Author: Minerva Juolahti

a report by Ilse Ghekiere

1. CONTEXT: How do we work together (with conflict)

This report is the result of a lecture and a series of encounters which took place during the Moving in November festival in Helsinki 2019. The idea for these events came about in the aftermath of the publication of open letters concerning problematic working conditions and abuse of power in the Finnish dance field.

Having been involved in a lot of #metoo-related work in the Belgian dance field, I was invited by Kerstin Schroth to facilitate a four-day meeting we decided to call How do we work together (with conflict), a title inspired by experiences from the fieldwork done beforehand. The event was proposed as an open invitation to the performing arts field in Finland to come and speak about working conditions in an increasingly scattered industry.

The invitation posed the following questions:

Can we think together about how to better precarious working conditions? How do we create a respectful and productive working environment in a field where time, money, rehearsal space and touring opportunities are constantly limited? How can we voice and react towards incidents of abuse of power within productions? What kind of tools can we develop together?

2. LECTURE

How to address structural issues?

I first gave a lecture in which I introduced the work of Engagement, an artist-led movement tackling sexual harassment, sexism and power abuse in the Belgian arts field. The movement was shaped in the wake of the #metoo-movement and my lecture used the phenomena of sexual harassment to exemplify other professional issues in the field of the performing arts. When approaching any issue in our field, we need to take into account the structural level of the issue and ask ourselves: What are the (local/specific) conditions that allow these problems, often repeatedly, to occur?

In the case of #metoo and sexual harassment, the structural issue could be labeled ‘sexism’. When we want to analyse a structural problem, we need to analyse it on all levels: this includes listening to different voices and approaching the issues from different angles. Solutions are never singular and a plan of action will need to be implied on different levels in order for change to happen. Often this includes a much-needed shift in mentality or norms; a reconsidering of what is seen as ‘normal’.

In the context of Engagement this meant that the movement had to reach out to many different groups, such as artists, institutions, art schools and audiences as well as people who might have “crossed the line”. Addressing a structural issue is always complex work and might open larger questions that are not immediately related to the problem at hand. Addressing sexual harassment, for example, will often lead to questions about (local) art canons and what “artistic freedom” can be; about representation and lack of (gender) diversity; about power relationships within working environments and the field at large; about art education, etc.

We need languages and terminologies

Language is an important factor when we want to address structural challenges in our field. People might have a different understanding of what words mean and definitions are not always clear cut. How we define words and how we use them will also affect their meaning over time. It is important that we keep on discussing these terms and try to understand how they might relate to one another. In the case of #metoo-related incidents, we learnt that sexual harassment is related to sexism, but also to a larger force which we can call “abuse of power”

Below is a visual representation on how some of these terminologies can interrelate:

Make a risk analysis

To map issues in the field, we need to look at the general risk factors and psycho-social hazards specific to the performing arts. A list of some examples may look something like this:

• Small community: ‘everyone knows everyone’, rumours can have a great impact on someone’s career (importance of reputation), information is often passed informally (‘public secrets’)…
• Small organisations: family atmosphere, colleagues are often also friends, the boundaries between work and private life are not always clearly defined, informal moments in which agreements are made, not all artistic leaders are ‘people managers’
• Few alternatives: few jobs, limited subsidies, high competitively
• International scene: nomadic lifestyle, touring, affinities with the culture and language of the country you work in are helpful, resident status will affect precarity (issues with working permits, visa, etc…)
• Economic reality: short contracts, low wages, unfair (sometimes unofficial) payment, instability & insecurity, exploitation, artistic precarity
• Aura of art: subjective world, other rules apply, a field seen as ‘progressive’ (which is not always the case), a world of fame and prestige, ideas around ‘artistic genius’
• World of gatekeepers: the career of artists often relies on the support of certain people who are seen as ‘powerful’ in the field. The people in power sometimes subjectively pick up an artist (‘being the chosen one’). These (often random) dynamics might create strange forms of loyalty and dependency in the field.
• Professional bodies: transgression of physical/mental boundaries is seen as part of the job. As a performer you are expected to be passionate and dedicated, and trust the choreographer.

How do we recognize a toxic working environment?

