Who am i to judge akras & jager prak by AHK Master Kunsteducatie

WHO AM I TO JUDGE?

Oneka von Schrader and Louis Vanhaverbeke in “The car piece” 2014

Practical Research Rose Akras and Dirk Jan Jager

Adviser Folkert Haanstra Master of Art and Education, AHK, Amsterdam 2014

Table of contents

1. Introduction 2. Context 3. Type of research and problem argumentation 4. Collecting data 5. Respondents 6. Data analysis 7. Discussion 8. Recommendation 9. Conclusion References

3 5 7 9 10 14 20 22 25 27

1. INTRODUCTION 'Who am I to judge?' is a descriptive survey research by Dirk Jan Jager and Rose Akras on evaluation or assessment of performance art and dance performance in higher education. We focused the research in the bachelor phase of the education, although we sometimes use references of the master phase in the text, when this serves to clarify our argumentation or appoint a possible answer to the main question. What we nominate here as performance art are the live works created by students inside fine arts institutes in relation to the context of performance art history inside fine arts. What we nominate as dance performance are works created by students inside choreography courses, such as the SNDO/Choreography (School for New Dance Development and choreography) at the AHK, the School of the Arts in Amsterdam. As stated in the SNDO site: “The word “new” in the name SNDO is cherished. Although avant-‐garde has been declared dead and although it is common knowledge that art seems to be an ongoing recycling of forms, themes, styles, fashions and obsessions the SNDO is still non-‐stop looking for new ways of dance and dance making. A confirmation of existing forms and styles in dance is not the aim.” (retrieved in June 2014 from www.ahk.nl/sndo 2014) “The student’s performance work is defined by the investigation, research and invention of movement material. The work communicates within contemporary cultures, as well as pioneering new artistic horizons and possesses the craftsmanship and artistry needed for performing and performance making.” (retrieved in June 2014 from www.ahk.nl/sndo 2014) We have different backgrounds, respectively in fine arts and dance, but we both make performance art from our own artistic background. Together we organize an annual week of performance art in Amsterdam: FLAM, in which we present performances by visual artists and choreographers. Rose Akras has worked many years as dancer in Brazil, USA and Europe and she makes works where she questions the ephemeral quality of movement versus materiality of objects and representation. She teaches movement research at BA in the Docent Dance programme of the Theaterschool in Amsterdam, has often taught and advised students at the Choreography Department (SNDO) and has taught workshops in São Paulo, Oslo, Belo Horizonte and Moscow, among other cities. Dirk Jan Jager studied fine arts, makes paintings, photography and performances where the body is iconic placed in strenuous situations. He recently led an interactive content workshop at Dansmakers and is interested in teaching further interdisciplinary performance workshops. In our own practice, when teaching or advising performance artists we often meet the same problem: how to give a clear and useful response to the enquiries made by students or young artists in a more structured way? Also when talking to colleagues,

it seems that the ways used to evaluate or provide feedback to students working with performance art or dance performance is quite random. Most of the time, independent institutes have an official form but this instrument is meant to give a general view on the learning curve and development of a student, related to the competences students should have acquired by the end of their studies. When evaluating or analysing performance work made by students most teachers use their own forms, based on their experience and common sense. “Who am I to judge?” is a small qualitative survey with nine respondents: a teacher of choreography, two teachers of performance art and two students of each. Our goal was to find out which procedures of assessment are used by these teachers to evaluate dance performance and performance art made by the students. The aim of this research is to look into the situation of the respondents and whether personal experiences could add towards a more structured method of evaluation. And would that be more effective and benefit both teachers and students?

2. CONTEXT Since 2010 we organize the Forum of Live Art Amsterdam (FLAM) in Arti et Amicitiae, the historical artists' club in the centre of Amsterdam. The aim of this live art week is to present a panorama of performance in all its diversity. Participants of FLAM have studied fine art at academies like the Gerrit Rietveld Academie, Rijksakademie, Dutch Art Institute, Sandberg Institute, Hogeschool voor de Kunsten Utrecht, or come from theatre (DasArts – Master of Theatre) or dance (SNDO-‐ Choreography). We also receive each year a number of international artists from countries like Brazil, Korea, Germany, Portugal, among others. Many of these artists are also active in teaching performance or dance making in higher education institutes, in workshops or regularly. We noticed, since becoming aware of the different evaluation systems in our studies, that many artists teaching performance related subjects are sensitive for the discussion: what do we look at when we see a performance work? At the same time that the word evaluation brings resistance among some of our colleagues, the fact is that everybody stepping in the position of teacher or adviser, has to resume its dialogue with the students in some form of assessment, official or not. “ Who am I to judge?” is a descriptive survey in evaluation procedures used by teachers in higher education of fine arts and dance. We exclusively interviewed teachers and students about the assessment given on the making process and resulting performance works.

