Description of the technique as a methodological problem. Training at Miss Rena Mirecka s.

Description of the technique as a methodological problem. Training at Miss Rena Mirecka s. Do I participate in the show when I sit in a theatre seat and watch the show? I may say that I am a spectator or that I am outside of all this. However, the presence of people, no matter how they are divided in the space, no matter how they are called: actors, spectators, performers, participants, witnesses, causes their interaction and we can consider them as a whole, as a one group. I look at the show. Is not the way I am watching it, a message for the actors? Just like they send the message to us as spectators? What do I do when I watch it? The similar situation, of participating in a whole, but in a clearer whole, and participating more actively, is a theatrical and artistic work, in which you participate by means of movement, action (by yourself and with others), voice, word, singing etc. How to describe such work when u participate in it? How to analyze it? What to write about? What to start with and how to end? In my research, among others, I focus on Rena Mirecka s work. This actress of the Laboratory Theatre of Jerzy Grotowski, with whom she had worked for 25 years till the dissolution of the theatre in 1984, has worked individually since 1982 beyond the theatre. This work is called paratheatre. It combines many disciplines. This summer Mrs Mirecka conducted few workshops. For the couple of years, those workshops last for 5 days. You cannot be an uninvolved observer of them. You cannot adopt a posture of an anthropologist, who sits aside and makes notes. The only way to register to such a workshop is to take active participation in it. It requires participation within a set area of work. I used the term area of work on purpose, meaning the area of presence of the people taking part in the workshop. In order not to generalize, in my reflections, I will refer mainly to the workshop I underwent on 3-7 July 2009, on Sardinia. In some moments I will also refer to the workshop that took place in 2008 in Wroclaw, Poland and Mr. P. P. Brunell s workshop from 1988, which was recorded in 1988 and printed in Genoa in December 1988. There are always difficulties with recording workshops. We do not know what information should we pass on, how to pass them on, to what kind of audience. 1. Overview of the meeting. Fourteen people including Rena Mirecka took part in the workshop in Sardinia. It took place in the east of Cagliari (the south Sardinia), in a fenced, country house, located on a mountain glade, where olives grow. This is a place where there are no neighbors for the distance of few kilometers. Only shepherds pass the house from time to time. Once a week, the host came to the house, but we did not have any contact with him. Right next to the fence

surrounding the house, there was a farm consisting of few farm buildings and three donkeys that were fed by the participants of the workshop. We were separated from newspapers, TV, internet and with poor mobile reach. However, it was possible to make a phone call, after a five-minute walk down the hill. Yet, we made phone calls only if it was necessary. The silence was precious and living it up with sounds had different reasons. The rhythm of a day was defined by a roster placed on a kitchen cupboard. The roster pointed out the things that should be done, namely: cleaning the house, cooking, cleaning the room. People were divided into several groups, which had been assigned a specific activity in advance. The rest of the time was spent on working with Rena Mirecka or individual participants creative searching and other meetings. These activities were linked with common or individual work. The group of people taking part in this workshop could be named a temporary community, monastery, family and to a lesser extent could be named excursionists or a group of random workers on a delegation, or walking artists. However, all those descriptions seem to be misleading. The people went there to work with Rena Mirecka, who before each workshop, or during every couple of years before each project, sends letters to all volunteers. In this letters, she outlines the character of the work she offers. In the letter from the year 2005 1, which I use because it was published, she offers the future participants of the workshop certain search and explains in her own way how she understands abilities and place of people in the world. There are no links to theatre, although some reflections connected with theatre appear during her workshops. There are contemplations about the self i.e. everyman and questions of who I am, what I do and why. Apart from questions, there are suggestions of how to look for the answers and your needs in yourself. The end of the letter consists of three parts, namely, a kind of request or a task Please, think about what I wrote to u about and try to put it into practice 2, the image of the meeting I hope that we will meet this summer, and we will be joyful again. And one more time, forming a circle of people pursuing the aim, we will whirl together in a sunny dance and a directly formulated invitation Come and be 3. After so formulated a text the recipient may approximately state and choose if this is an appropriate track for him and if this is the sought-after creative space, which he would like to join. You do not learn anything specific here, there is no clear distinction into the teacher and the students. Yet, there are some suggestions, ideas and assumptions. 1 R. Mirecka, List do ciebie, [w:] Podróż. Rena Mirecka actress of the Laboratory Theatre, Wrocław 2005, p. 145 2 R. Mirecka, tamże, p. 146. 3 R. Mirecka, tamże, p. 146.

