This was understood as a paradigm through which NDA described and organized its efforts, activities, fundraising and financial management. Most recognizable and most indispensable was the education program designed and realized as a unique travelling, nomadic academy.

We learned that through the process of implementing NDA, NDA grew into a platform, progressively shaping itself into a discursive web through which we were (and still are) able to generate and disseminate knowledge in many directions. Furthermore we envision NDA as a podium through which we can develop innovative educational models related to artistic dance education, branching out into performing arts and related art forms under the premise that education is an on-going, everyday life process.

WHY are we instigating this shift of paradigm? Why are we are upgrading NDA?

Basically, we share the belief and the need to continue and extend the education programs and, equally important, to achieve a shift of paradigm into all is education

For us, the educational program is a common point of reference, a common denominator, an important factor for identity building, and a mutual potential for change within and of NDA.

Through this shift of paradigm NDA thrives to empower the voicing of both individuals and collectives, thus strengthening the position of the individual and the collective, multiplying our/their/your/my voice. Subsequently we advocate the reshaping of cultural policies on trans-regional, trans-national and trans-European levels. Through education we create future social and cultural capital, in this particular case even intercultural capital stimulating social and political changes.

We learned that all is education, and what we miss are channels through which these educational processes will be actualized. We don’t want to work with traditional educational models that we are already familiar with: education as a one-directional transfer of already generated knowledge. We would rather thrive for education based on at least two- if not multi-directional processes that burst open spaces for people to mutually share and develop concepts and methods that generate specific knowledge relevant to the situation of the arts in general and dance in particular in the Balkans. Within this kind of education there is a possibility for constant research and development.

In other words we want to suggest the approach “it’s all education” – as a shift of paradigm, as an approach towards everything that is being produced through NDA’s activities.

Therefore we decided to develop two levels of NDA programs in the future.


This level of the program resembles the original educational program we used to have in the period 2008-2010, with slight changes being made: i.e. Nomad running bi-annually in the future.

2-NDI Nomad Dance Institute, NDI.

NDI fosters nomadic research and the production of innovative project ideas and concept, based on temporary residencies. Woodstock of knowledge has been the pilot project line (2011) through which the festivals Pleskavica in Ljubljana, Kondenz in Belgrade  and LocoMotion in Skopje  festivals, as well as Teaching the Teachers 2011 are embedded and supported.

We see the flow of information between disciplines as a nomadic method, the methodology of migration and transgression. We thrive to develop and specify other, not yet discovered kinds of knowledge and understandings. Consequently and utmost requisite, this program line will be developed in order to provide opportunities and structures with which to initiate inter- and trans-disciplinary research in order to develop working, thinking and production practices that enable us to reformulate, invent and apply formats and politics of education, dissemination practices and production strategies.

Time :: 20 June – 24 June 2011
Place :: Ptuj (as part of the Decision Making Body meeting of NOMAD Dance Academy, where in part of the sessions we will work on preparation of TTT)
Participants – Decision Making Body participants of 

Celine Larrere
Iskra Sukarova
Biljana Tanurovska
Dragana Alfirevic
Dejan Srhoj
Goran Bogdanovski
Stephan Shtereff
Tamara Curic
Aleksandra Janeva
Willy Prager
Rok Vevar
Gregor Kamnikar
Marijana Cvetkovic
Nina Bozic
Nevena Redzic
Guido Reimitz
Pierre Yves Diacon
Jana Jevtovic
Domen Šega
Martin Sonderkamp
Stefania Kregel

In order to discuss the program development and design the outline of TTT and how it can be integrated as an idea and concept into the general plan for development of NDA, we decided to organize two sessions of TTT, or, one Pre- session in Ptuj and TTT in Skopje.

In this session all DMB representatives were involved and discussion we have detected several points that should be further developed through reflection of the participants of TTT in November session. On this session we have designed the draft of two-fold program of TTT in Skopje in November.

Also it was decided that Martin Sonderkamp and Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski will lead the session and plan the concept for November TTT, having the right to use the principle of invitation and invite two more collaborators from NOMAD as core group. They decided to invite Aleksandra Janeva Imfeld and Rok Vevar as core group collaborators.

Martin Sonderkamp acted as facilitator, and in collaboration with the core team consisting of  Aleksandra Janeva, Rok Vevar and Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski the concept and program of TTT in Skopje was developed. The core group was also responsible to invite other participants to TTT and to lead and facilitate the program.


PREPARATORY MEETINGS on TTT session in November, Skopje.