The number of fine art students making performances during their undergraduate studies has grown considerably in the last decade. Just as dance courses that approach choreography in a way where movement composition is no longer the central skill. The word performance becomes more and more used to define the making and presenting of live art works without conventional borders. As an example we can refer to the publication of the DasArts magazine 2013/2014, the master of theatre at the AHK. The denomination used for the student’s works is live performance in place of e.g. theatre play. This reflects that the theatre exercised at DasArts is much broader than a rehearsed play happening in a traditional theatre setting. The block of workshops of the year 2013/2014 “Every Nerve” resulted in works presented mostly in space of social interaction, like streets and markets. (DasArts Magazine 2013/2014, Master of Theatre AHK). Performance refers to an art that is active and ephemeral rather than static and permanent. It can literally happen anywhere and everywhere in any combination of disciplines. Such art engages the audience directly and includes the maker or some representation of the maker. (Goldberg, 1979). Although performance art made by fine arts students is generally considered distinct from theatre and dance works, the term performance has infiltrated courses offering a non-‐conventional grade of disciplines. (Van Mechelen, 2013) The term performance art itself was coined in the 1960s, but the roots of the movement date back to the beginning of the last century with the Dadaists, futurists and constructivists. (Goldberg, 1979).

The discussion of how evaluations are done in higher art education, in Europe and in other parts of the world is an actual topic. As the art education, and therefore the work made by the students become more interdisciplinary, finding a good form for evaluation is a challenge for teachers and mentors. What is the form of evaluation of performance works being employed today in higher art education? What can we learn and map by interviewing some of the teachers and students?

Nicolas Roses and Clara Saito

3. TYPE OF RESEARCH AND PROBLEM ARGUMENTATION The research question of this descriptive survey is: What are the procedures of assessment used by teachers in higher education to evaluate conceptual dance and performance art works made by students? And is the way and criteria clear and transparent for the students? Sub-‐questions -‐ What are the procedures of performance evaluation? -‐ What is the impact on the students? -‐ What are the qualities of performance work evaluated? Problem and argumentation The aim of “Who am I to judge?” was to realize a small descriptive survey on the evaluation methods used during the assessment of performance works made by students in the bachelor of fine arts or choreography courses, inquiring about the terminology used by the teachers, what kind of qualities are evaluated, if the procedure of assessment is transparent and clear for the students and if the evaluation is useful for the development of new work. Performance art by fine arts and dance or theatre works created within the most experimental or conceptual performing arts courses are not easy to be analysed by traditional parameters. The works are highly interdisciplinary or full or references towards different art disciplines and media. Some teachers at arts schools like the Rietveld Academy or the SNDO, both in Amsterdam, provide courses where the work created by the students can result in a mix of live performance, dance, installation, film, drawing, painting and more. This leads to a complex situation: how to analyse these works and support the development of the students in the creation process? At the School of the Arts of Amsterdam (AHK), the departments of dance, theatre and mime have official assessment instruments. Students are evaluated through these forms twice a year and all teachers are supposed to fill in these forms. Since the change of the higher education structure into competencies directed studies, securing the development of students in the assessment forms was for many years an ongoing process of discussion. The trigger to organize the studies into competences and therefore design forms of evaluations that could measure these competences was launched in 1999 when 29 (posteriorly 48) European countries agreed in organizing their higher education in a way to facilitate students to study in different countries. The goal was to create a coherent European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010. Part of the aim was to adopt a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, adopting three uniform study phases; bachelor (undergraduate), master and PHD (graduate) and an equal system of point counting, the ECT’s.

The official assessment form is accepted by most of the teachers and students at the School of the Arts in Amsterdam. However, these forms don’t seem to be useful for teachers when analysing the process and result of performance work made by students. This problem is also seen in the case of our interviewed teacher of performance art at a university in Brazil. A form describing the competencies the student should have when receiving his final diploma seems not to be the best way to evaluate works that deal with the development of a personal art language. What could be a better way? On the other hand, teachers giving student’s advise or workshops are left mostly to themselves to find out what they think is the best way to evaluate a student’s work. Although interesting because thus the choices are left to the teacher, we wonder whether this is the most efficient way to give comments on a student’s works and specially if this, at times only oral evaluations, is effective for the student’s development. Our interest was then aroused to interview teachers and students to understand how are they are coping with this quest, the assessment of the specific moment of concept, creation and finalization of a performance work. The starting point of the research was thus finding out what terminology is used, how performance art and dance performance are evaluated by the teachers and if the procedure of assessment is transparent, clear and useful for the students.

