practice, practice where are you?
I am writing from a place where writing feels impossible lately. The first phrase that pumps up to justify this feeling of impossibility is “…maybe I do not have a writing practice!”. Those are the words coming out of my mouth to communicate this anxiety with my colleagues.
I am writing from a place of not having a place. Living between Stockholm and Athens traveling around for work and residencies, incarnating the neoliberal prototype of a flexible, unrooted, and ever-moving freelance artist. Feeling homeless/rootless.
I am writing from a place where I am questioning what ‘my writing practice’ means in the midst of all this and how I found myself considering that a writing practice might be something that has meaning beyond all the material, social and political conditions that one is entangled with. This question opens up space to face a great uncertainty about what I want and intend to communicate through this phrase. Why do I choose the specific words ‘I do not have a writing practice’ to communicate a much more complex and turbulent condition? From which worlds do those words come from? What do I leave outside, what is being reduced here? What is this “I ” doing there and how does this “to have” operate as something that one owes to own as one other kind of property?
I am writing from a place where practice is a concept I had not encountered in the greek artistic context 10 years ago but did so when I moved closer to academia, artistic research, and northwestern european artistic contexts and became immersed in it during my MA studies in Stockholm University of the Arts(SKH).
I am writing from a place of a practitioner of dance and choreography, interested in the notion of practice because on the one hand, it has been opening up other ways of being, relating, doing, thinking, working, and on the other hand, it seems a concept (one more) that has become elastic and meanwhile presupposes a universal understanding. Maybe this friction is why I need to write about it.
practice, practice what have you been doing?
Practice as a word and concept has been present in many different fields (sociology, anthropology, management, computer development, philosophy, etc.) and there are significant differentiations in its use and meaning in different contexts and languages. There is “no unified approach”[1] or as it is often said; there are as many practices as practitioners. Focusing on the field of performing arts in the western context, the use of artistic practice as a concept has been present as such since the 1960s at least and has been growing and transforming up till now. Since 2004 and through the establishment of several MAs studies (for example New Performative Practices (SKH), Performance Practices (ARTez), MA in Dance Practice (University of Roehampton), MA Dance: Choreography and Professional Practices (University of Salford), MA Performance: Design and Practice (University of Arts London), etc), the Bologna Process and the PhD Programs in several artistic fields, practice as research, practice-based research, practice-led research, practice-centered research have become a few of the slogans where artistic research, practice and knowledge production are interweaving. At the same time, artistic practice has “become a widely used term, a powerful concept, and popular activity among contemporary freelance dance artists working mainly in Western Continental Europe”[2]. Instead of what an artistic practice might be, I will focus on what it has been acquired to do. Practice has been connected with other kinds of knowledge like embodied, situated, tacit, experiential, and thus has been very useful in a process of shaking up the perception of mind and body relation from how it has been established in the western european context by the ontological cartesian binary paradigm. In the field of artistic research, practice has been an important component for supporting the capacity of artistic research to contribute to the production of knowledge and thus for its inclusion in academia. So through practice, it is claimed that practitioners produce knowledge and this discourse has been contributing to the recognition of the importance of other kinds of knowledge. Through practice, attention is given to artistic processes, opening up other ways of creating, working, and producing than the product-oriented ones and it “has been making visible the everyday work of the practitioners and professionals”[3]. This visibility has significantly contributed to the reconsideration and recognition of labor in the field. It has been a resistance and a survival strategy. Specifically, it is mentioned that practice “…has been a place where artists turn as a reaction to the alienation of their creativity in the artistic production”[4] and it bears a “possibility of a break rupture in the production process as it resists “the art project temporality”[5]. Furthermore, it has been connected with “expanded conceptions of support (of the artists) and artistic form”[6], with the potentiality of challenging dominant aesthetics and thus opening up the space for reconsidering the relation between aesthetics-ethics. In addition, practice is or should be perceived “..as a catalytic mode of working that has the capacity to activate processes that in today’s socio political and economic context could be understood as indirect, inefficient, interfering or negatively efficient” [7].
