Dramaturgy in Action I: Practical Realities (Part 1) | ADN Symposium 2016

RL: Hi welcome back everyone, if you take your seats, thank you. Welcome to the session today, it is Dramaturgy in Action: Practical Realities. My name is Robin Loon and I’m from Centre 42. I will be moderating today’s session. Today, we’re very happy to have six dramaturgs sharing with us their experiences – yes, they are anecdotal but from there we could draw larger implications and ideas of what it means to actually be in practice. So how we will operate today is: I will invite respective speakers to do a very quick run through of a very specific case study. And then we’ll open it up to the floor. So each speaker will have between ten to twelve minutes. If you have this with you (referring to programme sheet), in the interest of time I won’t introduce them one at a time so please refer to this. I’m going to go straight on: founding director of ADN, Mr Lim How Ngean. 

LHN: Hi we all have about twenty minutes – no, twelve minutes each. Sorry I thought it was twenty. Right, very quickly, I just want to relate a project or two, if we have time, about my experience or the working relationship I’ve developed with certain choreographers. The one I’m referring to for this session would be Pichet Klunchun, contemporary Thai choreographer. I was privileged to work with him in 2011 on a project that was spearheaded by Esplanade actually. They wanted to commission Pichet to do a new piece of work and I was engaged on board. The work was finally called “Black and White”. The way that it happened was quite interesting, as I was telling some of you this morning. The way that Esplanade operates in terms of new commissions for their dance festivals – they would always encourage, suggest, recommend a dramaturg to work in tandem with the choreographer. This is by no means forced – the choreographer is free to choose whomever she prefers. But the Esplanade always wanted to have a sort of “backup-plan” to suggest someone who could work with the said choreographer. It just so happens that Pichet was open to working with anyone and I think Esplanade went along to recommend me. We had a chat; it was a very long talk actually. And from there the working relationship grew. It was a very new experience to me. It was one of the first where there was an institution that was overseeing the project and therefore there were some deadlines we had to manage: premiere dates that were locked in. And it was transnational for the simple reason that at that time I was based in Singapore, there was Pichet and his dance company in Bangkok. But we were all in different spaces so to speak because I was at the time starting out my PHD – and luck would have it that I was researching on contemporary southeast Asian dance and then sort of, it went into looking at Pichet’s work. What I want to bring to the table from my experience is: this morning we talked about certain concepts and definitions of what a dramaturg could be, should be, would be, in the context of Asia or beyond or even globally. Specifically, my relationship with the choreographer was, I would say, what Helly Minarti this morning called pengganggu – the disturber, the provocateur, the interrupter. At the time, my understanding of dramaturgy was at a very rudimentary level; I was also learning on the job. But what had equipped me was a certain set of skills. Biggest skill I brought to the table was to ask questions. This is something that I think you cannot run away from as dramaturg – whether you’re doing dance or theatre. But my working relationship with Pichet was something I entered into, or rather, getting excited with the most conventional idea of what a dramaturg was. I remembered going into the first meeting and anticipating that I could ask: “So what kind of research would you like me to do?”, in the most earnest way. And to the choreographer’s credit, Pichet is very well read. He is very, very intellectual in the sense that he reads a lot even before embarking on a project. He would confidently say to me: “I think I’ve done enough research. I don’t really need research from you.” 

And I remember at the time thinking: “Oh wow, that’s easy. There goes my job.” That was far from the truth actually because later on I discovered that the role of pengganggu – the provocateur, the disturber – became more and more real as rehearsals developed. I essentially acted as sounding board in the most “easy” way – as a summary of what I was doing with him. And I realized that that was actually quite an important skill to develop as a dramaturg. Not just being able to research, but as I think was pointed out by someone this morning - I think Charlene said - to watch: Number one, the idea of being an observer. The observer is one that is informed, actually. You come in with some experience of performance and yes, from where I came from there was an idea of the theatrical frameworks of performance and dance. But more importantly I came bringing with me experience of observing. And I think it was Susan Melrose that talked about the “Informed Observer” - the critical observer – where you go in there to see something where there is also a lot of intuitive thinking involved. Intuitive feeling of how to go about critically assessing what you are watching from process to rehearsal to performace. That’s one. 