4. COLLECTING DATA When the subject “assessment” was proposed by the Master of Art Education for the practical research, we immediately knew we wanted to know more about the procedures of evaluating performance art and dance performance works made by higher education students. Therefore our main question was about procedures of assessment on the works made by students in fine art and dance institutes. We interviewed both teachers and students so we could check whether or not students and teachers have similar visions and perception. Our main question was: “What are the procedures of assessment used by teachers in higher education to evaluate conceptual dance and performance art by students? And is the way and criteria clear and transparent for the students?” After formulating the main inquiry, we went on preparing a set of questions that could serve both to interview teachers and students, with minimal adjustments. The goal was to have a questionnaire that would help us to answer the main research question. We used 11 open structured questions divided in themes such as terminology, format of evaluation (individual, group, peer), importance, usefulness of evaluation. We divided then the answers in four parts: questions about the terminology, about the procedure, about qualities evaluated and finally about the personal experiences on the impact of the evaluation. We inquired for instance the respondents on what works and what doesn't work, are procedures clear and transparent, do students miss something, what qualities of performance making are analysed by teachers and which qualities students would like to be assessed in. The questions for the teachers were similar to the ones for the students, but addressed to teachers resp. to the students. The interviews were made in live or digital and we used “coding up” to label the themes in the answers. As this is a descriptive research based on a qualitative and small survey, we analysed the data straight from the answers, relating it to the themes, numbering the use of terminology and including quotes that we believe describe and exemplify in the best way the answers to our main question and sub-‐ questions. We collected all data for the research from the interviews. Our interest was to find out what kind of terminology and formats the teachers are using to evaluate performance art, besides the official forms they may be obliged to use by the institution. On the side of the students, our interest was in finding out how they perceive these evaluations in terms of importance and in relation to future works.

5. RESPONDENTS The respondents were teachers and students of higher education in visual arts and in dance working with the creation process of conceptual choreography or performance art. Our target in dance were teachers and students of institutes that offer a BA in dance development and choreography, where dance is seen as an art language, open to the dialogue with other disciplines. In visual arts we looked for teachers and students in institutes where performance art is part of the curriculum. In dance, the SNDO, School for New Dance Development and BA in choreography was the closest institute, known from its striving to the renewing of dance as an art. In fine art it was much harder to find places that have performance art as a separated course or teachers agreeing to participate. When trying to find respondents we noticed some resistance, especially to the terms 'evaluation' or 'assessment'. For them these words implicated power and hierarchy rather than an action of support for the student’s processes. The nomination “evaluation” does not seem to match with the non-‐judgmental imago and freedom often related to art schools. Some teachers argued that their classes and institutes aim for the individual development of the student as artist and that an evaluation method would not be suitable to reach that aim. Others were restrained in participating afraid that their institutes would become subject of criticism. Adding to these facts there are in the Netherlands no undergraduate fine art courses where performance art is given as part of the official curriculum. Students may make performances and have special advisers but we found only one teacher that works structurally with students practicing live art. Once this teacher refused to participate in the research, we had to look into other options like for instance, free lance performance art teachers that offer workshops or give advise to students making performances inside the institutes. In the niche of the conceptual or experimental dance making we had more options but still met resistance in participating. Another problem is that we searched for teachers that had just finished a process of accompaniment and evaluations of students making works so that we could relate the interview to a concrete situation. In dance, we interviewed a teacher and mentor of the SNDO/ Choreography bachelor course and two of his students, at the AHK in Amsterdam. When we had Bruno Listopad from the SNDO and Monali Meher, a freelance performance teacher, agreeing in taking part in the research, we decided to approach Marco Paulo Rolla, a visual artist working with different medias and making performance art for many years. He has been for two years a resident artist of the Rijksakademie, working mainly with performance and having Moniek Toebosch as his adviser. He has been teaching performance at the University of Fine Arts of Minas Geris (UFMG) for the last three years and became in 2013 responsible 10

for the newly created performance art chair. Performance became part of the official curriculum of the bachelor in fine arts as an optional subject where the students have a full year course and results that count in the system of the final graduation. In total we interviewed three teachers and six students. Even though the three teachers work in different situations, their interest in discussing the subject and their high artistic performance quality and professional experience added in a positive way. When searching for the other side of the respondents, it became clear to us that these teachers are very respected by their students and this facilitated our contact.

Portraits of the respondents

Teachers: Bruno Listopad (Portugal, lives and works in Amsterdam NL) Listopad has been teaching in institutions such as ArtEZ Master of Choreography, Master Artistic Research KABK and SNDO School for New Dance Development in which he works as a mentor and teacher of Performance Integration and Choreography. He made his debut in the Netherlands in 1998 at the Holland Dance Festival and received a number of significant awards among which the Prize of Interpretation Prix Volinine, Prize Ribeiro da Fonte, Amsterdam Encouragement Prize, and the Philip Morris Art Prize. His works have been produced and commissioned by Korzo Producties, Dansateliers, Acarte, Productiehuis Zeebelt, CCB, NAi, Rotterdamse Schouwburg, Holland Dance Festival, Springdance Festival, Krisztina de Châtel, Ballet Gulbenkian, Rotterdam-‐Porto Cultural Capitals 2001, Dance Works Rotterdam, Nye Carte Blanche, Het Nationale Ballet, Museum, Boijmans van Beuningen, and Something Raw Festival. Monali Meher (India, lives and works in Amsterdam NL) Monali gives performance art workshops as guest teacher since 2007 and has been external adviser at the MA Program of DAI, ‘Dutch Art Institute’, MA Program (2008/2009). Other workshops given were, among others: Performance,“ Ritual & Reality” (2009, DAI, Dutch art Institute, Enschede, NL); “Restoring Our Temples”, FEM Festival, (2009, La Merce, Girona, Spain); “Wear yourself”, Performance Lab, (2009 AKI Enschede, NL); “Restoring Our Temples”,(2008, New order of Things Sinop Biennale, Turkey); “Discomfort at performance”, (2008 Galata Perform, Istanbul, Turkey); Performance workshop at IPAH (International performance association Hildesheim), (2008, Berlin, Germany). Meher’s art practice involves performance art and other disciplines and themes such as decay, hybridization & transformation, identity, intimacy and dialogue constitute the language of her work. Meher graduated in Fine Arts from Sir J. J. School of arts, Mumbai. She received ‘Unesco -‐Aschberg’ residency in Vienna 1998 and was participant of the Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten in Amsterdam (2000/01). She performed and exhibited her work at Tate Modern, Sinop Biennale Turkey, Khoj Live New Delhi, Art