Far from having exhausted the various approaches on what practice can do, the aforementioned reveal the connection between practice and its political potentialities. How does the concept operate in the field here and now and what has changed, and transformed? To approach the previous question, I need to consider the “here-now” a bit more explicitly. In this attempt, I trace some connections with specific processes that are part of the field through its development. I refer to processes that establish an amnesia of history for the sake of the present, a condition that fertilizes the ground for the domination of western narratives. Despite the fact of a “common” acceptance of the concept of practice being fuzzy, volatile, unstable, or something which can not be reduced to one paradigm or a concept that does not have a unified approach, there have been several observations of a homogenization process, regarding its use that links the concept of practice with individual processes, ownership and production of the self. Specifically, as mentioned by Georgelou Konstantina, Efrosini Protopapa and Danae Theodoridou in the book “The Practice of Dramaturgy: Working On Actions In Performance”, “...practice might be understood today as one’s individual work -“my practice”- that is meant to, for example, demonstrate specific features, carry an individual (artistic signature, follow a particular methodology, and take place in specific settings and certain kinds of conditions”[8]. Correspondingly, Ana Vujanović has written: “Very often when speaking about the artistic practice at the contemporary (Western-) European scene, we speak about a turn towards a private and personal domain, whereby artists actualise creativity in their self-realization (as forms of self-creativity, autopoiesis)”[9]. From personal observation, I will add that this tendency can be traced in informal conversations where often the word practice tends to be used without any specific description when it is referred to as a personal practice but needs to be explicitly contextualized when referring to a different approach of practice. Suppose we accept that the meaning of a word is in its use, as Karen Barrad supports in the book “Meeting the Universe Halfway”[10]. In that case, it can be implicated that the meaning of practice in the western european context tends to be mostly linked nowadays with notions of the individual and ownership, a kind of capital, which are highly connected with neoliberal principles, values, ethics and ideas.
Processes wherein meaning is created are complex and dynamic and there can not be a simple analysis of analogies. I will attempt to trace the aspect of this domination as a colonial process, through which the use and meaning of a word is colonizing other possible uses that might exist in different contexts. Processes of colonization in the field of performative arts are not new. By colonization here I refer to processes that “establish control over the dominant historical narrative…to perpetuate inequalities, prescribing subsequently the regimes of visibility and invisibility for different protagonists, events, and meanings.”[11] Specifically, in relation to meaning I approach colonial thinking in processes where meaning is being linked with specific approaches that are generated in specific contexts and then this meaning is claimed to represent a “universal” and dominant kind of understanding of words, thinking processes, aesthetics, ethics, politics, etc. For example, the term “contemporary dance” as it has been used (and in some times still does) in the western european context has been actively colonizing other approaches of dance in terms of aesthetics, and practices by imposing a universal understanding and representation of the term. Another example is the notion of “the body”. The imposed universal understanding or meaning of the word “the body” is operating as a colonizing process that controls the dominant narratives about which bodies are included and which are excluded and renders invisible the interconnections of those narratives with race, gender, class and ability.
Has the concept of practice been linked with specific connotations and understandings that are originating from the western european context? Is practice becoming a discursive norm that one must follow in order to be visible, understood and legitimate to belong and be recognized, flattening the specificities of different contexts and approaches? How other approaches to artistic practice are visible and disseminated in the field? Are we-the practitioners working in the performing arts field-, specifically when originating from different contexts than the western european one- aware of this and curious about other possible meanings, or are we involuntarily becoming blind to colonial processes carried away by a need to belong, participate and be relevant?
