⇔ (A ⇔ B means A is true if B is true and A is false if B is false)

摘要

⇔ ududBartram and O'NeillududNegotiating a collaborative relationship has enormous benefits: a sense of comradery, when the making of art can be an isolating process; the ongoing dialogue and critique that can add confidence to a work when it has been tested by two minds rather than one; the knowledge of shared responsibility. There are also huge risks that can be so great they often remain unspoken: trust, ownership, authorship. In a new work developed for In Dialogue Bartram & O'Neill will explore some of the complications of collaboration in a performance dialogue which will take place on a series of blackboards over the course of a day. This durational work will allow both artists and viewers to reflect on the issues raised by collaborative working through a visual dialogue. udThe work will take as it starting point a statement make by Bartram & O'Neill which will appear in a forthcoming issue of TAJududQ How is the collaborative relationship of Angela Bartram and Mary O’Neill negotiated? What is the aim? Who initiates, and who is the instigator in developing the work? Does it matter? ududBartram: The collaboration transcends the boundaries between performance and its legacy, between the performer and observer, between author and interpreter. Rather than the documentation being produced by an onlooker outside the performance, the generation of an accompanying texts becomes integral to the performance itself. Thereby creating a text that is embedded in the physical experience of the performance. In the case of Oral / Response the repetition and rhythm of the action of crushing the sticks of charcoal and blowing the dust is echoed in the tat-tat-tat thud of inscribing the text on the shared surface. ududO’Neill: Communication and development are negotiated through a dialogue. The partnership is equal in its response to the varying methods and processes that make up its sum parts. Integral to this performance is the distinction between cooperation and collaboration as defined by Pierre Dillenbourg (1996). According to Dillenbourg, “cooperative work is accomplished by the division of labour among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving...” whereas collaboration involves the “mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together.” (Dillenbourg, 1996) In collaboration the disciplinary ghettos of performance and documentation are abandoned in favour of a mode of practice that allows for a greater level of mutual critique. Performers work together towards a shared goal, the success of the performance, rather than focus on the individual contribution. To this end auto/ethnography enhances the processes of give and take, self-critique, and improvement that enhance the collaborative synergy.