Dubai, Prague Biennale 5th, MAXXI museum Rome, Guangzhou Live 11 China, Infraction Sète, France, IPA Istanbul and Arezzo Biennial, Italy, among other places. Marco Paulo Rolla (Brazil, lives and works in Brazil) Rolla and is the main teacher of the Performance Art course at the UEMG, State University of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The course has duration of a year and it is part of the bachelor in fine arts. It is a choice discipline but if chosen, valid for credits inside the graduation. The Performance Art course was officially implanted in 2013, before this date, students got workshops on performance without being part of the credits system. Rolla also teaches painting at the bachelor and master in Fine Arts in the same university. Rolla has a master degree in Fine Arts and was participant of the Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten in Amsterdam (1998/1999). His artistic work is interdisciplinary using painting, installations, drawing and performance. He has a vast experience in performance art and has shown his works around the globe. Rolla was one of the initiators of RAIN, Rijksakademie Alumni International Network and together with his own association, CEIA, organized residencies in Brazil, Indonesia, India, Africa, among others. Rolla directed also two editions of MIP, manifestation international of performance in Belo Horizonte in 2004 and 2009. Students Students of Bruno Listopad: Nicolas Roses: Roses is 25 and at the 4th year at the SNDO, School of New Dance Development, bachelor course in choreography at the AHK, Amsterdam. He is an Argentinean choreographer, actor and dancer. He made his first theatre studies as a teenager, exploring acting methods from Konstantín Stanivslaki, Jerzy Grotowski and Antonin Artaud. His interest for movement as an expressive medium drove him into dance. He developed a great interest for choreography as a tool to engage and connect different vocabularies on stage. Oneka von Schrader: Von Schrader is 26 years and at the 3rd year at the SNDO, School of New Dance Development, bachelor course in choreography at the AHK, Amsterdam. The Car Piece, a choreography by Von Schrader and Louis Vanhaverbeke (SNDO 4), has been selected for the theatre festival Körber Studio Junge Regie 2014. It is the first time in the festival's history that a school for choreography is invited to participate. Students of Monali Meher: Burçak Konukman: Konukman is a performance artist and radio journalist who lives and works in Istanbul. He won a fellowship as an artist in residency at Art Center İstanbul for two years. He produces weekly radio show “Timeless” on Açik Radio, 94.9. He participated in IPAH Summer Camp Workshop and Platform Young Performance Artist in 2011. His art works and performances are exhibited in

international biennials, events and festivals like Sinop Biennale, Sinopale, European Performance Art Festival EPAF 2011, Destruction 2011. Funda Oruç: Oruç is a visual artist, art teacher and curator who lives and works in Istanbul. In 2008 she was project assistant of the “Body and Architecture Work Shop” (Local Performances from Sinop) during the International Sinop Biennale. In 2010 she curated Tornavideo Video Art festival in Ankara. She participated in the Hangar +/-‐ exhibition (2009, Ankara), the Kuryye International Video Festival (2009, Istanbul) en the Tilsim Exhibition (2009, Bodrum) Students of Marco Paulo Rolla: Letícia Grandinetti: Grandinetti graduated in Fine Arts (2006) and is drawing teacher at the UEMG (State University of Belo Horizonte BR), where she at the moment is student at the one year course in Performance Art with Marco Paulo Rolla. Olívia Loureiro Viana: Viana is 23 and at the fourth year of the bachelor Fine Arts at the UEMG, Universidade Estadual de Belo Horizonte, Brazil. She I enrolled at the one year Performance Art course with Marco Paulo Rolla and researches in performance, painting and drawing.