Number two, from the observation then came, for me, the critical questioning. In this region, there is still a lot to be said about criticality, critique and criticism. That is something that quite a few of us have encountered working in the studios as dramaturgs, where there seems to be a fine line between being critical and having to critique. People always think that when you make a comment or critique something, you are being critical. And then the whole idea of taking on something personally becomes really involved. But with Pichet I was lucky again. He was really professional about it. So the whole idea of being critiqued came on board, where there was really a lot of engagement from his side – a healthy debate on almost all things. So what happens when you do not have research? I thought that was the be-all and end-all. And then of course, there were many conversations that developed: debates, heated discussions in a good way, constructive heated discussions, more questions that led to even more discussions. Pichet was actually on a journey of looking at developing a particular choreographic style – a choreographic style that he had wanted to develop from his classical training and it was a particular Thai tradition Khon. So I’m gonna play this video (he plays the video) 

So then came the question: what is a Malaysian-born, Singapore-based dramaturg doing in a contemporary Thai dance project. Lots of disconnect was happening, but at the same time as I was doing my research into my PHD there was some fundamental research that I had to do. One being that since I am looking at certain Southeast Asian contemporary forms – most of the Southeast Asian contemporary dance forms are rooted in certain traditional and classical styles. And since there was a sort of synergy in looking at Pichet’s work, I had already begun doing my own research into Thai Khon which is classical performance that actually encapsulates dance drama and song. So the other thing that I brought to the table was that I had to equip myself with some sort of cultural literacy. And this again, I’m reminded of what we talked about this morning in terms of cultural mediation. Or rather, I had to try to then unpack what Pichet was approaching in his development of this contemporary choreography that was very entrenched in his Khon training. So at the end of the day there were very technical discussions and yet again I am not a technical dance scholar or researcher. I do not have choreographic experience in a formal setting. 

What did I bring? This is where the idea of the “first audience” comes in for me. As dramaturg, we read everywhere that we are always also seen, or we remind the collaborator or the art-maker, that we offer the view of the first audience, together with the informed knowledge that we bring to the table. And that was what I offered – with my understanding, as little as it was, of the Khon tradition. And then to tap into helping him – be the sounding board to talk about it. As much as choreographers love to do, I realized that actually choreographers love to talk. Maybe not in a symposium panel, for sure, but in a one-to-one they will try to articulate. And this is the interesting thing for me where here we are trying to articulate the practice of dramaturgy - choreographers are actually very keen to articulate their physical practice. Maybe not, like I said again in this way, but with the right dramaturg, the right sounding board, the right provocateur – I think something could be achieved. And I think that was, for me, the amazing thing: to bridge that link, right? Having said that, I am going to say very quickly that it was no small feat because Pichet is actually a very proud and arrogant artist – very sure of himself. But I think in opening up the space for me to discuss, to talk, to argue, to debate with him: I think there was something else that was happening for him, and it was a very – I found the first time round a good collaboration. And then, right after that – not right after but, this was 2010. In 2014, we worked on a new project and again, it was a development. So ya, thank you that’s all for me. 

RL: Thank you How Ngean. What I propose is: we have six speakers so I’m going to invite three dramaturgs to talk about their experience and then I’m going to open it up for Q and A so that their ideas are still fresh if there are anything specific. And then we’ll proceed to the three other speakers and then we’ll do another Q and A then. Thank you How Ngean for that. Next, I would like to invite – poor Peter doesn’t know that he’s next. So interrupt him in the middle of his thought to share with us his experience. Peter, please. 