Staying a bit longer with this supposition, I will examine how this process might affect what practice can do in relation to the promises that we want to believe and acquire from it to perform. Can the concept of practice through its material manifestation contribute to challenging the existing dominant aesthetics when at the same time it operates as an integral element of the formulation of those? If involuntarily we accept uncritically specific notions of practice to be more legitimate than others, what are then the ethics of our practices? Another problem is in the connection between practice and its context. If for example, one can move their practice along different contexts, what does this reveal about the connection between practice and the production of situated knowledge? Except for the possible case that a practice is at its core busy with those different contexts and thus this is the practice, then what happens when the interrelations between the practice and its contexts is loosened or situated knowledge moves towards abstraction, away from its material micro spatial and temporal relations? Or is the practice meant to address the performing arts field, itself? In this case, one should ask which specific context of the field and how this case is capable of generating differences that could be important. It’s useful to expand this line of questions with one more question. If we tend to accept specific approaches of practice transgressing different contexts then we need to rethink and critically question who can practice and who can not, taking account the different social and economic conditions of each specific context. In her text “The Troubles with Temporality”, Bojana Kunst describes “…institutions as spaces for the continuous production of relations, and of social and communicative spectacle” and she goes on to analyze how this homogenisation and flattening of contexts and temporalities consequence to “a generalization of the performance’s temporal gesture and the universalization of the performance’s political strength, very often disclosed through the notion of its context. Performances then became examples of macropolitical contexts, which are addressing and reaffirming the existing oppositional politics in various ways. Instead of being singular inventive aesthetic and political practices, which, with their temporal ruptures, are actually establishing politics as a sum of different material forces, they became examples of universalized emancipatory histories. Instead of being antagonistic singular political practices of emancipation, they became part of the genealogy of progressive emancipation. Their temporality belongs to a specific emancipatory genealogy per se, instead of arising from a very particular and specific micropolitical rupture resulting from an intertwinement of many sensorial, spatial, and temporal forces, which are not without very different practical gestures and understandings[12]”. Although, in the above-cited text, Bojana Kunst is addressing performance practice(s), I find it an important reminder for reconsidering what we mean and enact through our practices and their relation with context(s) in terms of temporal and spatial scales.
practice, practice how else have you been doing out there?
But how artistic practice has been operating in different contexts? Below, I include some other approaches to the concept of practice. Turning my head towards the context of former Yugoslavia, a context in which Ljubljana-the city where the event Choreographic Turn#7_Deborah Encounters took place-has been part of, I encountered another approach that I had not come across during my two years of studying. In the context of former Yugoslavia, around the 1960’s the concept of artistic practice was used and was highly connected with the social sphere or more specifically as mentioned by Ana Vujanović “…the activities called ‘practice’ bring artists as ‘makers’ closer to the concept of ‘artist-citizen.’”.[13] Under the historical and political specificities of the former Yugoslavian context, in the 1960s the “New Art Practice” emerged in several cities of Yugoslavia, an umbrella term that drew “together a group of artists, collectives, exhibitions, publications, and public and private projects appearing from the 1960s through the 1980s in cities across Yugoslavia.”[14]. This name “New Art Practice” was initiated as the title for the exhibition New Art Practice 1966–1978 (Zagreb, 1978) and was introduced by Ješa Denegri, who explicitly approached practice as :“The term practice boldly underlines that it is about processes, operations, doings, performances, examinations of artistic activities and behaviors, and not about final and finished aesthetic objects (paintings, sculptures) […] In the local context the term practice reminds of the philosophical notion of praxis, which could refer to the meanings of activism, effectiveness, social criticism and political engagement in accordance with the radicalism and militancy of artistic phenomena addressed by this term.” [15]. It seems important to remember the history of this context in relation to the present and in addition to its connections with narratives that propose different ways of relating and participating as artists in the social and political sphere.