There is a questionnaire prepared for everyone who wants to apply for the workshop. It includes questions such as: Why do you want to take part in this work?, How old are you?. Information about the list and questionnaires are not part of the training, but omitting them lessens the transmission. Putting it into other words, including them into the training record suggests a point of view and narrows down perception of other elements that were not suggested at the beginning. Such decisions implicate the shape and the possible reception of the transmission. And there the question arises: From which point should the story about participation in Rena Mirecka s workshop start? Are the preparations a part of your own input and participation in the workshop? 2. Main problems of reporting a paratheatrical event at Rena Mirecka s. What do we see when we are inside some space? Our eye can only spot things that are within an angle of 180 degrees. Lets imagine a situation, where a man starts cooking a soup. Then, I see several people that stand one after another and massage each others backs. At the beginning of this row, there is still the man cooking the soup. I did not see all those people that joined us. But I could see how the last person joins in. I am also located at the end of the row and I added what I could not see, but I do not know what happened between the second and tenth person. To put it into other words, what would have changed if I had said in the meantime that I walk on the stairs, go to the terrace, or look at Stefano, who is feeding the cats, and when I come back I see more people. This would be a different transmission, more concentrated on a person, on moving and maybe on something else. The choice of the way we perceive things determines the transmission, but the choice links with memory. I can not remember where exactly I went, how many times, which way, or why. I was not involved in the process of those activities. I can only remember the interior quiver, the anxiety connected with what riveted my attention. It was this unusual scene in the kitchen and at the same time relief after all hard work we did, and looking for relaxation also brought relief. However, such a record is concentrated on one s own feelings. How can I omit it and should I omit it? Do the perception of the eye, memory or sensations determine the shape? Maybe, at the beginning there is a way of perceiving things, and then the transmission by means of events, or experiences, being in them. Different visions of the world and yourself emerge from it. There is a choice and collection of what you can hear, understand and remember during recording of such a paratheatrical event at Rena Mirecka s. Another problem when reporting such an event, in which u participate, is the use of tenses. Which would be the most appropriate, past or present? Some of my notes are written

in a single breath, just after the incident, and they are written in the past or present time. But the dynamics of the things added later is different. 3. Division of things into more and less important and questioning this hierarchy. Reading the roster of housework activities, suggested by Rena Mirecka, we can assume that the artistic work will be more important than everyday activities, we also do in our homes. What should decide about the hierarchy? Our ideas resulting from the precious experiences? The creative space is prepared, analyzed and requires special involvement. Should the space for making food, feeding the animals and cleaning the house be less important, just basic in order to let the artistic space to come into existence? We could accept such point of view if, artistic realization was the final aim. We could look at this in such a way, if we were preparing a performance, and what is more only in a specific and suitable for the conception theatre. When it comes to the Rena Mirecka s workshop we meet with a creative process, in which activities, observations and inspirations are linked in an individual way for every participant. Both the spaces, one characterized by greater artistic value and the other with lesser artistic value, create one plane that shapes the creativity process. This process sets individual tasks and aims for everybody. In my opinion, after reaching them we can say what has been done. However, you can not say that something is finished because there are always new possibilities and new aims that are more or less visible. The creative process interrupts the end of the common work that lasted for several days. This process is sometimes continued in a different way in the space beyond a workshop. The one s own or common search for creative action is a determinant making the action important. Of course, there is a carefully prepared structure in Rena Mirecka s workshops. However, only a non involved observer could acknowledge it with greater value. During the workshop activities conducted in the room, under an old big tree, in the garden and in the terrace, the space was suitably prepared by Rena Mirecka and her assistants. I will try to explain this equal importance of the space, temporarily called economic and artistic, by outlining the facts. The repetitive determinant of a space shape is a circle, four directions and the centre. The workshop in Sardinia and in Wroclaw start with finding oneself around such a structure. After greeting Rena, all participants sat on the blankets that formed a circle around the gathered objects. Rena was sitting on the opposite side of the circle. This side was marked as the East by a yellow napkin, tin container filled with water and incense that were partly situated on a small, square tablecloth. I found out that this is the East because Rena called it in English the East. The directions could be of course defined by watching

the sun as well. In front of me, there was a black napkin and bright pink rose in a see-through jug in the West, a red napkin in the South and a white napkin in the North. In the middle, there was a big metal goblet with small flame. Among the napkins, candles on white saucers were located. There was one candle for every person. During the workshop in Wroclaw, the centre consisted of a tree. Brunnel s report from 1988 mentions a dance with designating four directions of the world. In Sardinia, in the room inside the house, there were crystal saucers with white straight candles around the circle. This circular space defined the movement on circumference during different physical activities. The candles and our contact meant uniting the flames within the circle. Passing on words and emotions required precise gesture of bringing the candles closer and connecting them into one flame, what was firstly done by Rena and others followed her example. During this activity every person passed on something more than just bringing the candles and flames closer. It was contained in the way they moved, by intonation, by a glance and the type of muscle tone or muscle relax. I would like to show with this example, how the defined, on the example of Rena Mirecka, is linked with what emerges form every participant s individuality, spontaneity and inner impulse, how they cause reactions. Rena Mirecka s concentrated presence is very important and influences other people s concentration. It allows to reach the thoughts and emotions that are unreachable in different situations. This is only a small example of a specific space defined by specific elements. During the first day of the workshop, just after finishing the work under the old tree, every participant was given a piece of paper. It was divided into four parts. There were four segments of words, among them there were four directions of the world, four colors (the same that were around the circle in the room, where we started our work) and many adjectives assigned to the directions. There were no instructions. There was only a request to each participant to prepare something for the others, being inspired by one of the directions. We will share it with others in a suitable moment. I need to add that Rena Mirecka gives tips rarely and almost never gives advice. Distributing the pieces of paper is the only piece of advice that is given to us during the whole workshop. Other activities take place by observations, copying her propositions, or one s own reaction for someone suggestions, without previous arrangements concerning what to do next. However, it does not mean that nothing is prepared, because the space is partly prepared as well as the host, who is concentrated all the time and watchful for impulses coming from others and herself taking active participation on the work as well. Rena Mirecka sometimes shares her vision about a thing or a man in nature, in a world, in himself with others. But she inspires by taking creative

