”. Because then I think I could understand more how to propose something. Because I think the whole evening, the whole week of shows, the moment of the encounter with the audience will so much be colored by the whole situation. And we don’t know anything about that. So we’ve talked about how then to have some precision or agency with that. And we haven’t really thought of anything so … Today we thought of our title, and we thought of actually giving instructions

to the next group, which meant that, that would be our show – giving instructions to the next group. But then, what do we do for the next two weeks, and it’s a bit too conceptual.

Koreografiska: Do you feel some sort of expectations of what is too conceptual?

Zoë: No, I just thought that it’s a bit too much of a smartcard. I don’t know. But it’s not really playing the game, for

some reason, it feels like a … snap, but maybe we have to do that, I don’t know.

Koreografiska: So, did you come up with what to pass on to the next group?

Anne: We have three manuscripts.

Koreografiska: Ah!

Anne: And we haven’t seen each other’s.

Koreografiska: And you will not share them?

Daniel: No.

Koreografiska: Have you been thinking of the word “manuscript”? The title of the project, Manuskriptet Dodo?

Anne: Yes, and we have changed our title.

Koreografiska: What have you decided?

Daniel: ibid. It’s from this, what you get in books, when you have the footnotes, you have a footnote that refers to the previous footnote, it always says ibid. It’s from Latin.

Zoë: Ibidem, which means “what comes before”. Dodo was sort of decided to be out.

Daniel: Even though it is a bird. That seems extinct. That we came to.

Koreografiska: So, you have been researching?

Daniel: We’ve been researching. It’s also a … you have a Dodo-dragon in a little computer game.

Zoë: It’s also “Fais dodo”, in French “Go to sleep”. It’s also in English like a bit dummy “You dodo”. So who made the title, was that the original title of the manuscript or was it the title form the former group?

Koreografiska: No, that’s like …

Zoë: The original?

Koreografiska: Yes.

Zoë: Oh, we had Originalet, that was one title also.

Koreografiska: Have you thought of why it’s named like it is or why the word manuscript is used? Manuscript is not really from our field or context.

Daniel: Yes, we reflected on that this is not something that is used in dance or performance. But also that it … we were expecting, or we talked about what the manuscript would contain in terms of our expectations. And it doesn’t really fulfill our expectations of a manuscript.

Koreografiska: It’s not a manuscript, in this sense.

Daniel: Not according to our expectations at least.

Koreografiska: But then you said that, when you were working, you were making scores.

Anne: Which is about the same. It’s similar to manuscript, score, structure … its different artistic expressions.

Daniel: Yes, I mean, it’s guidelines. Ways to handle something.

Zoë: Which makes you think a little bit about what is the material, or the source, when you start anything. And it’s fun when it’s something that’s already so materialized, so complete, it’s like … document. But, it’s funny how you

can, how do you say, evoke different qualities, depending on if it had been a sound or an object. Because of a sort of

instructional quality we relate to it differently, than if it had been a point of departure. Because I also got something from the people before, a letter, which I shared with Anne and Daniel, because it made a lot of sense and it’s been really helpful.

Koreografiska: So that added more layers to it?

Zoë: Yes. That makes me think of how open, or how structured a frame should be, or can be. I find it quite open, the manuscript. Neither good nor bad, but definitely pointing towards a direction. I think I’m found of frames, and tighter frames.

Daniel: But of course, this is a decision – how tight to make a frame out of the frame we got, because we could tighten it. Severely. But we haven’t made a decision. Yet.

Koreografiska: What are your general ideas around this project, and why did you choose to be in it? How is it to work with a project where someone else made the structure, where someone else wrote the idea?

Anne: I really thought it was going to be interesting to meet and work with people that I had no idea who they were. And I guess I thought it was going to be difficult, but more a challenge and to see what happens. Like you were saying, when you are confronted with other ideas you see your own ideas much more clearly. And I don’t feel that I have to make a big thing, because I think the whole thing is the thing. I mean this is something, just standing like this, or doing some other things, and talking, because talking is nice. But it would be nice if we could, somehow, get into each other’s ways more. I would like to find an entrance to other ways of working.