Core group has organized several meetings through Skype to define and develop the topics of TTT, as well as to decide about the participant’s invitation.
Also a meeting in Brussels between Martin Sonderkamp and Aleksandra Janeva was realized Biljana Tanurovska and Rok Vevar joined via skype.



 The aim of TTT Skopje is twofold:

 TTT held in Skopje is both a meeting of part of Nomad creators and funders which precedes the meeting with invited team of guests Gisela Müller (Tanzfabrik/Berlin), Elke Van Campenhout (APT-A.PASS/Antwerp) and Vera Sander (University of Cologne- Hochschule für Musik und Tanz ) We also invited Anna Grip (Cullberg Ballet/Stockholm) who is also a partner for Nomad within the Jardin d’Europe network, but she had to cancel her participation due to professional reasons.

The task set for the NOMAD participants meeting consisted of an evaluation of the past educational program(s), and presentation on different methodologies of teaching.

NOMAD members formed Team 1 and spent three days together, exchanging methods and teaching practices in the first part of the day. In the afternoon, activities were dedicated to evaluate past Nomad educational program. Notes from this meeting will serve in the future for a yet to be created task group that designs the first edition of the future Nomad Educational program (then taking place bi-annually)

Team 1 met Team 2 on day 3 to hand over both, an evaluation of the educational programs  (2008/2009/2010) and a report/presentation concerning which kind of methodologies were being exchanged and discussed during the meeting of Team 1.

Team 2, the invitees, talked about their experiences with certain ideas and programs they ran and initiated.

It seems crucial to understand the shift of paradigm as not only being related to teaching but as a broader outlook on how (if all is education) one can shape educational program in such a way that it allows for already existing NOMAD knowledge (tools, techniques, methodologies, know how, experiences…) to be incorporated and upgraded into a model that amongst other topics allows for student-led artistic research according to parameters set up not only by NOMAD but also by participants themselves. We could look at the way production has helped or prevented students from learning (i.e. is it required that every student makes a piece, is education geared towards producing choreographers only, where are the performer/dancers/theoreticians/critics represented in the educational programs i.e. etc.)

Facilitating/concept development and archiving group:
Martin Sonderkamp, Aleksandra Janeva, Rok Vevar and Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski.

Team 1 (NDA):
Dragana Alfirevic, Tamara Curic, Dean Damjanovski, Aleksandra Janeva Martin Sonderkamp, Dejan Srhoj, Iskra Sukarova, Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski and Rok Vevar.

Team 2 (Guests and NDA):
Gisela Mueller, Elke Van Campenhout, Marijana Cvetkovic, Martin Sonderkamp, Aleksandra Janeva, Rok Vevar and Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski.

Guest/visitor: Vera Sander, University of Cologne (Hochschule für Musik und Tanz ).

Guests: students from the Faculty of dance pedagogy in Skopje.

Coordination, organization and documentation: Biljana Tanurovska Kjulavkovski, Violeta Kachakova, Katerina Tocinoski and Pinar Basoglu (intern as part of Wild Cards- Schnee program of Jardin D’Europe).



Dates: November 12- 22

Facilitating/concept making team:

Martin Sonderkamp, Aleksandra Janeva Imfeld, Rok Vevar and Biljana Tanurovska - Kjulavkovski)

On 14 and 15  November: preparation TTT Skopje; from 16-18 will work with Team 1; on 18 they will work with Team 1 and Team 2 together; on 19 and 20 will work with Team 2, and on 21 and 22 will work alone on the archiving of the materials collected during whole TTT workshop session.


Team 1
Dates: 15.11. – 19.11 (travel dates 15 and 19)


Team 2
Dates: 17.11 - 21.11 (travel dates 17 and 21)



Before the meeting with Team 1, the facilitating/concept group met and worked on planning and scheduling. It was agreed upon to focus on the method Learning by Doing through which different positions such as teaching, participating and observing within education and training would be explored. Furthermore, we agreed to examine and discuss the inter-relation between knowledge, education, position, function, perception and responsivity. A major main interest expressed was to discuss how to organize and implement a responsive system. Share and learning by doing. We want to provide a system aside of the givers and the takers. (subliming into one person). Each participant has 3 layers to go; give, take and share. Doesn’t matter which position is, people will come to the space and have the responsibility to have time to give-take and share.  (receiver and responder)

We also posed questions as What is give and take? Which position effects give and take?

In what kind of circumstances you provide knowledge (matter of education). How much you are able to give and transfer and you are able to receive?