PE: Thank you, I was just trying to write my list. So what I’m going to talk about is – most of the work I’ve done as a dramaturg has been with one company which was founded by David Pledger, Paul Jackson and myself in 1995. And over the years I’ve been I think sometimes more or sometimes less involved in the work of that company. And in a way I came to the work of a dramaturg – we devised a series of ways of working that were dramaturgical and then I somehow ended up with the name of dramaturg because I was one of the people who was doing that kind of work. But I really must stress that this is a company that I think is committed to a certain kind of dramaturgical vision. And that does not mean that I had any sense of insight into that particular task of dramaturgy. I was simply somebody who was part of the process and as much as possible I tried to support that process, and to work in helpful ways to advance the vision of that company and of the work of David as the artistic director of that company. We made many many works in quite a few different contexts and actually styles of performance so I was able and encouraged to expand my understanding of what dramaturgy could be as we went along. I became much more, I guess I came to the company with certain skillsets but I became much more aware of dramaturgy of choreography of bodies, for example. I became much more aware of the relationship between live performances and mediatized spaces. We worked extensively in collaborations with colleagues and partners in the regions. Principally, one or two projects with Gekidan Kaitaisha in Japan and Wuturi in Korea. The Kaitaisha project I was also centrally involved in as somebody with the particular expertise in the work of that company. And being able to, in some senses, well, look at some of the bridges that could be built in that working relationship. I guess I became more aware of what a dramaturg does as the company evolved and certainly the company happened at the time when there wasn’t really a conversation about dramaturgy and the Australian theatre. There was one previously and I think our company was part of an emergent discourse or development of discussion of dramaturgy once again. I think that the work that we were doing, the work that David did with the company and also with the field and shaping a generation of new artists and working with other artists, created a certain vocabulary for dramaturgy in Australia that we’ve since taken for granted to some extent. We were able to take those experiences into a set of workshops that I undertook with other people called ‘Dramaturgies’ where we took many of the questions that I had as a dramaturg, that I confronted with the work with NYID into a dialogue with people coming from theatre practices and creating yet another context for dramaturgy but that’s another story. 

What are the operational parameters of this? Well certainly we have a commitment to research, we have a commitment to bringing ideas from the world to the practice of making performance and sometimes other forms of artistic productions. That’s very dramaturgical and the dramaturg as myself played a role in that; I played my role alongside many others. I guess I have certain research training that enabled me to do it in a certain kind of way, but in some respects that perhaps limited other kinds of research that other people could bring to the table as well. Academics are trained to do research in a particular way which doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the only kind of research that you can bring to the table. And certainly as a company we were very alive to notions of collaboration, ideas of practice that could bring a diversity of perspectives to the development of new projects. We also had a commitment to practice and so as the dramaturg you’re called on to do a number of things. Quite practical things sometimes because as a small to medium company there’s not any kind of work issue, but there’s also an ethic I think that I always really enjoyed of being close to the means of production, not removing yourself too far from the actual mechanics of how work gets made and how it continues to get made. So there’s something there, I think, to think about in relation to dramaturgy. And also especially so-called performance dramaturgy where your part of a production process over the long term. I think maybe this is a set of questions around what happens when you work with a company long term as a dramaturg with a stable and visionary artistic team where very often you share a set of, at least aspirational goals to begin with, and then you develop the work over a long time and go to many different places. Sometimes you bring skills and you have skills and you have fascinations that really do go there in a really important way. Other times other members of the company have the passion and they take the work in that kind of direction, often in very dramaturgical ways as well. 

I’ve always thought that one of my important roles was to try and document some of the work and to write about the work and I’ve done that to some extent. I’ve also thought that part of my work has been, in a way, to talk about the work of the company in relation to a broader project of contemporary performance – not only in Australia but also very importantly as a company that operates in relation to other artistic practitioners in the region and also more broadly – across the globe. It’s not like we’re seeking any kind of global theory here, but we do, I think, have an ethic of collaborating with artists with many different places. It’s part of the kind of dramaturgical premise of the company to do that not only as artistic practice, but that’s also I think very important political work that the company has developed. As I said, other people, principally David, have done a lot of dramaturgy in the company and beyond the company. So this is not something that I can speak to in any degree of singularity here. I think it’s very much something that is an expanding and opening process – it’s been a process of learning and development and I think it speaks very well to the idea of the dramaturg as somebody who, as another person I often quote Marianne van Kerkhoven says to renegotiate your work everytime you begin a production. You don’t assume that you know how to do it. So that’s way I might leave it. 