Zoë: Which in a way I would say then, maybe not another entrance to another way, because I feel that our ways are quite strong … it’s just that the content of what they propose is quite vague. So it’s not like we could do this style, or let’s do this move, or let’s do this song, or this text. It’s more figuring out what to do. But the figuring out I think is quite distinct, I think it does have qualities. And we had this conversation today about how I’m actually quite fond of ambiguity, about trying to figure out, and I think I know why you can’t get in to what I’m doing is because I don’t… I purposely don’t necessarily identify exactly what that is. And maybe this is also a habit, and this is something that I should try to change, and maybe it is playing safe by not really knowing.

Koreografiska: Do you mean it’s different each time or you don’t want to define it immediately?

Zoë: In a way I feel like it’s inviting someone to your house, like “Come in to my house and I will show you this way that I work with movement”. And in a way I feel that I construct that in every new situation. And at the moment, what is the most distinct, is this not knowing exactly what that is, and it arriving. And that’s maybe a bit frustrating, or annoying. I could try to make that clearer, put more shape to it. Like “Okay Zoë, for this process maybe it’s nice if you could actually have a clear proposal and a clear invitation, and a clear, thing”.

Anne: But you had some very clear things, it’s just that they came a bit too fast. For me it felt like you were trying to invite me but as soon as I came in to one room you were changing and I had to go to another room … if I use that metaphor. But how would your house look like if you don’t know, if you are ambiguous, what would it look like? Is it something that I could go into? Or I could not get in to your house then, if it’s ambiguous, that’s it?

Zoë: No, I’m agreeing that I’m asking myself that as a question. I’ll think about that.

Anne: Do we agree that we want to build a house together; maybe that’s a good question? Do we want to build, and have this house, or do we want one each?

Koreografiska: Has this been an issue, how much of yourself you are keeping or if you create something in between?

Daniel: I don’t know, for me I must say that there is a double agenda, actually.

Koreografiska: From your side?

Daniel: From my side. Because I’m very curious, since I don’t know the others, I want to get to know what they are doing, what they are busy with. The other side is to try to present me as well, a bit, which is the most boring for me in this situation. It’s the wrong thing to say that it’s boring but it’s a way to try to manifest myself, that is something to bounce against or around or with. But honestly, I’m more curious about Anne and Zoë here. So in that sense there are two things that might work against each other. But I think it goes together also with how usually work is done for me. That I quite often work with people that I know from before, or for one or the other reason choose to work with because I see something that I want to know more about, or could feed into what I’m thinking. And this is a completely different situation.

Zoë: But do you feel that you are asked to manifest yourself differently because of this encounter?

Daniel: I would say that that’s why, or what I hoped for when I said yes to come here. Maybe I can answer this later. But in a way to be a bit confronted, or to be forced to clarify things, to be able to function in a group which I haven’t met before.

Zoë: When you, Koreografiska, asked your last question, if we thought about the wider project, we said yes, I was thinking “Who are these people, that I don’t really know anything about”, I’m curious about that. I like the initiative. I didn’t know if I’d ever have a job again. And on the best moments it’s been this feeling “Oh, this is so generous”, we have all this time to just be, or try something. At the best moments I thought about that you guys have given us this time and space, that’s extremely generous. And at the worst moment it feels like I’m trapped and how the hell could you ever manage this situation? So, I prefer the best moment, so I will work towards that.

Koreografiska: Even if our aim wasn’t to make a “social” project or investigation, because this is the opposite of our interest, of course we understand that the project gives a lot of openness and generosity that could also trap you, or give a feeling of that. Do you feel that the project is limiting your work or that it gives you more freedom?

Zoë: Both.

Daniel: It gives … I think we talked a little bit about the fact that … the authorship or the responsibility that the authorship might give you … is taken away a bit. Also the fact that I don’t know who I will work with, takes away a bit of responsibility for the whole thing. In terms of that I have gaps in my knowledge. Which is usually knowledge that I will accumulate before. It’s nice because – here we are. But of course I was also curious about being in this situation.

