Open Engagement: Empty Room

What happens in an empty room?

Artists Sal Randolph and Kathe Izzo asked this at parallel session, day one of Open Engagement. The theme of the day was You are all that I see: Art and the Everyday Experience.

So we cleared out the room of every object, swept, and came back into the room. Kathe asked us to remove whatever was superfluous (i.e. my bracelets, watch, camera, scarf, shoes) and then quietly enter the space, sit in a circle and hold hands with those on either side. She began with a meditations, which frankly got me going, "oh no, i've picked the wrong session, i really hate exercises like this". We were asked to think of a gift, an action that we could perform on the person to our right. Once completed, we were to squeeze their hand indicating that the "performance" was completed. Around the room this went, eyes closes, silently.

Now, to make this clear, I am a bit awkward. When I feel uncomfortable, I usually scowl, giggle, or smile very widely. This session was a bit of all three. Next, Sal and Kathe paired us off and we were to give each other individual "gifts". I was paired (thankfully) with Catherine from the Institute for Infinitely Small Things and Ikatun, a woman that I already knew from Boston and Platform2 (see archived posts). When placed together, we decided that both of us usually avoid projects like this, but we both loved Sal and Kathe's work, and were both rather awkward in this setting. So we took a nap.

Frankly, I think this set Sal and Kathe off, though I am not entirely sure. We didn't participate, which was a bit odd, but so was the whole event.

What happens in an empty room? My impression of this statement is we get out brains together, not our bodies, rather than acting out things physically (hugs, handshakes, etc). For me (and probably most people at this conference--as most engage post studio practices), the most important tool we have is communication. Go ahead and leave our bodies out of it. I can connect to you, but I don't want to do that physically. I'm not sure.

Harrell Fletcher and I spoke about this at Gary Wiseman's tea party. He claimed that uncomfortable situations that end up being safe (as this truly was) are good. They push our boundaries and ask us to think about things in a different way. Sure. I suppose that is true. But why have that fumble time? What do we gain from that?