RL: Thank you Peter, thank you very much. we’re going to move on to Nanako and then we’ll break for some questions and Q and A.  

NN: Hi, hi again. Thank you for introducing me. As a case study, I also have another project to talk about today. And then this project is more about the traditional Japanese theatre into contemporary dance media performance which was done in 2007 when I was living in New York. Regarding practical realities of dramaturgy, I would like to introduce one case study on my dramaturging experience on koosil-ja’s mech [a]OUTPUT – that’s the title. In relation to the role of dance dramaturgy in rehearsals. So koosil-ja – she’s a postmodern choreographer and trained dancer based in New York. She asked me to join her in the recreation of her piece – mech[a]Output – as dance dramaturg and movement coach. So our collaboration would draw on my years of training in traditional Japanese dance. So as such, even before rehearsals began, I practiced one dance repertoire of Dojoji – which is the primary choreography I was working on with koosil-ja. So one of the assignments for my exam in dance had been the dance repertoire of Dojoji, which is one of the most significant repertoires in Japanese theatre history. So in addition to my traditional training and background, my work with koosil-ja would also be informed by my scholarly or my research interest in updating Japanese traditions for the contemporary audience. We started working together and we discussed at great lengths how koosil-ja planned to revive her renowned choreography for the audience at the New York – Japan society. That’s the venue in 2007. During the rehearsal process, I worked with her to help her read original Noh text. There are many versions of Dojoji – but her version based on Noh text and performance. And also help examine how Noh principles, rehearsed movement sequences with her and her musician, and helped organized video footage of Noh and her past performance. And worked with media artists to assemble the images and game spaces of Dojoji that would be projected during the show. I will show some images and movies later. 

My function as dance dramaturg and movement coach for this project also required my thought about the aesthetics of the movement, and ethics of translating a traditional Noh performer’s movement vocabulary into koosil-ja’s postmodern dance vocabulary. So we needed to foreground the process to render the content in traditional Noh movement accessible, and we discovered that this challenge could be met by including, on-stage, the perspective of the dramaturg. We also learned that the performers and the dramaturg’s perspective could be represented in juxtaposition to each other within the choreography. 

So I will show a few clips for this: 

This is the beginning of the piece, and the stage was somehow formed as a kind of twisted Noh theatre stage in the, how do you say, in a stunted theatre framework. I also explained how we worked during these sequences – so to interpret the form of Noh, Dojoji, koosil-ja brings elements from various sources into the network of her work. So even during the performance, information is transmitted to koosil-ja from twenty video monitors placed around the stage. So you can see, a little bit of monitors around the stage, like a bridge stage. And also to the main stage – there are also monitors standing around the stage. 

HN: Like a modified Hanamichi? 

NN: Yes yes, that’s right. But it’s actually Hashigakari. Hanamichi is for Kabuki theatre. But her interpretation is almost a combination of Hanamichi and Hashigakari in that way. So koosil-ja reviews this information and translates it into her own movement vocabulary. She wears a one-piece and high heels, so that’s her own way of movement – that’s her own kind of costumes. Actors performing Dojoji are shown on various video monitors on stage and although these Noh actors are not physically present. Their projected images represent the original source of koosil-ja’s live performance. As koosil-ja watches the Noh actors, she copies their gestures and information about the bodily technique of Noh actors is archived and stored in the videos. koosil-ja incorporates this information into the creation of her own dancing body through an archival process. And this is a practice that she has named by herself as “Life Processing”. So that’s her own kind of approach to this traditional Japanese Noh technique. So in my conversation with her and through the work we did, reconstructing movements that were not actually documented in the video: I began to understand this system of learning. In traditional dance and theatre training, there is no inscribable information. The performer’s tradition is over retold within one community, passed from a teacher to a chosen student. This is also something I mentioned in the first session – it’s almost like an oral transmission, a kind of secret story. So my task here is to provide means of access for the people outside the community. 