If risk-factors such as the ones listed above are not taken into consideration (by employers or other people in charge) it can often lead to a toxic working environment. A working environment which has become, or is at risk of becoming toxic is often recognized by the presence of one or more of the following factors:

• General lack of transparency
• Informal communications (often spread as rumour)
• Strong hierarchy
• ‘Charismatic leader’ (e.g. the genius artist)
• Bystanders culture (colleagues notice issues, but no one speaks up)
• Lack of appreciation & favoritism (colleagues are treated differently and it is not clear why)
• Conflict, fear & tension (fights, screaming, not wanting to go to work, no trust in other colleagues)
• No transparency about fees
• Demanding work (can be both physically and psychologically)
• Absence of situations where collective discussion or agreement is possible
• No open environment in which people dare to raise questions (culture of silence)
• Lack of procedures or the existing procedures fail
• …

What can we do when problems, conflicts, or abusive behaviour occur in a working context?

• The options of how you can act depends entirely on the position you have within a professional context (company, institution, project, field). The more power you have, the more agency. However, people in power might not consider themselves as powerful.
• A problem can only be discussed if there is a context where one can talk openly. Ideally, an individual (or group of individuals) feels confident to put the problem on the table, then there needs to be a moment where all parties can express their position. Finally you come to a solution that addressed all parties. This is ‘conflict resolution’ at its best. However, situations are often much more complex and solutions might need an entire restructuring of an organisation and deep changes in patterns of behaviour. Such processes demand time, but also the willingness of all parties to go through this transformation.
• We discuss how a culture of silence might result in a call-out culture when situations have gone too far (which means that the problem is publicly shared). If people who are lower in the hierarchy have felt silenced for too long, this extreme approach might be their only option to voice their position. However, we need to be careful to not confuse ‘abuse’ with ‘conflict’. Call-out culture should remain the last option. If calling-out becomes an approach commonly used in the field, this is a sign that official structures (such as unions) are not in tune with the needs of artists.

Conflict is not abuse: why call-out culture can be counterproductive:

• Backpack of ‘freelance-frustrations

=> the precarity of the field might be a reason why people overreact

• Harm: doing harm is different than feeling harm:

=> everyone has the right to express how they feel, but this doesn’t mean that what the other person did was intentionally.

• People perceive situations differently and will react to them differently

=> you cannot compare people in how they perceive certain behaviour.

• Co-dependent relations can involuntary turn toxic

=> sometimes people don’t know that a situation is harming them when they are still in the situation.

• Unfairness is not injustice

=> always try to be precise. It is not ok if you are treated in a way that doesn’t feel fair, but maybe translating it to injustice might be an overreaction.

• Triggers

=> people might react more strongly due to past traumas.

• Specificity

=> a problem/conflict should be analysed as precise as possible, preferably with the help of an outsider (neutral person).

• How to be constructive with all parties involved?

=> sometimes the person who calls out the problem doesn’t want to talk. When there is no space for talking, it is difficult to find a solution. In some cases, there is no solution. The most constructive answer then might be that people stop working together.

• Focus on collective actions, solidarity, pleasure of activism

=> how do we shift the focus from an individual case to a larger action that addresses similar problems structurally? Maybe a problem can be solved by being part of a community? Artist communities become stronger if there is a collective agency.

Tools for organisations

There are many tools that organisations can employ, but a plan of action should always work on several levels.

The “Prevention Triangle” can be a helpful visualisation. As an organisation, the priority is your “quality governance”. This means that you create an environment where people feel seen, where they dare to speak up when problems arise, where they feel part of the work and motivated, etc.

The second layer is about prevention. This includes the actions and tools that you have set in place, so that certain behaviour or dynamics can be avoided. Set up a code of conduct, give the people you work with as much information as possible on paper (about who is who, their rights, clear agreements, etc), you can train one of your full-time employees to become a mediator, organise workshops that might benefit the work (e.g. non-violent communication, horizontal working methods, etc.)

At the top of the triangle you find the word “reaction”. If your governance in terms of quality and prevention is strong, you may never get to this point. But even if you don’t have the feeling that you need clear rules to be in place, it is good to make general decisions on how you will react when a problem occurs. You can for example decide that there is a zero-tolerance towards violence, or have a plan (or procedure) for when someone shares a complaint. Who is the person who will listen? Will it be written down in a report? Will you involve a mediator? How much time do you leave between these steps? How do you plan to follow up on the situation?

To recap:

• Create an open & transparent working environment
• Work on supportive group dynamics
• Encourage solidarity in group
• Code of conduct (agreements)
• Write a work statement
• Install fixed evaluation moments (all parties should be able to give feedback on working context)
• Be self-critical: educate yourself (e.g. ‘Non-violent communication’, Ethical/feminist leadership,..)
• Make space for apology. If needed invest in a mediator.
• Know your rights and provide info to the people you work with so that they also know theirs

 3. INPUT FROM CONVERSATIONS

Conversation with performers

The day after my lecture we organised a conversation between performers and tried to position the questions from the lecture in their individual and professional lives.