Team 1 started working on the evaluation by the proposed methodology, and afterwards by using the game ‘quick dating` (5 min discussion, and then shifting the partner and position. People were exchanging their thoughts and connecting them to the once they received) worked on the question What is the future of contemporary dance?


NOTES FROM TTT- 16/17/18 November
An evaluation of NOMAD educational programs 2008/09/10


-> educational programs 08/09/10 -> future

Trough the educational programs (08/09/10) NDA reached its goals concerning the dissemination of artistic and educational practices, research, production and visibility of contemporary dance. It stimulated the growth of networks between the members of NDA and the establishment of networks within the younger generation of dance related artists and theoreticians working within and around NDA. The participating young artists continue to spin their web on their individual premises and needs.

The educational programs had taken a large percentage of effort and focus and were seen as the brainchild through which all involved connected.

We considered to re-think individual, local, regional and collective aims and what kind of programs could be inaugurated that would allow for the latter to be implemented.

-> learning -> politics -> students -> teachers -> not knowing -> diffusion

We examined how the educational programs 08/09/10 had been set up.

Most missed were formats other than a series of consecutive workshops;

residencies and mentoring being the formats most favored. There was a consensus of wanting to be critical towards traditional models that position teachers and students in such a way that the teaching artist possesses, categorizes, names, verifies or negates information and the student artist, supposedly not knowing, volunteers to receive explanations, definitions, verifications etc., hoping to gain knowledge.

Also, it was suggested to invite teachers/lectures/artists that work with and teach the ones who design the educational program in order to allow for an utmost creative base on which grounds decision regarding the program’s design are being made.

We were thinking about how to encourage learning situations in which teachers are allowed to abandon the idea to firstly introduce a canonized body of knowledge which maps out their territory, i.e. a technique that the students are expected to focus on, move through and learn to work with. Instead, knowledge could be specifically generated through methods of observation, questioning and experimentation and be directly related to each individual’s profile and research area.

The teaching-artists involved could spend longer periods of time with a group of student-artists. They also should feel invited to teach what they don’t know, so that their process would also be of learning not of merely transferring what they already know. This would stimulate the growth of interpersonal intelligence and knowledge, a collective research where knowledge is being produced through collective exchange and experimentation.

-> learning -> politics -> students -> teachers -> not knowing -> diffusion continued

It was seen as something important that teachers not only come and teach a technique during a workshop. There was a general interest in the way invited artists think not what kind of technique they would provide. Long-term mentoring/advising proved to be substantially important as it generated a more thorough process. It was also seen as a possibility to involve local artists that could then teach longer periods or could return multiple times to work with the participants.

Additionally it was suggested to have each student propose their own area of research relevant to their individual interest, process and production needs with which they would apply. That way, the program could be carefully designed according to ‘’real’’ needs and we would directly stimulate and support individual growth and would be able to bypass above mentioned problematic of merely supplying prescribed, canonized knowledge.

-> learning by doing -> self-responsibilities -> collaborative practices

We talked about collaborative practices as the means for learning by doing.

We advocate a shared engagement of the organizers, student-artists and teacher-artists with the design of the courses/workshops/modules where they can mutually put into effect what they think is significant and relevant to their practice.

The artist-teacher could then act as a facilitator, who stimulates learning by asking questions, through observation and discussing and not by categorizing already existing or not yet existing, potential knowledge as significant or insignificant knowledge.

The artist-teacher on the other side could then act as a facilitator, who stimulates learning by asking questions, not by categorizing already existing or not yet existing, potential knowledge as significant or insignificant knowledge.

The teaching-artists involved could spend longer periods of time with a group of student-artists to allow for a more thorough process.

Additionally it was suggested to have each student propose their own area of research relevant to their individual interest, process and production needs with which they would apply. Consequently a large part of the responsibility would be put into the hand of the student-artists, who could therefore also learn to become more independent and gain competencies valuable for their own prospective artistic practices and endeavors.

This way, we would directly stimulate and support individual growth and we would bypass above mentioned problematic of merely supplying prescribed, canonized knowledge. It was seen as inevitable that in the future NOMAD should set up structures that would allow for such an open approach towards the program.

-> responsive learning environment -> modules

It was suggested to re-design the workshop format and to provide for a learning environment that acts responsive to its own momentum and to the needs of people co-creating and working within it. As a possible dramaturgy we suggested to establish a loose time-line, divided into modules- not singular workshop-which correlate to certain stages occurring during the research period of the participating artists and their attempt to realize diverse modes of public presentation. For the future, the task force education, should implement structures and guidelines that would allow for a creative, dynamic exchange between course design, planning and realization.