(referring to video) So she is singing in English. So in order to democratize the Dojoji of Noh, koosil-ja uses choreography. So in cases where the information about movements was not documented in the video, koosil-ja would suggest alternative ideas. However, many of her ideas suggest spinning herself quickly on the stage exceeded rule of traditional Japanese theatre, so I couldn’t think of that kind of ideas by myself but she suggested that. Those things happened during the process. 

So the structure of the piece follows the structure of Noh theatre. So first half and then break, but the break as the Kyogen part but she interpreted it as her own kind of duet with the TV monitors. And then the second part comes after the break, so there’s the kind of structure that stays. This is the end of the first part when original Noh performers jump into the bell and then the bell falls on the stage. But in her case, it’s TV monitors as bells. My function as dramaturg as well as moving coach requires much consideration with regards to the aesthetics and ethics of these movement choices as they are being translated from traditional Noh performance into koosil-ja’s own vocabulary. So well-trained dancers physically and emotionally internalize the aesthetic practice and discipline of dance. And as a traditional dance teacher, by myself, I also have a sensory memory to recognize which movements – either new or adapted – would offend the traditions of the dance. On some occasions, for example as when koosil-ja would take certain steps on stage while wearing her outside shoes, which have dirt or some other elements – I would myself feel offended. As a result of my training, my body is systematically also closed to the possibility of differentiating the personal from the sensations of the movement itself. This training affords me the confidence to say “no” to certain choices or attempts at rule-breaking. But it also denies me the clarity personal freedom that koosil-ja chooses. So, given my physical internalization of the aesthetic practice of the traditional Japanese dance form, our dire look allowed koosil-ja to establish a postmodern reading of the dance. Which did not, however, exclude the original Noh aesthetics. We will show a little bit – 

So this is the kind of the free dancing part for her. So this is the break part, as a kyogen part in the original Noh form, but she takes it as a kind of duet. So my work as dance dramaturg in this project was substantially engaged with the negotiation of cultural politics in terms of movement. So this involved internal sensing of the dance experience. When the knowledge of a culture is separated from its origins and democratized, cultural reproduction should be critically examined through a negotiator such as a dance dramaturg. In order to ensure that the boundaries of traditional practice are not merely replaced with a confines of power – whatever that is. For the local people, to democratize the culturally reserved bodily knowledge, such as that of Noh actors, is to preserve the tradition under the globalized colonial power. As previously mentioned, the archive knowledge from the past is partly separated and dissociated from the preceding tradition. For similar reasons, I felt anxious and uncomfortable while working with koosil-ja and drawing upon experience points of conflict and resonance with my own physical internalizations of the aesthetic practice of the traditional Japanese dance form. However, my negotiation as her dance dramaturg during this cultural reproduction reflects precisely a resolve not to exclude the original communal sensibility of Noh. And I enjoyed the process very much. Thank you. 

RL: Thank you Nanako. Right, as scheduled, we’re going to open it up to the floor for any questions. To do a quick recap: How Ngean talked to us about negotiating cultural and linguistic differences and being a sounding board and the first audience. Peter talked to us about research practicalities and not to be too far removed from the production process, documentation and the transmission of that documentation. And of course Nanako talked to us about the ethics of translation, the aesthetics of translation, and how the dance dramaturg is a very apt negotiator. So any questions from the floor, please let us know and we’ll pass you the mic. Yes, Juliet? 

Audience: (paraphrased) Could you describe in more detail the imprint that your work has had on the final product that was presented to the audience? 

HN: Is there a person that you are addressing this to? 

Audience: No each of you, I guess. Because I think you’ve described the process a little bit, but I’m just curious about the outcome. 

HN: In the interest of time I will force you to pick one. 

A: Since you’ve spoken to me first, why don’t we start with you? 

HN: Talking about the final product so to speak right? What exactly are you looking at? 

A: I’m just curious if you could identify a specific conversation that you had that led to a specific outcome and how that happened. The specific way the final work was shaped due to something that you contributed to the discourse. 