The second example derives from the book “Pleasure Activism”[16] edited by adrienne maree brown, a mixed-race black queer writer, activist, and facilitator. The book is a curation of texts, interviews, poems, reflections, and essays authored by many writers including adrienne maree brown. The contributors are all based in the USA and they are all drawing on the black feminist tradition. In all the texts included in the book, I encountered a very active and vivid connection between self or personal practices, the community, and its political extensions and nuances. Self-practices or personal practices and collectivity are not considered to belong in separate realms. On the contrary, they are manifested as complementary and necessary for each other to exist and have meaning. Furthermore, the references to self-practices are always linked and are in an active relation with specific communities that each writer belongs to or has been part of. As adrienne maree brown writes in the text “LOVE AS POLITICAL RESISTANCE: “We need to learn how to practice love such that care—for ourselves and others—is understood as political resistance and cultivating resilience.”[17] or when referring to somatics, adrienne maree brown writes in the text “FEELING FROM WITHIN- A Life of Somatics”: “One of the reasons the Generative Somatics approach works for me is that it is concerned about somatics as a collective way of understanding trauma and pain. It isn’t about going away from the community to heal, which was the main way I had experienced healing work prior to somatics. It isn’t about being a special “healer” who is apart from the community. Generative Somatics feels into how, in a collective or group, patterns of pain can indicate the mass, or intergenerational, trauma people are surviving. And how each of us has the power to help each feel more, heal, and move toward our longings for liberation and justice together.”[18]
Another example is the plural and diverse formats of sharing and exchanges of practices such as gatherings, initiatives, symposiums, workshops, blogs, publications, and independent programs emerging in the western european context. Some few examples are Everybody’s publications, Nobody’s Business[19], Practice Symposium (Stockholm 2012), PRAXIS Trondheim[20] and PRAXIS Oslo[21], PAF (Performing Arts Forum)[22], Critical Practice (Made in Yugoslavia), etc. Those examples are important as they insist on creating open sources and various formats of sharing that are accessible to everyone, moving away from the notions of practice as something possessed by individuals. Although, a question that arises is if those kinds of approaches will find ways of not fading out in the long term while the development of the concept of practice is more and more absorbed by the neoliberal logic and economy, imposed by the market of the performing arts field. Will the initiation of those formats survive, realizing the prioritization of time for creating and empowering communities while this can be seen as competitive to time invested on self-curation, self-promotion, and self-construction in times where artists are mostly “running out of time”?
practice, practice are you still there (where, here, there, or elsewhere)?
I remember visiting Jennifer Lacey’s office (Head of the MA in Choreography at SKH) for support and saying to her “Jennifer! I am lost, I do not have a practice!”. I remember her saying that Deborah Hay is probably responsible for this term in the field of dance and choreography and that it began as a kind of joke or a kind of Deborah Hay’s need to put a word, a name on what she had been doing (exploring dancing and performing in several contexts in the USA during the 1980s) and that I should stop worrying about this word. I remember feeling relieved and at the same time wondering how a word and a concept that started as an individual’s solution to anxiety has become a source of another anxiety for many people in the academic context which I was part of at that moment. Later, during the event in Ljubljana, I had the chance to affirm the anecdote that Jennifer Lacey had shared with me on that cold day in her office. During the public talk “Practical Talk on Practice” by Laurent Pichaud & Deborah Hay that took place in the Choreographic turn#7 In Ljubljana, I listened to Deborah Hay saying that she is probably the one to be “blamed” for the term practice in the field and that she had to come up with a name about what she was doing and I remember her saying that what she was doing which she came up with labeling as practice was ways of trying to keep herself busy in some specific times and contexts and I remember linking that with some kind of survival strategy.
Focusing on this feeling of anxiety that has been a condition related to working in the field of performing arts (and not only), I am interested in shifting the focus from anxiety as an individual/personal flaw towards an approach that takes into account a more complex sociopolitical dispositif. How the feeling of anxiety is interrelated with the loss of connection with material processes that relate to interpersonal bonds, sociality, interdependence and the power to act and be active in society? Ana Vujanovic describes that “Anxiety arises when artists find themselves passive in respect of their own (productive) activity and at the same time take active part in that process of alienation with whatever they create.” [23]
Departing from thinking with this feeling of anxiety in relation to the concept of practice, a question arises; has practice shifted from a place where artists turn to resist “the alienation of their creativity in the artistic production”[24] to a place where alienation is amplified and if that is happening how this shift is taking place? I would argue that through the process of homogenisation of the meaning of practice towards an individual approach, illustrated by the phrase “I have a practice”, the concept transforms into another kind of product that one owes to own to belong and to be included. Practice transforms into some kind of property/possession, an immaterial one since it is liberated from producing an end product. Although practice might have prompted us to reconsider uselessness and the importance of the process once, now it seems to be silently transforming into a useful individual cultural capital for entering the market economy of the field.