6. DATA ANALYSIS The interview questions and answers were divided in 5 themes: 1. Terminology: name given to the evaluation process 2. Form of evaluation 3. Process of evaluation 4. What qualities are evaluated concerning the making and performance? 5. Impact on the students, present, future

1. Terminology

The terminology that teachers used the most for their practice of evaluation is feedback. It has the element of 'return'. The student gives a presentation at any stage of the development of new work and the teacher reacts, gives his/her reaction. This could be verbal, written or both. Obviously 'assessment' and 'evaluation' sound more strict and definite, while feedback refers to dialogue: feedback is a process in which the effect of an action is 'returned' to modify the next action. One teacher supposed 'evaluation' contains the word 'value', which he did not like, because the creation process of students is about experimenting and being creative and not about seeking a determined value. The students agreed on this. Feedback is the process in which the effect of an action is 'returned' to modify the next action. Three students called this process just feedback, two used the terminology 'feedback or assessment' and one answered 'feedback, analysis, review or practice', because it is very much dependent on each situation, according to this student. Feedback is considered as a form of review that helps to construct improvement. Feedback offers time and space for the maker to draw his/her own conclusions, while evaluation is considered top-‐down and hierarchic. Quotes teachers and students: “Evaluation is too hard.” “I find it hard to determine values for an experiment of this order.” “Because everyone cannot do the same kind of work”. “Because feedback is a print without a judgment, from feedback I can evaluate the work myself” “I think feedback review each other and try to construct something out of communication. Evaluation is more open and hierarchic: one tells me what to do”.

2. Formats of evaluation Formats of evaluation in performance and dance performance are paper forms (official or self-‐made paper forms) or spoken word feedback. One teacher uses the official form because he works at an accredited institution but he also gives feedback in spoken and written words. Another respondent said he had to make an official evaluation, but was free to design his own forms since his performance course started not so long ago. And the last respondent answered she was never asked by the institution to given written evaluations so she only talked with the students. All three the teachers held group and individual feedback sessions. One teacher explained he left the decision to have a group talk or an individual conversation to the students. Another teacher used group evaluations during workshops and individual feedback when advising one student in particular. According to the students both group feedback and individual feedback are essential. The teacher is of course an experienced advisor but offering only one point of view. Without a group there is no discussion. Only in a group evaluation the student can find out how many different reactions his work evokes. One respondent answered even that group feedback was more important to him than individual feedback.

Two teachers used peer feedback. One teacher used peer feedback because it was part of the curriculum so that students learn how to give feedback. Another teacher used peer feedback because it considered important that the students learn how to comment on each other work.

Quotes teachers and students: “Both, group and individual feedback. If the whole group is there I give comments and colleagues give comments. Depending on the student, some like to keep it very open, some are more private. It is about how they like to work, the student is at the center.” “Group evaluation makes the student work in his professional relationship with the others.” “That’s part of the curriculum even, to feedback each others work, to learn to give feedback.” “The analysis of the work has the participation of all, to see how people are reading the work, exercising criticism and observation.” “ I believe that an individual assessment of teacher and learner must be done but never replace the group evaluation.”

“Combination, because it is different qualities to have it in group. Hopefully come a discussion about the topics and you see right away what different reactions you open through the work.”

3. Process of evaluation

Two teachers affirmed they give feedback during the creation process and at the end. One said he adapted to the student's needs. If the feedback comes too early, the student might not be ready for it. And if feedback comes too late in the creation process, the concept might have developed too far. In both cases this could be harmful for the artistic process. The students found it especially important to get feedback at the end, because according to them this reflects both process and product. The three teachers had no preference as to whether the process or the result of a new performance made by a student was more important. They find process and product are both important. There is a difference in the way students look at evaluation of the creation process compared to the teachers. For the teachers the process is very important, the students are interested both in process and result. All three teachers think the process of evaluation is clear and transparent for the students. With clear they mean that the students understand the procedure and know which qualities are assessed. One teacher said the procedure should be as transparent as possible. Another one said he was really concerned that the students understand and get the point. And the third one said to try to make words clear. All six students said the process of evaluation was clear and transparent. Four did not miss anything. One suggested another feedback session while watching the video registration of the performance could be more effective and one would rather have a more decisive feedback. Quotes teachers and students: “Sometimes it may kill the work. There’s not a kind of protocol, is finding by doing. I’m always evaluating a work that is a desire, to listen if that is still central to the work.” “Because you may not want the student to do a wonderful job, he has to take time, to mature or perhaps discover what works and what doesn’t work.” “I think process is extremely important.” “I’m concerned that they understand and get the point.” “It has to be as transparent as possible.” “Yes, I make my words clear.”

“I believe the end process should be evaluated as it determines the process and result.” “I believe each is important because they are connected and in interaction.” “Totally depending of the perspective, I guess. In the end the work is the work.” “I think sometimes I wish it would be more decisive, not so permissive.”