actions more frequently. There is a lot of delicate fabrics, strings and flowers in there. They do not have only the aesthetic meaning, but rather they allow the host and other participants to activate a vast array of cultural and personal meanings, liked with the first ones. There were many relations and elements, which I could not describe now, that appeared in the workshop. This causes another problem. Should I describe all the phenomena at the same time or should I pull out lines that connect with each other, and what would be the determinant of this decision. And again the problem with recording it arises. I am going back to the task (on papers) and from my subjective experience I am going to catch a specific continuity concerning the hierarchy of the phenomena that will benefit this argument. After the dinner, and before the afternoon work that started at 5 p.m. I had some time for myself. It was when I was reading the words written on the piece of paper that Rena Mirecka gave us. She used words like light, beginnings and other words I could not understand. Every set gave some possibilities, but I could not grasp mine clearly. All the things that happened during those few days while doing the common work, the meetings and the meaning I ascribed them with, feelings and overcoming previous sensations and creative abilities, put me into temporary loss. There are so many important things to me, how to catch and form them?. How to find a specific, clear impulse in myself? I came back to this considerations and self-reflections from time to time. While being in the courtyard, after completing a common job, I met with Rena Mirecka and asked her How can I find, the thing I can give others and to myself as a gift?, because I was again in a dilemma. She gave me an answer then. A moment after I went into an independent journey. This was very meaningful, although we could just say that she went for a walk. What do we gain through such information? Thanks to it, we know that the participants grew away if they had a need to do so and that their plan of the day was not strictly specified and they were given the possibility to make a choice. The decisions were implied by the process of creative search. One of the attempts to describe my own creative process brings additional information about the walk. I sat down under the tree that was located a few minutes walk from home. During next few days I reached the mountains ridges by myself. I already knew what I have to give. I gave it a name for myself, but I did not know if I had inner strength, and if I will have it when I start doing it. I was collecting stones and plants. They were connected with the gift or action I was preparing, but each of them in a different way. Should the meaning be precisely recalled, as a part of later work in the room? Or should I regard it as to personal and suggestive contemplation about other meanings, about every one separately?

One day I was cleaning the staircase. There is a tall window in the landing with a view to a rocky peak in the north. Cleaning the staircase became somehow imbued with the feeling of love for those, who were here. And the view of the peak started having a special connection with my personal life, with someone dear to me, with my house. These two spaces overlapped one another. This was very important. After this line, other actions with the people in the room followed. However, you can say that nothing happens she is just cleaning the staircase and that it is not important and beyond creative work. In this space of a five-day common work, things paradoxically linked with each other into one whole, into intermingling set of possibilities, actions, clear experiences, thoughts, talks with yourself and with nature, short talks with others. One of the participants asked me to help her with wringing a duvet cover out, and it was also very special. It was something unusual. I experienced something new and understood something new about her, about myself, and people dear to me. Connecting with the process of action, in the spaces with remaining activities that seems to be everyday and uninteresting, and as the result of being submerged in the process of creative searching and opening for risky and unknown area of their work pointed by Rena Mirecka, all of them got equal importance. It caused, at least for myself, some kind of unusualness and raising everything that was happening to the metaphysical standard. That is why I think that the record should equally treat what happens in the different places and moments of the workshop. Would the description of the events in the way they occur to me as a participant and what they mean to me, be the most accurate description? The transmission of a logical whole that was used by my brain, from these events or maybe the record of random fragments, or few relations from different perspectives written by several people? My story always requires the choice that influences the shape of the whole. However, without participating in this work, it is impossible to grasp what is happening here, especially the unusual and important things. The participant does not see everything, but he sees it differently than an outside observer that is not present here. The participant is involved in it. What benefits does it give? Maybe, the participant can see how he looks for the sense and manifests it in a form. How could he describe it to say what he does. Would this be a multi-planned or coherent description that is connected with a general culture reflection, or would it be a description interrupted by citations, filtered by many, contradictory theories? Would it be directed at those, who know the phenomenon and for those that do not know it as well? What description contains a perspective of keeping and rendering the meaning of the phenomenon? Can a scientific transmission have a poetic form?