alt + F4 for normal screen

page 227

print this page


1.      The Working Process and Interaction between Participants The working process derived from the environment win which it took place.  By environment, I mean here not just the physical surroundings, but also the people and events.  The action derived was in terms both of direct physical response:  a ‘push’ followed by a ‘jump,’ and in terms of indirect response:  x reminds you of y or associates in your mind with z, which then leads to action. While there was a continuous searching for a making or breaking of patterns of activity, there was equally a quest to avoid familiar or tried forms.  Moments of greatest satisfaction were to do with one’s ability, in interaction with the other participants, to climb through layer upon layer of pattern, further unknown, which, moments later, would in itself be mere scaffolding for something else.  Often, however, this process could occur more sedately.  Patterns of activity would emerge and then seem to stabilize for a while before developing, or simply being dropped. The only criterion in all this was to stay with one’s own track of attention, to let that indicate the next move and to stay as nearly as possible to the edge of what one was drawn to do.  This was done with the proviso of always being open to a new input or impulse, never locking on to an activity merely as a device to stay active and never closing off options by working to a pre-determined plan. Was this a universal principle of work in the group?  Certainly there were times in early sessions where work was more consciously controlled or more inward looking than this suggests.  There were occasions when concentration was poor and responsiveness between participants was at a low ebb.  Many of us in earlier work sessions would go blank when offered material by another person and in so far as there was an increase in the general level of skill it was in people’s ability to ride with a new input rather than simply be stopped in their tracks. As the work went on, people'’ ability to attend to and incorporate the work of others in their own, increased dramatically.   This is not to say that one necessarily knew all the time, all of what was happening.  But one was able to keep one’s attention wide, so as not to completely cut out events. And one normally picked up, on the edges of one’s attention, a general sense of the space, the disposition of people and objects and the general tone of activity throughout the work area.  To mark this, on a good day, the arrangement of the objects left behind at the end would betray a certain coherence and the whole space would feel energized.  On less good days many objects would look neglected and the space would feel disorderly and uninteresting. Having stated all of the above, actual methods of working varied quite a bit within the group, some people working more separately, some most frequently in pairs or threes.  Some worked extensively with story telling (as silent monologue accompanying actions of a spoken accompaniment.)   Some worked a great deal with imagery as a trigger for action.  Some worked with more theatrical forms; some with spontaneous and physical movement response. Most people worked with all these at times but more with one than another.