This process is very complex and it does not work in one direction. It is a dynamic although unequal process of internalization of neoliberal values and quests by the individual subject(s), of the dominance of meta-narratives and institutional policies and probably of many other factors. Moreover, there is no one-on-one analogy but for the facilitation of this thinking process, I will try to work with schemes. One is the shift of practice into a product that can be exchanged and sold. This process “can lead to an understanding of practice as something that can be controlled and therefore subsequently also taught, disseminated and exploited as a product[25]”. Thus, practice ceases to be capable of opening up the spectrum between process and end product since it becomes a means to an end, entering the market as another kind of product. Another manifestation is that practice enhances the quest of neoliberal capitalism for a turn towards the individual as an ongoing project. In this project, the neoliberal subject turns toward the self as a field of ongoing and always-in-progress construction, production, creativity and refinement. Those processes entail the ambiance of competition, in which each subject is competing with their own selves, feeling that they are always “not good enough”. This insufficiency in its turn is being perceived as a self-sabotage, another situation that must be resolved by the subject itself. To overcome the obstacles one has to “invent” ways, to create pathways towards the realization and achievement of the subject’s full capacities which are endless according to the slogan “everything is possible”. Artistic practice understood as an individual activity and possession is becoming a crucial agent for “self-expression and experience of the self, and self-production of the creative self ”[26] and “shifts to the autopoietic mode of performing the self, which belongs with the modes we identify as fundamental to the production of subjectivity in neoliberal capitalist societies, whose economy is largely based on immaterial production and the post-Fordist organization of labor.”[27] Ana Vujanovic and Bojana Cvejić in their book “Toward a Transindividual Self: A study in social dramaturgy”are analyzing in depth the processes and terms that are mentioned in the previously cited text and they approach the autopoietic as a mode “wherein human creativity and productive activity are primarily focused on their own self”.
What happens with the potentiality of practice to resist the “project temporality” by proposing a possibility for a kind of continuation through an artist’s life? In times when the working conditions of the freelance worker in the performance arts field are formulated by “fragmentary projects and under temporary contracts”[28], how is practice as continuation manifesting? On the one hand, if the conditions of work impose a fragmented and unrooted life, always on the move it is a survival strategy to be able to find a thread transgressing the changes and allow for some sense of continuation. In some cases, this effort to self-create a continuation can become a source of frustration. As the choreographer Florentina Holzinger writes in relation to trying to keep up a continuous practice: “Obviously, as much as I want to, I cannot get into this particular routine… This has been an ongoing source of frustration, I must say. Living a life in the performing arts I find I am unable to enact an ideal practice because of time, money, and especially because of constant traveling and living out of suitcases, etc.”[29]. As illustrated by the following example, there is an interesting paradox in practice here where the source of anxiety is identical to what was supposed to release this exact anxiety.