Zoë: But I think you touch on something there that illuminates the relationship between engagement and responsibility. So now we are sort of a bit free or feel a bit less responsibility, which could then open all this other stuff. But once you’re less responsible – how do you engage? What tools do you use to engage? If usually the way you’re engaging is because you’re responsible to make a premiere on that date, with these people, and it better be fucking good – that really colors your engagement.

Daniel: But I would say that there is a different kind of responsibility.

Zoë: Yes, this is what I think we are figuring out. I don’t know what that is. But I think it’s funny actually, because I

think engagement and responsibility are often in a much more causal relationship, and here they are more diagonal to each other, or something.

Koreografiska: It’s not connected?

Zoë: It’s not connected this way, causal. And this I think is really fun, to un-attach these. I think this is really healthy actually. So, maybe that’s how I should think the upcoming days “How am I responsible, and how do I engage?”. And I feel responsible to make this a nice situation for us, in my attitude, in my listening, in my proposals. I feel like that responsibility I definitely have, and I don’t know if that is a sort of basic ethical responsibility that gets much more alive here, but how does that make me engage in a certain way? How does that make me … because it makes me listen, but it doesn’t necessarily make me propose. And right now we need proposals.

Koreografiska: And that’s because you have less responsibility, maybe it’s connected?

Zoë: Maybe, I’m not sure.

Daniel: But still, we are engaging quite a lot. In keeping our grounds. It’s quite a social event, so far.

Zoë: Thank god, we are not in some residency space in France where we have to live together also!

Anne: For three months!

Daniel: This is a question that I have been holding now for a while, which is the fact of the secrecy. I followed it as long as not everybody was chosen, I see the point of it, but now I’m curious why it’s still kept? Is it for publicity reasons, for the surprise-effect? To create a curiosity around it, or?

Koreografiska: We wanted to investigate how it was possible to work on the same idea or base, Manuskriptet Dodo, but without relying on someone that has been working before you or to be able to communicate with these people, and to not let the knowledge of who else is in the project color your ideas, work or concepts.

Daniel: So in that sense avoiding that it forms alliances over the blocked borders, let’s say?

Koreografiska: It’s not that either. It was mostly because of this chain process of how you choose the next and also that nobody would know who chose them. So it shouldn’t affect whom the next person would choose.

Zoë: Because, for me, it creates this kind of mythology that I can’t tell people what I’m working with. It’s a bit weird that I meet friends and they’re “What are you doing?” and I’m like “Ummm”… and then they’re like “But what do you mean, I know you were rehearsing all day today”, so it creates this expectation and anticipation. On the other hand I think it would be really cool to talk to the other people, and to have a more common, a more collaborative experience, because I’m very envious of your role. I think you must be observing very fascinating …

Koreografiska: And we didn’t realize it beforehand but the topics of discussion have been more or less the same, and that is of course what the project is aiming at. All the different opinions and thoughts about it have been very interesting. And that is a very important aspect of the project, which we will try to keep and present in the program. Maybe if we do another similar project, we could think of how one could follow it. Or maybe it could come out of just knowing that you are in the same project, or that someone within the project is working at a specific time or place. Maybe that could be enough even if you are not there physically or even know who the others are?

Zoë: I think you build, or construct, an attention, and that’s like “Ah, so John was there”, and then I have this new space for this new person and this new process, that I’m not directly engaged in but I care about it somehow. And I think this is a solidarity-building thing, which I don’t think is a bad thing. Because in a way, these are new solidarities, and it is exactly against this other types of solidarity that you contest, I think, by doing such a project.

Koreografiska: Yes.

Zoë: It’s more like “We didn’t choose each other but we share something”. Where the other version is “I choose you and therefore we share”.

Daniel: Actually now, after going through this, I start to understand where the secrecy, still, is making sense. Because now, since there is these complications in how to deal with it and so on, we are only we three, sort of isolated with these decisions. It’s quite nice also, because it for sure creates a stronger reaction in here, than if we would have called, whoever is in the other group, and bitch about what we are doing, or how it’s going or “How did you deal with this title”. In that sense, sort of slip out of it and also be able to process it in another way, deal with it and be fine with doing a performance-performance.