4. Which qualities are evaluated concerning creation and performance?

According to two teachers attitude is really important, the third teacher stated personality was very important. Another important aspect of performance mentioned by all three is the interaction with the audience. Can you reach public interest? How can the attention of the audience and the performance work encounter each other? Are you aware of the public attention and can you watch yourself? Other competencies mentioned were presence, concentration, depth, ability to translate the concept, how the work is related to the maker, and perception of time, space and sound. One teacher said we should not strive to make a complete list of competencies. He said he was careful to not have a universal idea of what performance should be. The other two teachers emphasized on the personal direction and choices of the student: the ability of concentration, the ability to listen and the capacity to respond to the materiality. The objectivity of the concept is by four students mentioned as one most important topic to be assessed during creation and performance. Presence quality is by three students mentioned as another important quality that should be evaluated. The audience reaction and interaction is also important for the students. Two students mentioned the effect of the work on the audience and two mentioned the artist-‐ audience interaction. Other qualities mentioned by the students were: concentration, creativity, courage, time and duration, use of space, timing and development of scenes, sincerity, care, intensity, ability to convey visually and verbally the ideas, physical preparation of the performer, coherence of used objects / materials / symbols, preparation of the performer, pre and post-‐production. Quotes teachers and students: “I think attitude is very important. Evaluating their delivery, discipline and respectful attention with peers and teacher.” “If it could reach it, the public interest.” 17

“Not that the audience has to be active but the attention, how it encounters each other.” “You should be aware there’s public and that you are also watching yourself.” “I definitely feel you need to have this ability of concentration and not get lost.” “I’m careful to don’t have a universal idea of what a performance should do.” “The ability of the maker to listen and the capacity to respond to the materiality.” “Timing/duration, concept, using space, audience / participants aspects, interaction, being true-‐intense.” “Concentration, quality of presence, sincerity, creativity, courage, care, among many others.”

5. Impact on the students

All three teachers believe feedback is important for the student. It builds critical consciousness: the student learns to choose his/her way, helps the individual student to develop as an artist and to understand what his/her work does in the world. The students agreed on this. On a scale 1-‐5 (1 lowest, 5 highest) four students said feedback to them had a high impact (5), one said 4 and one said 3. One student said the workshop and the feedback changed his life motto and continues to do so. All students affirmed feedback helps them to improve themselves and even brings source material that they can add and develop in making the performance. On the question “What is the goal of feedback?” One student answered: learning and improving my work. Another answered: improvement of myself. The main goal according to one student was to give options. More options encourage the artist to make choices in which direction he/she wishes to go for further development. And one student answered: feedback gives inspiration. Summary: the goals of feedback are giving options, choice of directions, further development and improvement and even giving inspiration. Quotes teachers and students: “Give the student feedback from work and build a critical consciousness” “The development of the individual as an artist, what the work does in itself independent of the artist and what the work does in the world” “Feedback is important. The student learns to choose their way from listening feedback.” 18

“It learns us to realize our mistakes, to improve ourselves, to apply and practice better, with clear consciousness and discipline”. “I need someone for feedback, it touches the other but it comes back, also informs my work”. “Opinions of experienced people and even other students always brought me a lot of source-‐material to be developed”. “Because the purpose is to improve ourselves and to find answer to the question, how can we do better?” “It has influenced the workshop, my following art work, my life motto and it continuous to do so.” “It is important that so by learning my mistakes I can avoid making them again and improve myself” “There’s so much information going on. I would say the feedback informs things I discover”. “Allow learning and improvement of the work” “Evaluation is an opportunity for me to improve myself” “Make a good work and be a good artist” “Offer parameters that contribute to the realization of future projects” “To help you find out what you want to do, to encourage. I think the main goal of the feedback is to make you more full, to give options. More options where to go, but always encourage me to go the path that I decide”. “Inspiration. It is not meant but I think it is about that.”

7. DISCUSSION The term evaluation does not appear to be a loved one among teachers and students of high art education in general. On the other side, students are always quite happy having a person who can give them a clear and constructive review on their work. Feedback is the preferred form of assessment by teachers and students when reflecting on the process and result of performance making. Nevertheless, the feedback sessions encountered are based on the experience and intuition of the teacher and not on systems developed through research. The official evaluation instruments used in the higher art education offer a general view on the student’s learning curve, related to the competences of the course. This form is used in two moments of the year in summative or formative evaluations. The evaluation forms are designed to map the overall development of the student according to the competencies but have no direct relation with the particularities of the artist personal creation process. It summarizes for instance possible different qualities under “creativity” but such a broad competence skill is not useful when analysing the meanders and details inside the process of making performances, which is highly focused on the development of a personal art language. At the moment, most teachers are left to find their own ways and methods of feedback and in the three cases we met, this is done with a lot of dedication, love and professional experience. Aside the aversion some teachers and students have towards the word “evaluation”, at one moment in the process, everybody teaching or giving advise has to give some form of assessment to the work made by the student, in whatever form. A feedback session is according to our respondents, the best form to employ in situations where the work created by students is based on personal aesthetic choices and art language developments. In art institutes of higher education, all candidates have to go through an audition or entrance procedure previous to the start of the studies. In this filtering procedure, candidates are judged by their personal qualities and skills and are accepted or not, based on this adjectives. It seems then contradictory that during the studies, processes that have to support the student’s personal skills and qualities to flourish are not provided in a more structured or organized feedback system. Here we face again the complexity of the matter: in which degree can the development of an autonomous art language be evaluated? Any form of evaluation needs an agreement beforehand on what should be evaluated. In performance this could be more complicated because the presence of the artist is part of the work and the work is inseparable of the body and person of the artist. A fine art student making a sculpture or painting can look at it with the teacher from some distance: the work is the result of his personal effort and involvement but it exists outside his body.

