a movement performance and a series of open working sessions
We think, we like that is body and space. Space and body. What are two or more bodies holding on the question of “we”? How to embody the intercorporeality and the interrelation that is sustaining them? This performance consists on the creation of a construction that insists on sustaining the problem and the question of whom, what, what for and how...WE.
In between asignificance and the name, as if we would be kids, or better said, as if our curiosity and tonalities would not be other, but to be in contact and to make without future...How do we elaborate a coherent bodily discourse in plurality?
The questions that frame WTWLT are:
How to distract and to unproject the totalizing image and/or sometimes imposed project of the concept of “WE”?
Which would be the conditions and the necessary practices that could liberate its sense?
How can we dispose “WE” in a plural and co-implicated way?
Is it possible to sustain a coherent WE in plurality?
Which is the relationship in between the name WE and its verbalism (the action), meaning “to WEing”?
What kinds of senses and/or linguistic inventions, thus ways of existence, appear when we verbalize the name?
How can we dispose the body and its senses in a horizontal and plural way (without the predominance of the I/eye?
With what kind of tonalities can we dispose body and thought if we expose the sense of “WE” in plurality?
What happens when “the name” is of the senses of those who perceive it, thus the name’s sense is shared perceptively instead of rationally directed?
Should we necessarily work only with the name “WE” or, is it rather possible to consider another name that can put WE at stake, share it as well as abstract it?
In another way: Could we invent a name that also sensibilizes WE as that that doesn’t know how to articulate itself yet, and that it will probably never do?
Could then “GERRY” be a name but an action, a relationship, a landscape, a desert, a quality, a planet of people and things, spaces and objects intertwined among themselves in contact?
Is it possible that by acting a “Gerry” we can sustain and valorize the sense of WE in its inevitable decomposition and disfunctionality?
How do then WEing and/or GERRYing fragilizes us?
How individuals shared by different GERRIES can find places of complicity and support?
Which is the use and value of being together or spending time together?
Is it true that sometimes “losing time” (which, of whom, what time?!) is a way to “give time” and thus to open other fields of perception and sensibility out of the dominant and known ones?
What does it imply to reconsider perceptively the use, the value, the production, the functionality and the time of our implication in the world?
At the same time this proposal is fractalized into open working sessions to the question of WE. Through out an open call, we invite people to add themselves as participants to the WE and GERRY tools (a link there to experiment???)