-> diversity-> production -> practices -> relevance -> expectations

Due to a clearer vision of Nomad Educational Program 2010, where the focus was being put on choreographing and related conceptualizing skills, performance theory and production, the formats in which the work and research were presented lacked diversity. The public presentations were largely tied to the ideas of making choreography, other activities like writing and publishing, lecture performances, exhibitions, interventions as possible ways of presentation could be included in the future.

The problem of having not enough continuous development in the field of writing/critique and theory could be solved: Activities other than choreographing would be strengthened and placed alongside other artistic practices. In this way one would provide a healthy transgression towards non-disciplinary approaches. Through this approach one could possibly also make visible the kind of knowledge that is not being taught but happens as students go through the program, their inter-cultural experience, the traces each city lays out in the memory of each participant, the kind of work that does exists in certain places and does not in others.

We also discussed expectations towards the students. Some expressed that they wished for the younger generation of artists to increasingly engage with their local scenes, have more output and consequently more impact on local and regional developments. It seems important to communicate expectations clearly and to extend invitations that would allow for the former student generation to re-invest into NOMAD structures in order to stimulate further developments both locally and regionally.

It was brought up as an issue that needs be clarification why, when i.e. funds and support are being available through Nomad, the artists within and around Nomad do not seem to be ready to go ahead, hence there seems to be a gap between the structural planning and the content and needs of NOMAD artists. It seems that the artists themselves have taken on a position as providers (givers) who have partially put their own artistic vision aside to provide space for younger generations. To think, plan and act on behalf of others could have positioned the artists away from their own artistic endeavors.

-> diversity ->production ->practices ->relevance -> expectations continued

For example: former students could return and work with the new generations of students as tutors/mentors/advisors. Also during the NOMAD program, it was seen as important to engage the visiting students with local artists, to establish contact between the program and the local scenes.

It was also brought up that the student-artist generation could invite the teacher-artists into their own artistic work, for example as performer. This would also help to prevent a certain hierarchy that puts the older generation on top of the younger or vice versa, would favor the young (student/next/future) over the old (now/past).

What was seen as a challenge was to make visible that NOMAD DANCE ACADEMY extends itself further than the 4-month educational program. For the future we would suggest that each local organization keeps the spirit of Nomad running beyond the prospective educational program. Engaging younger generations could then be stimulated by local artists and organization and would not be an overall game of NOMAD Dance educational programs.

It was seen as problematic (nevertheless positive for each individual student) that quite a few Nomad participants were being accepted in study programs in Europe, so that an immediate pay back could not happen right away.

Some participants however stated that there should be no expectation from teachers, concerning feed- back, re-investment and pay back. This might return after a longer period of time that is hard to predict.

-> passing the ball ->  diffusing knowledge 

One aim of TEAM 1 was to exchange and discuss methods and approaches theoretically and in practice. Since we were a group of people consisting of dance artists, managers, researchers and theoreticians we felt that it was important to begin to discuss teaching and education through practice.

For this we had set up a few classes with the Students from the BA program of the faculty of dance pedagogy at the University of Skopje where Iskra Sukarova is teaching. From there on we would start discussions around methodologies, techniques and different approaches that we use in teaching.

We worked form the idea of diffusing knowledge, ‘’passing the ball’’ meaning one teacher would start to work with the students, then another teacher would take over where the previous had stepped out and would articulate their proposal that would be taken over by someone else.

We would introduce an idea and then let someone else take over further (even though their knowledge was not any deeper than this of other participants) in order to provide a situation where all the parties present could learn something from that meeting, not only by verbal feedback, but by letting their proposition being taken further by others who could than contribute to the research with their own point of view to the same proposition.

Practically speaking, we suggested possible ways to interpret ideas and methods introduced so that the ‘’exercises and tasks‘’ would expand and vary according to individual interpretations diffusing the pure, initial idea with responses and alternative solutions.

-> second hand teaching -> intrapersonal knowledge

Another method we examined was that of ‘’second hand teaching’’, meaning someone who has no or little information about an idea or technique starts to teach it.

For example: The dot-technique, a set of rules and tasks invented by Alexandra Janeva was firstly introduced, and then Dejan Srhoj continued to deepen the exploration of her ideas. It was interesting to witness how the actual investigation, the questions and thoughts towards the un-known, quickly revealed that the way we generate knowledge also influences the transfer of knowledge. Someone who is trying to explain something unknown, a person who is learning and making up some sets of facts and explaining them to somebody else using the knowledge they have, already is an intelligible act in itself.