About fifteen artists were present during this conversation. All of them had worked as performers, while some also had other professional roles. One person describes herself as ‘dancer, artistic director, editor, choreographer, producer and board member union’ and added ‘this becomes complicated’.

Many spoke about the stress they felt as freelancers. The constant insecurity makes dance a precarious career path, even in Finland, which has a good grant system (in comparison to other countries). People are aware that there are labour laws but find it hard to think about safety in the context of the performing arts. Someone asks: ‘What are are unsafe working conditions in our field?’

There is a feeling that the field of the performing arts operates according to other logics, with hidden networks and informal rules.

A couple of performers shared very personal stories. One gave an example of body shaming during her dance education and spoke about how in society she feels looked down upon when mentioning that she is a dancer, because she doesn’t have a normative dance body. Some performers mention how being hard on yourself and on your body is something that feels like it just comes with the profession, and how this relation to one’s own body actually opens the door for other people (sometimes choreographers) to treat them badly. One dancer asked, “How do I explore my boundaries without hurting myself?”

Performers talk about witnessing situations in which their colleagues are treated badly. It is hard to intervene when you are low on the hierarchical ladder, so you become a bystander who doesn’t intervene. Sometimes this might be because you that you are not allowed (or that it is not your place) to speak up. There is often no transparency or introduction at the beginning of a project that gives you guidelines to understand your position. One performer says that it is also a matter of energy: you need emotional energy to dare to address the problem as a bystander. Sometimes projects can turn into emotional and explosive dramas and this is draining.

For many performers it is not clear where they can go to when they encounter psychological hazards in the field. Someone asks: ‘Where to go when you become the target of bullying in a company?’

There is a willingness to change certain behavioural patterns in the field. Someone says: ‘We need tools for dealing with conflict respectfully. How do we listen to different voices?’. Someone else says that even having this kind of peer-to-peer conversation is rare, but needed. It helps to listen to each other, to listen to people in similar situations, even if you don’t directly work with one another. Someone says: ‘How can we feel empowered instead of building up walls in order to survive?’

A structural problem that everyone agrees on is how to handle the life/work balance in the artistic field. Are there tools for this? Workshops?

Conversation with makers/people in charge

The second day, makers and people in charge were invited. About 25 people attended this meeting. Some worked in institutions, others in collectives, and some had mixed roles being both choreographers and performers. Many artists working in the freelance field are also their own producers.

One choreographer said: ‘When you are leading a creative process, it is hard to also be busy with how each individual feels.’ A returning question revolved around “priority”, especially when there is never enough time. What is given priority in an artistic project: artistic process or group dynamic?’ People expressed a collective need for tools to distinguish the social versus the professional aspects of the artistic work.

‘I used to be afraid of conflict, but it’s inevitable in an artistic creation’, said one younger choreographer. Questions that are formulated by the group were: How to be together in disagreement? How to build a code of conduct? What could guidelines for co-production look like? How do you reach everyone inside a project? What are tools for dialogue during a creative process?

One issue that was extensively discussed was alcohol and drugs abuse in a professional context. According to Finnish law it is illegal to be drunk when you work, but people mentioned several situations where their colleagues were either drunk or hungover. Someone said: ‘It is hard to bring it up, because often you are close to the person or you know that this person is going through something and you don’t want to make it worse. There also seems to be an image of “the romantic destructive artist” (often male) that is more often accepted rather than questioned.’

Several freelancers pointed towards a wide gap between people who work in institutions and people who struggle with finding their own funding for small projects. Agreements around co-productions for freelancers creates tension and competition in the field. People who work in the institutions were listening, but admitted that it is really difficult to be transparent about all facets of things like budgets, because different projects are not always so easy to compare. There was critique of the bigger institutions not always taking up responsibility for issues in the field. Someone said: ‘Many institutions say “we are open for dialogue”, but in reality they are not. Then they are surprised when they hear about problems in the field and wonder: why did no one say anything?’

Someone who works with production said: ‘I end up in the position as mediator when issues arrive in the freelance field, but I have never been trained for it.’ There seems to be a lack of competence to deal with complicated interpersonal dynamics.

One artistic director mentioned that since the 80’s, the Finnish dance scene always needed to fight for national agency (a higher dance education was not established until 1983). Women had to fight hard to build up structures. This generation often works differently from the younger generation. There are intergenerational challenges when it comes to working models (hierarchical vs democratic models).

