 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