HN: Right. This is still something that I’m trying to find my way in terms of the role and function and working as a dramaturg. It is not to actually pinpoint, pick out highlights of my contribution. But what I can say is that the shape of conversations, if you like, the shape of the provocations between Pichet and myself – specifically pertaining to Black and White, the work I just showed. It really does go from the general – from very early stages of rehearsal: it’s wide, and deep, and general also. And then it starts to filter as we get closer to some kind of performance score or setting the choreography of the piece. Where by the time we reached I think, I would say technical or dress rehearsal – that’s when we would talk about specifics, right down to a specific scene in a particular setting of the choreography. But before that it is rather free-flowing until it becomes more specific come time to the performance. But what is also is that it’s sort of like a reversal. In the beginning, during the process of discovery and experimentation in rehearsal, many times I’m the one prompting the choreographer to ask me questions of what I see so that we can talk about it. As the process narrows down to sort of late stage just before premiere – that’s when he will ask me to ask him questions. So it’s like, to clarify, what’s happening in the performance. In terms of, again, this contribution thing, for the purpose of this particular case or example I gave, I don’t think there’s any specific point where there is a material contribution. Whereas in general there was an intellectual shape of conversations that led to the shaping of the performance score. 

RL: Actually, we do have a bit of time. Nanako, would you like to answer the question of whether there was any specific point that manifests itself concretely in the final presentation that was a result of your intervention as a dramaturg? 

NN: Well, one of the things I can think of was, maybe not as a piece itself, but more than the text that I contributed as a programme note. I also wrote the text with her. I had a dialogue with her when we were rehearsing together. About how this piece is conceived theoretically as a more, kind of, democratization of the more traditional Japanese Noh to the audience at the Japanese society in New York. And then there’s a conflict – the theatre doesn’t like the idea so much, so they put our text into a certain kind of artistic statement. More like a description or introduction to the audience. It is separated from what they could expect to put into the programme notes also. So it’s almost like the conflict is getting bigger and bigger, but at the same time, I protect artistic decisions at the same. I also protect koosil-ja’s decisions and aesthetic individual identities from the institutional power. 

RL: Thank you. Before I go to that question I would like to let those of you who were not here this morning – this morning in the closed-door discussions, there was one point made by one of the discussants that the work of the dramaturg is actually invisible. And the outcome itself isn’t visible. So it really is about supporting. But I think what Peter talked about – the ability to document it and to talk about it – is a way of raising a certain kind of visibility of the practice itself so it doesn’t get too completely embedded into the performance so that we are able to discuss and talk about it. So please, question. 

A: So I have two specific questions: one for How Ngean and one for Nanako-san. The one for How Ngean is: I was feeling very impressed that the Esplanade was the one to facilitate your relationship with Pichet while Esplanade was also the one to commission the new work, and to commission in Singapore and facilitate the participation of the dramaturg who has not worked as a dramaturg before. So through this experience with Pichet I’m pretty sure you became a dramaturg – one of your identity / categories. How did you feel about that at the beginning? Also, was there anybody else who became a dramaturg this way in Singapore? I mean we are talking about adapting the Western idea of the dramaturg in theatre and appointing a person is one of the great ways to make a dramaturg. And another Nanako-san: that project looked really amazing. I think many Western theatre people were dying to do that. And yet an organization like us – the Japan Foundation – who gets hundreds of requests like: “I want to do a project like that, can you introduce me to a Japanese dancer that can teach me the movement?”. We get that everyday! And the reason that it’s hard is one, it’s usually a collaboration between artist and artist. And when the traditional side of dance is not willing to collaborate then it doesn’t happen. Two, when you are interested in collaboration in international work, it sometimes means that you are not really that deeply ‘into’ the tradition so we don’t feel that the person is qualified enough to represent a certain tradition. So I feel it’s very hard for that kind of work to happen. So my question is: how did you become a researcher and dramaturg, being a certified – I read your profile in Japanese – a (kannae fujima) teacher which is not something you can achieve in a few years I believe. And I also believe that the (kannae fujima) Japanese tradition also functions as a database of the movement for Kabuki and other traditional theatres so that the Japanese traditional dance families can preserve their knowledge and to transfer that to each performer when they grow up. So do you also consider that traditional role of Japanese dance as a traditional Japanese way of dramaturgy? 