When existing, intrapersonal knowledge is being applied to an unknown territory, knowledge previously acquired can be adopted according to a specific research question and because it is being diffused with other knowledge, it can become relative to the question asked and yields many optional answers/solutions.

These interventions also served as a getting to know each other in practice, helped to understand the cross connections someone would make to other fields of knowledge, helped to clarify other’s artistic approaches and also triggered potential, optional solutions.



NOTES FROM TTT - 18 /19 November - Passing it on

On 18 November both teams met. Each member of Team 1 introduced an evaluation of Nomad including each person's  individual outlook upon Nomad to Team 2. Five minutes were allocated to each speaker.


Team 2 :
invited speakers: Elke van Campenhout,  APT/A.PASS/Antwerp; Gisela Müller/ Tanzfabrik Berlin; special guest Vera Sander, director of Center for contemporary Dance, CCT, University College of Musik and Dance, Cologne attended the meeting as a special networking guest.

Gisela Müller talked about the BA program Contemporary Dance, Context, Choreography at  the Inter University Centre (HZT) in Berlin which she designed and directed in collaboration with Boris Charmatz and Franz Anton Kramer. Students of this program were engaged in the decision making process regarding the invitation of guest teachers, content and formats of learning, establishment of feedback, mutual planning, evaluations of workshops by guest teachers. In this three year long pilot run the module experimental pedagogy was embedded in the curriculum, central to it student-led research, self learning and self generated knowledge.

Elke Van Campenhout spoke about her experience within the program APT/A.PASS its course design being made in collaboration with students. a.pt (advanced performance training) is a 12-month post-master performance research program, developed out of individual projects of participants. It is based on the principles of self-organization and collaboration. The learning zone of a.pt is defined on one hand by sharing research results of  individual participants (in discussions, showings, the development and sharing of tools, methodologies, etc...) and on the other hand the program is constructed according to individual needs for information and demands for assistance of external artists, mentors and colleagues of each participant.

Vera Sander presented the BA program Dance at the Center for Contemporary Dance , University of Music and Dance Cologne (Hochschule für Musik und Tanz ) and Martin Sonderkamp introduced the newly established program MA Dance Dissemination within the same University where he works as Senior Lecturer.

Marijana Cvetkovic joined Team 2 later due to weather circumstances (she couldn’t depart for 2 days because of heavy fog). She joined the discussions that were following as well as planning of the documentation and archiving.

We discussed structural and political difficulties and obstacles that present themselves when bringing topics, approaches and structures related to self-responsibility, self motivation and self learning into traditional structures like Universities. It was agreed upon to deal with the complex power issues when collaborating with Universities rather critically and to be aware of the implication for NOMAD in case possible collaboration would occur.

After the introduction NOMAD shared the evaluation results, and prepared the material on which Team 2 continue working in the next days.



On 19.11 also team 1 and team 2 met in the morning session and some suggestions about NOMAD future development were given, as well as questions were posed, such as:

 -> To be concrete within the vision, think about what is our interest? What is the personal interest people developing the program?

-> How do you grow things? We don’t have the money, but we should use the knowledge and the artist that we have.

-> To have concrete projects, we need to  think about what their structures are and how these structures could walk together.

-> To invite people from the fields that are missing (that you are not interested in) then you can see what is missing. That would shift the paradigm. So one can learn on the base of experience. Invite someone who doesn’t have an idea about a certain topic who is not an expert and let them deal with problematics in a non-specialist way.

-> Do we want to influence people with our artistic work? Do we want freedom? If we want it, we lose the power of influencing people.

-> How do we distribute knowledge? Would it be feasible within anarchic structures of lose networks, without any general manager,?

-> What is a position, what is a function? Power and authority should be allocated through functions not by positions.

-> When networks, institutions and programs become larger, one has to detach from the personal input and attachment in order to allow for reflection and critique.

-> Think about the individual desires! Investigate in individual curiosity, what are we really interested in?.



Think Tank : Archiving Performing Arts

After Team 1 left, Team 2 continued its work through discussions on themes that are related to  education and the dissemination of knowledge. We discussed Archiving in performing arts through topics such as “An archive of the future”; “Communication Archive”; “A collection of left-outs”; “History or future”; “ How to archive”; “Archiving by photos”.

Together we developed a few ideas that would allow to approach archiving   from  different angles.