Similar is the relation of practice with an intense focus on self-production of the creative self. Wherein the subject turns itself into a product, suggesting that the individual subject should be an endless source of creativity, always ready to dig even deeper inside of themselves to extract a “new practice” to remain busy, creative, interesting and most of all capable of surviving independently. Practice then seems to render into one more way of enhancing our self-performance, intensifying and expanding the logic of the project towards all aspects of life. The artist’s life as a project on its own. In the same article, choreographer Florentina Holzinger writes about practice and the separation of work and life: “Practice in the end for me is just a form of activity, a choice of how to spend time. It’s also a moment of recovery. My whole life is still pretty much determined by the work I’m doing, or actually, my work is determined by my life, and I don’t really distinguish between a practice that relates to work more than to life or the other way around.”[30]
Another example of practice as a form of support, as a place to return to, is the practice in times of not having a project or funding for making work. It is important to have something to hold on to and resist desperation and insecurity. But what does it take to slide from a notion of practice as a survival strategy in neoliberal capitalism to a notion of becoming comfortably numb in the refugee of our individual practices observing the cuts in the arts funding or other policies that are setting the ground for our further precarization or in addition when by our stance of turning to individual creativity as support we reproduce and become a prototype of expanding the forms of self-exploitation? It has been a long time since voices are addressing those connections like for example Gabriele Klein and Bojana Kunst write: “is evident that the labour of the performance artist is directly related to the production of artistic subjectivity, which in turn is in correspondence with changing modes of labour in contemporary society.”[31] and I would say that extends to times of unemployment, if I am allowed to use this term for those periods. How can we be aware and take responsibility for those connections by acknowledging the multiple contradictions that we are navigating? Which are the limits of turning to individual practice for finding a solid ground to navigate into the neoliberal capitalist world? Ana Vujanovic and Bojana Cvejic point out: “the autopoietic person today running around in circles and eventually not finding a way out of alienation because we are speaking about the situation in which the hegemonic paradigm of Western capitalism is immaterial production, whose main means are creativity and general intellect. In such a situation, autopoietic performing the self cannot be a far-reaching response to alienation of production, because it enhances individuals’ own creativity, thereby making them even more suited to capitalist exploitative production.”[32]
In conclusion, I do not have answers to all the questions I have shared in this text (and they are not done). I can not but agree with the cited text above. I argue for reconsidering the concept of practice more as a social activity and “to claim back its political nuances”[33]. How this can be done remains open to experiments. How can we understand the concept of practice in relation to its history, present and past in the very material contexts that we are part of? Revisit what is needed in a social aspect, in the smaller or bigger communities that we are part of. And if then we realize that our communities are very much abstract and they are not exactly people that we can touch but more ideas then maybe we should go out and start participating in making them. How can we be aware if some forms of support are reproducing the system that generates the conditions that the artists need to be supported for? Reconsider the processes that render our activities meaningful or in other words if making friends, looking at the birds in a park, kissing, having sex, socializing, demonstrating, talking to each other have to be undertaken as some kind of personal practices to “have a meaning” and to deserve spending time doing them, then I think something has gone very wrong. How can we become conscious of processes that seem to empty the concept of its material meaning and social qualities and dislocate it to the realm of an identity-building tool, leaving it empty from its history? And what should be done to preserve its getting more and more void from its appropriation?
practicing going back to Ljubljana
Returning to the generating source of this text which has been the event Choreographic Turn#7_Deborah Encounters in Ljubljana and the question “… what dance practice can and could become in our wider environment at this moment in time?”[34] and after this not exhaustive pondering on the development and transformation of the concept of practice in the field of performing arts, I will ask what is needed for the above question to be activated in the specific conditions in which the event took place. How can we consider another encounter which was taking place in parallel, the one of different contexts? How are all those complexities that are at stake in the context of Ljubljana as part of the region of Ex-Yugoslavia and in the context of western european performing arts field capable of generating a ground for equal exchange? What is needed for such an event not to be read as a movement of a “periphery” towards the center, as an effort to catch up with the “future” which is directed by western-european part of the field? How the approaches of colonization processes of Eastern Europe and its rich and informative local context can be included in the event and considered as an integral part of the question “… what dance practice can and could become in our wider environment at this moment in time?” What are the difficult frictions that we might have to put on the table to manage to arrive collectively at possible answers? Answers that are capable of moving us further and in directions that are enhancing our imagination toward a more inclusive, decentralized, situated, politically and socially engaged and justice-oriented field and society.