Koreografiska: Yes, everyone has been confronted with these issues, but in different ways of course.

Zoë: Maybe we should do a bunch of shows. So that every day we have a show time, we say it’s at the end of the day or whenever, and until then we just find the way that each of us needs to make a show. If it means total isolation and

“I would actually like to do a solo in the show, and I’ll work on that” or if it means “Ah, I thought we could do this task together in the show” or … maybe to think a bit about the show more. Or?

Zoë: We could hire a choreographer, put our budgets together.

Daniel: Of course!

Zoë: Bring up Mats Ek!

Koreografiska: This is not in the frame though.

Daniel: Well, it only says that we three need to be on stage, doesn’t it? It doesn’t say that we cannot have five outside people?

Koreografiska: Yes, you have to do everything yourself. You have to be the authors.

Zoë: We could do danceoke – you just project Drumming, that’s a great hit, a great piece by Anne Teresa, superpiece.

We just project Drumming, back wall, and we just do it. One hour and ten minutes I think, full-length piece. What do

you say Anne?

Daniel: What’s your favorite piece that you ever saw?

Anne: What I think about now is a solo in Berlin of somebody called Gerhard Bohner, that was nice.

Daniel: When was that?

Anne: 1980. But I don’t remember so much of it.

Koreografiska: It has been really nice conversing and moving with you, thank you. You said that each one of you would give a manuscript to the next group, so can you tell us, individually, what they are?

Anne: This is for the next two choreographers: “Can you let your co-choreographer into your creative process without becoming confused? If no – can this confusion become fruitful?”

Zoë: My contribution for the next group: “Hello. Do you like to take the long way or the short way? To even say ‘way’ implies a direction; do you know where you are going? Is where you are going a place, a style, a habit, an atmosphere, an aesthetic, a method, a formula, an ideology, a question, a hope, a risk, a game, a night at the theatre?

Is your process in order to deliver a performance? Or is the performance an excuse to invent a process? Do you work with intuition or habit? How soon do you confront methodology? What do you have to defend? When is resistance a tool that supports a working situation and when does it attack? Confronted with generational differences, how do you stay contemporary? Or is that just a joke? When do our differences no longer belong to ‘you’ or ‘I’ but rather to ‘us’?How can we use this? Or is it rather about acceptance. I propose questions because today, at the end of this fourth day of working together, there are absolutely no conclusions to be made. Everything remains a question. Will I find the enthusiasm to come back tomorrow? The desire or the use to stride on through this bumpy landscape? The future will tell. ‘The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.’ – Albert Einstein. It is all happening at once. How do we temporarily focus on the same thing? Good luck and see you soon.”

Daniel: To the next two choreographers: “If at the point when differences are obstacles. Obstacles to climb over, dig a tunnel under, walk around, push in front of us, close our eyes for, pierce through, blow up, melt down, turn around, walk away from, tweak your way by. What to agree on to turn differences in to assets? Is it possible to agree on principles and then take the methods as tools for performing the principle and let the esthetic result of this become the performance? Is esthetics relevant? Are methods relevant? Are principles relevant? Is there one of the above that can help canceling out any of the others from becoming an obstacle for collaboration? Is agreeing necessary in a collaborative process? Don’t try to counterweight the others skill … add your own instead and you have doubled the motion. Newton’s third law: The third law states that all forces exist in pairs: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = −FB. The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies, and thus that there is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a force that acts on only one body. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with FA called the “action” and FB the “reaction”. The action and the reaction are simultaneous, and it does not matter which is called the action and which is called reaction; both forces are part of a single interaction, and neither force exists without the other. From a conceptual standpoint, Newton’s third law is seen when a person walks: they push against the floor, and the floor pushes against the person. Similarly, the tires of a car push against the road while the road pushes back on the tires – the tires and road simultaneously push against each other. In swimming, a person interacts with the water, pushing the water backward, while the water simultaneously pushes the person forward – both the person and the water push against each other.”

Koreografiska: Zoë, the next time you all meet for rehearsal of ibid you will get something from one of the earlier participants that should be included in the work.