Conversation with everyone

On the last day, everyone was invited, and around 10 people came. Most had attended the lecture or one of the other conversations.

Someone said: ‘Because of (unspoken) hierarchies in the field, abuse of power happens easily. We need to understand how we all contribute to bad working conditions. Everyone needs to be committed to change. How to empower everyone in the field?’

There seems to be a lack of clarity about who is responsible when: What is the responsibility of the employer versus the employee? How to balance this responsibility?

Some admitted that they might not have enough tools or even experience to face issues of accountability. We spoke about taking responsibility versus outsourcing responsibility. In many contexts there seems to be no clear protocol about procedures. Many expressed a need for outside structures to support people who want to speak up.

One person who teaches dance in a school mentioned that specific tools are also needed for an educational context.

Issues of group dynamics were raised again. Someone pointed out that different individuals (in an artistic project) have different needs: ‘How can we be supportive towards these differences without drowning in “emotional labour”? How to set boundaries when you are the type of person who easily takes up the caretaking role?’

We spoke about different economic statuses, resources and roles versus the efforts put into projects. Some said: ‘We should not take the financial status of people or even the institutional status for granted. Money seems to be a taboo-topic, while solidarity is needed. Where do we find support from colleagues?’

Working conditions for freelancers in the institutional context need to be drastically improved. A director of a festival wanted to think about the role of festivals they are organising. Especially bigger institutions should be an example of putting standards higher.

How do we nourish the relations between institutions and the freelance field? How do we redefine professional ethics in the performing arts?

There was an idea to adapt tools from the commercial field (e.g. tools for startups) to the art field.

4. PROPOSALS FOR PLAN OF ACTION

• Work/Life Balance

The performing arts exist largely out of freelancers experiencing their professional field as precarious, uncertain and stressful. Surveys could further document and map this particular aspect of the field, providing data and goal-oriented solutions. Workshops could be provided by unions/institutions to improve the work/life balance. On a structural level, measurements need to be taken to address the causes of this imbalance (see next point).

• Financial support

• • It is important that different types of funding are available for different kinds of artists, organisations and institutions. A diverse subsidised field will be economically stronger, which will lead to further professionalisation.
  • Bigger institutions could join forces by setting up a Fair Practice Payment Code in which correct payments are encouraged (e.g. Charter for Stage Artists in Flanders/BE)
  • Workshops could be provided by unions, bigger institutions or festivals discussing ‘entrepreneurship’ and its specifics in the performing arts.

• Socio-psychological hazards

• • Every working situation should have a version of a “code of conduct” in place. Workshops on how to design such written documents could be helpful.
  • Peer-to-peer support groups can empower freelancers to speak up collectively, so that collaborations with institutions and unions can be strengthened.
  • Workshops on consent & boundaries for performers/choreographers (e.g. Intimacy Coaching) might provide new tools for negotiation.
  • Mentor programs for young artists can help to exchange professional strategies.
  • Regular conversations on working ethics will ensure that the topic is not only “alive on paper”, but put into practice.
  • Develop (collectively) tools for conflict resolution and how to balance group dynamics.
  • Everyone in the field, especially freelancers should be informed about their rights. Procedures relating to the labour law that already exist should be common knowledge. Any person should know where to go when their rights are not respected. The basis of this information could be provided by the institutions (e.g. hanging up informative posters in dressing rooms).
  • The field needs a couple of trained mediators who can be consulted for free. These mediators could be linked to an institution or the union, so that a legal frame is in place.
  • Dialogue with unions concerning their role in the field is needed.

• Positions of power

• • The role of boards, especially in bigger companies, is not clear to performers. We need guidelines to improve the governance of boards and its communication with the organisation.
  • Not all artistic leaders are people managers. Workshops on ethical leadership and competence are needed. They can be helpful to both artistic directors and artists who independently lead projects.
  • Workshops on alternative or horizontal working structures while including the specific needs for an artistic process.
  • Moderated conversation about generational differences might clarify existing tensions.
  • Institutions and especially festivals can find ways of combining the artistic program with workshops and lectures, informing and inspiring the field on aspects that are more related to the professional side of the work.