Although students also train in making works for other students and sometimes choose in their late career to choreograph or direct, most discoveries during the studies are made through their bodies. The resistance in evaluating performance art works may have this added obstacle: the personal presence that is physically mixed in the resulting work.

8. RECOMENDATION Since students and teachers interviewed all mentioned feedback as the best form of assessing the students’ performance making, we looked into two available methods being used in some institutes: the Feedback Method developed very recently at DasArts, the masters of theatre at the AHK in Amsterdam and the Critical Response Process, developed by Liz Lerman in the USA. These two examples seem valuable to us because they propose a structured procedure of feedback that empowers the maker receiving the feedback. At the same time, with a step by step structure, it frames all sides of the feedback process helping the participants organize and communicate their thoughts in a more efficient way. “I think in feedback we feel each other and try to construct something out of the communication while evaluation is more open and hierarchic, one tells me what to do.” (student) The Critical Response Process from Liz Lerman Liz Lerman, a dance teacher and choreographer from the USA, developed the feedback method Critical Response Process out of frustration in giving and receiving criticism on work processes of creating choreography. Since its publication in 2003 several institutional dance and theatre departments and companies in various countries have used this method. The Critical Response Process is structured in four steps and its main essence is that it gives part of the control to the artist whose work is receiving the feedback. The steps support a dialogue between the artist, the responders and a facilitator that moderates the dialogue. Step one is called Statements of Meaning. According to Lerman, artists presenting work to be assessed, in every moment of the process, mainly want to know if the work has significance for other people. The facilitator proposes then in this first step of the feedback questions such as: what has meaning, or was stimulating, surprising, evocative, touching, meaningful, etc. in what you just saw? The idea is to make a positive entrance into the feedback process. (Lerman, 2003) In step two the artist himself posts a question on an aspect of the work for which he feels the need of a feedback. The role of the facilitator is to help the artist to find the right question, which may travel from more open and general to more specific questions helping the artist to clarify for himself what he wishes to find out. (Lerman, 2003) In step three, responders need to make a neutral question. According to Lerman this is the critical point of the method: neutrality is not often associated with evaluations, criticism or feedback processes. At start, responders can ask questions to gather extra information and even express their opinions. But the goal in the end of step three is to be able to formulate the neutral question, one that the artists can take 22

further in the work, instead of a relation of things which may not be working well in the work. The essence here is to ask what was the aim of the artist in a concrete aspect of the work, like duration, use of props or music, instead of questioning why is this or that not working, or just expressing in terms of I like or I don’t like. The purpose of step three is trigger thinking and dialogue process that leads to the final dialogue in part four. (Lerman, 2003) Part four is a framed dialogue where responders first name the aspect about which they want to express their opinion. The artist can give a green or a red light to the responder based on his own needs. It is possible that a responder has a lot to say about certain aspect of the work that is not one the artist is worried about or that another responder has already explored enough. (Lerman, 2003) The Critical Response Process is thus an instrument to formalize and structure a feedback session that empowers the artist to objectify what could help him to go further in his artistic process and learn how to choose by getting the feedback. On the other side, the method enhances the respondents capacity to exercise giving useful criticism to the maker, which is not heavily based on their personal taste and own ideas. (Lerman, 2003) The Feedback system of DasArts “Feedback needs to be like a desire, something that you long for. It ought to be useful to the next steps in your process”. (Barbara Van Lindt, director of DasArts). Recently the Master's program has been a laboratory in which DasArts experimented with different formats of feedback. Philosopher Karim Benammar and performance artist Siegmar Zacharias were invited to give workshops. Benammar introduced two important elements to feedback: clear structure and diversity of formats. The implementation encountered some resistance inside DasArts as the first obstacle formats came not from the art world itself, but from a philosopher, Benammar that also works for companies and managers from the commercial sector. Also the idea of freedom versus structure became an issue of discussion in the beginning of the process. At the end, everybody realized that the system is not frozen. One can play with the formats and adjust them for instance in time and depth, according to the necessities or moment of the work or the student. By trying things out and evaluating with both the students and Benammar, DasArts devised a method that works, especially within group feedback settings. According to Van Lindt, feedback sessions were, before the feedback system, often confusing and with no structure: one student would express his opinion about the costumes while another would interfere and say something about the music. The most important point of the feedback system is no doubt that the person receiving the feedback is also in part responsible for deciding what should be assessed. She or he has to come to the session already knowing about what aspects

she or he wants to receive feedback. Before the session starts, the receiver has to formulate a question related to the aspect he wishes to receive comments on. Through empowering the maker to ask his own question, the feedback becomes more productive and effective. The focus is mainly on reception of the comments but the presenter gets the last word and reveals his personal conclusion. Instead of a wave of superficial judgments based on taste, the artists at the middle feel they receive something to take to their future development. Another important aspect is that sessions are often determined by a time frame. Ranging from as short as five minutes on, participants have to learn how to formulate their ideas with precision and after the sessions, there is always the possibility to continue the dialogue in an informal way. The overall conclusion of the research is that a clear structured frame for feedback sessions are important for the validity and efficiency of the feedback. When advising on the making of performances, the teacher could make use of a system that facilitates addressing issues concerning the development of a personal artistic language. A framed feedback that could help a sensitive individual mapping of process and result could in this way, be more efficient and useful for future steps of students and performance makers. -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐

