- Feedback HART Haus Improv Week
- Sharing of individual learning experiences, methods, personal and professional habits
- Discussion “Where is the line?”
- Input on collaboration strategies
- Idea pitch for next group phase
- Group building
After one week away at HART Haus, it was almost like coming home to AVA Kai Tak Campus. We started off sitting in a circle to discuss the previous workshop with Simon and Andreas at HART Haus. For all of the students, the public performance was an exciting evening, which they enjoyed very much. Some found themselves in a performing mode, they had never experienced before and were very surprised about themselves and about how good they felt. However, not everyone felt comfortable with the structure of the workshop. Some had different expectations about the format of an improvisation week. Other feedback included, that the performance night was somehow too structured to have the label of improvisation. Some also would have preferred to work as a whole group instead of splitting in smaller groups. In the end, it was an experiment for everyone and a format that was part of TC for the very first time and of great value to everybody involved.
Before the participants jumped into the next group building process, they shared individual learning experiences, discussed personal methods and professional habits. This allowed them to get to know each other on another level and perhaps also filter who they would like to work with in the upcoming project. In addition, Nuria gave an input to collaboration strategies. She raised questions about idea exchanges, defining roles, group dynamics such as communication and feedback culture and how to manage expectations. In small groups they tried to pin down obstacles they might face working in a transcultural and collaborative setting and find solutions to them. Possible answers are documented here.
The next day, each participant prepared a short 3 min idea pitch, presenting his/her favourite idea in relation to a topic they could imagine to work with. The field of ideas that were presented was broad:
When do everyday tools become political? When or where is the shift?
Mass movement, interacting masses with motion sensors.
Painting landscapes.
Department of voluntary loss.
Rats.
Gaming as a process, relational art in gaming.
Going back to thinking inside the box. Impact of over consumption, too many options.
Otherness, social identity, who am I in relation to others?
How much am I guided, think for myself? Social design and architecture.
Relation between trees and humans. Non-human and human relationships.
Consumerism.
Concept of a family tree. Genealogy.
Time and space.
Trade and temptation.
Makeshift architecture.
Parallel universe in connection to the current protests.
Differences between happiness and fear.
Incompleteness.
Censorship, self-censorship.
Obsession.
These keywords functioned as a starting point for the group forming discussions. Again, they came together in smaller groups to discuss and slowly build new teams for the last phase in Hong Kong and Shanghai.