The meeting on Sunday focused on the topic of Archiving  performing arts

The discussion centered around the writing of history and preservation versus:

-> permeability
-> flexibility
-> movability
-> transformability
-> authorship
-> interpretation
-> re-arrangement
-> appropriation
-> aliveness
-> transmission
-> and in the context of education the possibility to interpret the role of teacher by  functioning as a living archive.

Archiving performing arts?

-> To archive means to have power and the necessary structures and methods to direct how past things are supposed to be understood in the future. An archive should be like an elevator, always coming back back to its starting point, but in different forms. The archiver shouldn’t act as collector but a processor. It shouldn’t be orientating itself along the definitions and categories of art history.

-> An initial gesture is needed. Usually, this gesture is performed by institutions and organizations who have an interest to keep up history, deciding that a particular aspect is interesting and worth being archive. The archive should operate towards the future. One of its function should be  to predict future developments, not only organize and collect the past. There should be fake/invented/predicted future biographies of artists living now, their invented future  exhibited regardless of how their career is proceeding nowadays.

Archiving performing arts? continued

-> Besides, real people and their knowledge and memories should be included and made accessible to the users of the archive, so that the information is being disseminated through real-time interviews, allowing for oral culture to be part of archiving. It was seen as an important fact to include the history of off theatre and other spaces and topologies that traditionally are marginalized and  often are excluded from history.

-> Performances that were never realized, left-outs from documentations of rehearsals for example, the stuff that gets edited out and is never actually presented in public (the making of). This would allow for an understanding of how an artist produces and publishes.

-> The archive should be kept alive, its flexible categories allowing to move knowledge and facts around. How would  people understand the archive in different countries?

-> The archive must serve as a transformative space in which to re-imaging its arrangement so as to re-order what we already know and how we know about it. The archive should become a resource with which to re–arrange knowledge

-> We should re-think about how to categorize things, how to shift certain parameters of various categories. Mislaying of knowledge by changing the parameters

-> The archive's degree of accessibility should allow for many users to engage with the archive and they should be invited to interpret and re-arrange knowledge according to their own parameters and understanding.

-> The archive should be kept moving and should circulate internationally and regionally so that the different interpretations of its users leave a mark on it. The archive should contain a way for people to comment on it, so that their thoughts and (different) knowledge would be made known and visible. Users should be given the possibility to categorize and order the content of the archive.

-> If we thought of the individual as an archive, how would the process of transmitting ''history'' look like? How can someone else browse the individual's memory? Making use of the archive as a visitor; by being present in the archive visitors would become part of the exhibited archive. The individual would to transform him/herself into an object, a performative object.                                                                                                    

Archiving performing arts? continued

-> The archive would present miscellaneous objects, costumes, music, visuals, set etc. whose function and meaning would be unknown to the users of the archive and raise question regarding their purpose hopefully stimulating an in-depth research of their use and origin by future generations. the archive should also include instructions with which it becomes possible to reenact certain artistic practices, methods and performances.

-> Real people should be included, their relatives, national libraries, newspaper, audio visual material, essays and orally transmitted knowledge. It is a living archive, a space where people and objects are treated at same level

-> Prediction: There will be fake/invented/predicted future biographies of artists living now, their future already exhibited regardless of how their career is proceeding in present times


21-22 November

These two last days were used by Martin, Rok, Biljana and Marijana to go through the past process and plan the next step = publishing of the material that reflects on the process we had in TTT.

We have split the roles and decided that Marin will propose a first draft and we will later on join by writing and/or proposing themes/games...

Rok had mentioned the following :

Surplus Time Self Space
He is interested in showing the process of developing formats, how they are being constructed, according to what purpose, etc.
Rok suggested to design the book like a work book,  a combination of facts/information and  blank extra pages for personal notes
Rok would also like to include some mapping that would trace the relation of artistic practice, working conditions, discourse and individual curiosities.

Biljana: The publication should include specific examples of practice: i.e. games, scores, observations etc., that can be re-enacted by the reader of the publications
Thoughts and footnotes concerning curating, negotiation, education, self-led research, self-education and auto didactical learning must be added.
It s important to present what kind of space/time is being created through the various activities i.e. festivals, course design, co-curating, discussions, lectures etc.
Also there should be a critical  examination of the question whether the amount of audience is a measurement for success and visibility? 

Marijana would like to publish writings concerning de-schooling in relation to NOMAD.

Martin is interested to come up with a glossary consisting of word/phrases/terminology that were and are being used in talks about art/dance and education in general and education/artistic practice related to NOMAD

«« back