Olivia Loureiro Viana

9. CONCLUSION The quote by one of the teachers “Who am I to judge?” is symbolic to exemplify the general feeling some teachers have in situations related to performance evaluations. It is interesting to note that one of the students of this same teacher expresses the importance and effect of the feedback received as: “It has influenced the workshop and my following art work, my life motto, and it continues to do so.” From the whole research we can conclude that everybody agrees giving and receiving feedback is important, useful and necessary. We don’t speak here of officialised forms to provide the socio-‐political conjuncture of a response towards the investments done in art education, or to reaffirm the general competences of a course in an institution. What we consider here is the necessity of designing specific forms of feedback to aid the student in its further personal development as an artist. We have seen that the interviewed teachers are all seriously dedicated and constantly reflecting on their ways of advising the students. Still, we believe that embracing a more structured form of feedback could help teachers to attain a more efficient dialogue about the student’s development as a maker. During our research, we came across two feedback systems, the one developed at DasArts and the Critical Response Process from Liz Lerman. We think these two systems could be further analysed to see if one, or a combination of both, could be given as a possibility for teachers and students to practice a more organized feedback session. Because of their structure, these two systems are also suitable for the students to train how to give feedback, a practice appointed by most teachers and students as important and sometimes even part of the curriculum of the study program. We also realized through the research that creating a basic set of skills related to performance creation could be valuable as support to the feedback process. The most interesting aspect of the DasArts and the Lerman methods is no doubt that the student/maker has at a given moment, control over the assessment. The student can decide which aspects he wishes to receive feedback on and learns to question his own work. A basic set of skills for performance making could in our view be useful as a starting point of reflection. In order to create this basic list, as well as to implement a feedback system in any situation, a broader research needs to be done. What we can give here is an example based on the answers of teachers and students we interviewed, about qualities they believe are important to be assessed in performance making. Qualities named were quite similar among our respondents showing that there are certain basic aspects that are observed in performance works made by fine arts students as well as by choreography students. 25

We have seen the word personal and personality appear many times during the interviews as an important feature of making performance. Personal or personality aspects can be recognized and unfold but are fragile features to be assessed. Other qualities named by most respondents are in our opinion more suitable for a basic list that could serve in analytical reflection on performances made in the fine arts, dance and theatre educational courses. Some examples of the recurrent qualities found in this research were: presence quality; relation to the audience; concentration; awareness of space and time; timing within the action; duration; ability to convey ideas visually and/or verbally; use of objects; symbols; sounds and text; physical preparation; physical awareness; degree of translation of the concept into the performance. We believe such a list contains skills one can train or at least be aware of in order to achieve better results in relation to an initial concept. The skills are clear but yet don’t give a limited description of what a performance work should be. Such a definition is not only rejected by most teachers but would work towards forming a uniform idea of what performance should be, which by no means is a strategy embraced or supported by us. Our conclusion is that teachers could make use of an instrument that facilitates addressing issues concerning the developmental of a personal artistic language. A framed feedback session could help a sensitive and individual mapping of the process and results of making performance works and in this way, be more efficient and useful for the future steps of the students. Besides that, we believe that defining a set of basic skills, which are already visibly observed by teachers when analysing performance works, could be clarifying for teacher, students and even institutions on what is being observed as the base of creating performance art or dance performance works.

References Baarda, D. B., Fisher, T., & De Goede, M. (2005). Basisboek Kwalitatief Onderzoek. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers.

Goldberg, R. (1979). Performance art: From futurism to the present. London: Thames and Hudson. Van Mechelen, M. (2013). Art at large: Through performance and installation art. Arnhem, The Netherlands: ArtEZ Press.

Van Lindt, B. (2013). A powerful shift in feedback culture at DasArts. Amsterdam: DasArts. Retrieved in June 2014 from http://www.ahk.nl/theaterschool/opleidingen-‐theater/dasarts-‐ master-‐of-‐theatre/news/article/titel/interview-‐barbara-‐van-‐lindt-‐a-‐powerful-‐shift-‐in-‐ feedback-‐culture-‐at-‐dasarts/

Lerman, L. & Borstel, J. (2007). Liz Lerman Critical Response Process, the core steps and the interview with Liz Lerman. Contact Quarterly, 33, 16-‐24. Retrieved in June 2014 from http://www.morehshin.com/spring13x3danimation/wp.../12/LizLerman.pdf