This text is published in the journal Maska, No. 223-224 https://maska.si/revija/periferije-i
[1] Knorr Cetina, K., Schatzki, T.R., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (1st ed.). Routledge, 2000
[2] Schuh, A, Having a Personal (Performance) Practice: Dance Artists’ Everyday Work, Support, and Form. Dance Research Journal, 51(1), 79-94. doi:10.1017/S0149767719000068Aut, ,2019
[3] same as 7
[4] Ana Vujanović, Artistic and Performance “Practice”: From socialism to neoliberalism and beyond, An/Other Gathering: Performance in Multiple Realities, Co-curated by Zhao Chuan and Ophelia Jiadai Huang, Materialise, Switzerland, 2021
[5] same as 9
[6] same as 7
[7] Georgelou, Konstantina, Efrosini Protopapa, and Danae Theodoridou, The Practice of Dramaturgy : Working On Actions In Performance. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2017
[8] same as 12
[9] Ana Vujanović, Artistic and Performance “Practice”: From socialism to neoliberalism and beyond, An/Other Gathering: Performance in Multiple Realities, Co-curated by Zhao Chuan and Ophelia Jiadai Huang, Materialise, Switzerland, 2021
[10] Barad, K., Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2007 (https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128)
[11] Decoloniality in Eastern Europe: A Lexicon of Reorientation, Edito: Ana Vilenica, New Media Center_kuda.org, Novi Sad, 2023
[12] Bojana Kunst, “The Troubles with Temporality,” Stedelijk Studies Journal 3, 2015
(DOI: 10.54533/StedStud.vol003.art03.)
[13] Ana Vujanović, Artistic and Performance “Practice”: From socialism to neoliberalism and beyond, An/Other Gathering: Performance in Multiple Realities, Co-curated by Zhao Chuan and Ophelia Jiadai Huang, Materialise, Switzerland, 2021
[14] http://www.caareviews.org/reviews/3889
[15] Ana Vujanović, Artistic and Performance “Practice”: From socialism to neoliberalism and beyond, An/Other Gathering: Performance in Multiple Realities, Co-curated by Zhao Chuan and Ophelia Jiadai Huang, Materialise, Switzerland, 2021
[16] Brown, Adrienne Maree, Pleasure Activism. Edinburgh, Scotland: AK Press, 2019
[17] same as 19, page: 47
[18] same as 19, page: 206
[19] https://nobodysbusiness.wordpress.com
[23] Ana Vujanović, Artistic and Performance “Practice”: From socialism to neoliberalism and beyond, An/Other Gathering: Performance in Multiple Realities, Co-curated by Zhao Chuan and Ophelia Jiadai Huang, Materialise, Switzerland, 2021.
[24] same as 29
[25] Georgelou, Konstantina, Efrosini Protopapa, and Danae Theodoridou, The Practice of Dramaturgy : Working On Actions In Performance. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2017
[26] Ana Vujanovic and Bojana Cvejic, Toward a Transindividual Self: A study in social dramaturgy, Oslo – Brussels – Zagreb: Oslo National Academy of the Arts – SARMA – Multimedijalni institut, 2022
[27] same as 32
[28] same as 32
[29] Florentina Holzinger, “Abundance dawns, all talents manifest?” Critical Dialogues 3: Practice, Critical Path, 2014
[30]same as 35
[31] Gabriele Klein & Bojana Kunst, Introduction: Labour and performance, Performance Research, 2012, 17:6, 1-3, DOI: 10.1080/13528165.2013.775749
[32] Ana Vujanovic and Bojana Cvejic, Toward a Transindividual Self: A study in social dramaturgy, Oslo – Brussels – Zagreb: Oslo National Academy of the Arts – SARMA – Multimedijalni institut, 2022
[33] Georgelou, Konstantina, Efrosini Protopapa, and Danae Theodoridou, The Practice of Dramaturgy : Working On Actions In Performance. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2017