RL: We start with Nanako-san? Do you need time? 

NN: Can you elaborate on ‘traditional type of dramaturgy’? 

A: The nihon buyo, or the traditional Japanese dancers – do you think they were the original form of dramaturgy in Japan? Because they functioned as advisers to Kabuki performers – the movement – and then they will function as the database. And then they sometimes advise the new addition to stage hands or directions, and yet they are not the performers or coaches either. 

NN: I think you may be right. Like it’s of course it’s kind of basic rules – basic aesthetics – in terms of physical movement, in terms of general theatre constellations even. So like I could also sense that what kind of setting is supposed to be, or what kind of spatial arrangement is supposed to be in terms of movement, or in terms of duration of the moving body to the theatrical space. But I’m not really sure if I can say it is ‘traditional dramaturgy’, but maybe that kind of sensibility is inside. And there’s something that the people in traditional Japanese theatre get used to it. The kind of system of, not proscenium theatre, but more like a kind of interaction with actors, dancers and performers within the theatre space. And that’s the construction of all nihon buyo and Kabuki / Noh – and that’s different from the proscenium theatre space. And somehow it makes me think so much about that, so maybe I do need to think more to answer the question. 

RL: How Ngean? 

HN: Ok. I’m trying to understand the question. Let me just answer and see whether I’m hitting it. First of all, when I said that Esplanade went into engaging me there was of course a prior backstory, quite a long one actually which I tried to shorten with twelve minutes of presentation. There was interest in Pichet where Esplanade was concerned. By that time, Esplanade, or rather the dance festival section of the Esplanade, was very cognizant or aware of the value of dramaturgy and the dramaturg in collaborating / in assisting / servicing - serving the new commission. That was a slip of the tongue. I had already known Pichet for a while and like I said I did embark on my PHD. I was actually swimming around thinking of a thesis topic to look at. And it was just me being at the right time and the right place. So when I heard that there was some idea of Esplanade being interested, it was brazen move for me to contact them and say: “I would like to do this”. At the time, there was no idea what I was getting myself into. I had done smaller projects on dance dramaturgy and by that time I had one year of experience working on the Singapore Arts Festival of that time with a board of dramaturgs. So it was still very new to me. But I did however tell the producer – Faith – that at that time I really did not know enough BUT if this works then it would be great. So we entered into a series of long discussions and therefore after that I was still not sure what was going to happen because we still had to fly to Bangkok to meet Pichet. I remember that meeting: it was Faith, Pichet and me. We sat down and it was a very long chat. It was a very long chat and even right up to three/four hours of talking and when we left I remembered – I think I told Faith right: “I have no idea how that went. What do you think he’s thinking?” Faith went: “I have no idea either”. But it came back that Pichet was happy to continue talking. And that was one of the ways that I quickly tapped into unlocking maybe the beginnings of a working relationship. And therefore the idea of the sounding board, the provocateur, even if it leads to some kind of heated debates sometimes. And it’s again playful – we’re talking about playful collaborations. One of the things that he actually did that I did not mention was that whenever we went into discussions and there were some suggestions from me – he had the sneaky or naughty thing of actually always doing the opposite. And he took glee, he took a lot of pride coming to tell me the next day: “oh… I’ve done it the other way.” For me it was great because more questioning happened and it helped to clarify his position as to why he went the totally opposite way. As to how it feels: I think with every project, for me it always feels very different and the learning experiences are different again. But what I do want to impress upon is that there is real value in having a continuing working relationship with a particular artist where you bounce continuously from one project to another until such time that you feel that there should be a parting of ways. 

RL: Thank you, if you have any more questions – if you can hold them on until we’ve heard from the other three speakers and we’ll open it to the floor. So we’re coming back to our panelist right now and we’re going to move on to Yinan who will share with us her experience.