A discussion that doesn’t have a specific outcome (which is often the case) is not usually considered to be ‘enough’. Why is that?

Discussion as object

Discussion as methodology

Discussion as a mode of production

Discussion as a process

Discussion as a product

Discussion as a form of action

Discussion as a mode of working (talking instead of doing – Trio Collective’s Skype discussions instead of studio rehearsals and Self Interview)

Discussion as performance

Discussion in performance (Low Pieces by Xavier Le Roy, These associations by Tino Sehgal, What is violence? by Katerina Paramana, Table of Contents by Siobhan Davies, Production by Mårten Spångberg & Xavier Le Roy)

Discussion as a mode of communication with the audience (post-show talks, are pre-show talks more useful?)

Discussion as marketing tool (‘meet the artist’ – something that is extra to the performance, giving context to the work)

Logocentric view of the world (speech or language as a primary need and primary medium for communication)

The roles and uses of a language – e.g. through language we share but we also keep secrets

Discussion as a tool for audience engagement (to equip audiences with frameworks that enable them to appreciate/’understand’ the work more, knowing the ‘rules’, building cultural confidence, to make art more accessible, current trend of participation, Arts Council policy -> engagement vs understanding )

Discussion as an academic/theoretical mode (practice-as-research, lecture demonstrations)

Training: dance as physical/non-verbal activity vs dance as intellectual/thinking activity (binary not useful, instead we could speak of a spectrum of dance activity, also discussion doesn’t have to be verbal?)

Discussion in the working-process vs discussion in performance (two different modes that require different skill sets)


Can one distinguish between the work and the artist (what if you love a piece of work but hate the artist/the way the artist talks about it?)

A discussion takes time to emerge – spreading vs depth

The impossibility of communication: Is it ever possible to fully understand/communicate with another person?

Conversation as a mode of participation – a sharing of this impossibility

Conversation means loss – to initiate something with certain expectations of loss (yet, it’s not about ‘loss’ or ‘gain’ it is about ‘shifting’)

What is the point that we can no longer allow for conversation? When does discussion become non-negotiable? (Attack on Art Exhibition at Tate Britain, Rothko ‘tag’ at Tate Modern)

What is the implication of discussing in the digital sphere (Open Letters)? What influence does technology have for these modes of discussion (across time/space barriers, internet as a non-hierarchical place?)

Transformation of substance (food as a reminder of transformation in a discussion)

Words and movements as ATOMS that transform from one to another but also combine to make something new.

The difficulty of finding an end to this discussion.