 

Ilse Ghekiere is a performer, writer and activist. She studied dance at the Conservatory of Antwerp and art history at The Free University of Brussels. In 2017, she received a grant from the Flemish government to research sexism in the Belgian dance scene. Since the publication of her article #Wetoo: What Dancers Talk About When They Talk About Sexism in the fall of 2017, Ghekiere has continued to work with projects related to issues around abuse of power in the arts. She is also the initiator of ENGAGEMENT, an artist-led movement tackling sexual harassment, sexism and power abuse in the Belgian arts field. Ghekiere lives and works in Oslo and Brussels.

“Slowly growing old”, a phrase by artist and writer Tim Etchells*, streamed into my apartment during the lockdown of Paris. Three words that referred to the actual moment, a lived reality, they seemed to exactly express how I felt: namely trapped. But also pointing out that there is still movement, that time continues streaming. Describing what happens when the passing of time becomes painfully visible by observing our nearest surrounding. The thought of sitting at home, in a physical distance to everybody else in this world for the coming 10 years crossed my mind several times.

This standstill, watching the world close down, definitely created a different relation to the experience of time. And anticipated an already existing proposal for this year’s edition of Moving in November: the invitation to share other temporalities.

Let’s think of something that might feel a little utopian right now. Let’s imagine that in the fall, after this summer, we can come back together, meet in person in a theater space, maybe with some distance, but still. Even if the life we lived before countries started locking down seems not to exist right now, we can always think about how we would like to meet back in the present moment and especially in the future.

Despite all the restrictions and limitations of the past months, the experience of time as an unstoppable stream brought us to where we are now. Something that makes me think of a phrase by stage designer and artist Jozef Wouters from his project The Soft Layer, shown in the Medina of Tunis**: “…If the only imaginable future is the past, then where are we now?“

We would still like to invite you to a festival that proposes another sphere of time, another rhythm. We ask you to drop out of time and space. To make time, to give us your time, to join in with time, and change your sense and perception of time. This time within a festival context. Meeting artists and their artistic proposals that strongly integrate the questions of temporality and duration into their works, in relation to us spectators and our gaze. Proposals that reflect our world, the different realities the artists and we are living in.

We are also curious to look into the far future; how will artists be translating the current global Pandemic into their art works. A crisis we surely all experience and live in different ways.

For now, we wish you all a beautiful summer and hope to find you back healthy in the fall.

Kindly,

Kerstin Schroth and the team of Moving in November

 

*From: End meeting for all – Episode 2 by Forced Entertainment. Streamed online: 08.05.20

** Shown in the frame of the festival Dream City, 2019.

Some insights, thoughts, measurements, guidelines that are important to us.

Written in Helsinki and Paris between May 12 – June 15
By Kerstin Schroth and Isabel González

We started working together in the fall 2019. Getting to know each other and diving into the history of the festival. What it has been and what it could be. We talked about the dreams and visions we have and started imagining together the future of Moving in November.

We also evaluated what is important to us when working with artists, creating a festival, and working together. This is what we would like to share here with you:

Our thoughts, principles and guidelines we created for the festival and ourselves.

Moving in November is considered an established festival with a long and important history within Helsinki and Finland. The festival is also known among artists and contemporary dance and performance art communities in Europe.

Looking big from the outside, it is important to mention that the festival is acting and operating with very limited public funding. We have no fixed venue, and we work in collaboration with local venues and institutions. We are a very committed and enthusiastic but small team, and we highly value our independency.

Inviting and presenting works from abroad is mainly possible through the support from partners and culture institutions, and with the help of specific travel subsidies, designed with the clear purpose to make artistic works circulate within Europe and the world.*

Although expansion and growth are not a value in itself, we seek to increase and widen the festival’s diversity of actions, operations, productions and collaborations with artists both local and international and with its audience. The festival has a committed audience we strive to have a dialogue with and reach out to invite new people to the festival. We engage in a continuous reflection on the relationship between the festival, contemporary dance and performance, the city, its artist community and audience.

We believe in the power that art can generate change, on a political and societal level. We believe in the direct encounters between the artists, their artwork and the audience.

We would like to make the festival accessible for everybody and we do our best to offer special assistance. We work on this in close collaboration with our partner venues and organizations.
One of our important policies is, to keep ticket prices low and to offer a festival pass, that allows experiencing several performances with a small budget.

We work on identifying our prejudices and acknowledging our privileges. We acknowledge the intersectionality of discrimination and marginalization, and try to make space, speak up and voice out to support communities such as BIPOC  (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) and LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (or: queer), intersex).

But first and foremost, we promise to think closely when inviting artists and presenting performances in the frame of the festival. What kind of cultural and racial representations the performances have and what kind of values they mediate.

******

Time is an important resource in our world. We take time, to give time, for encounters and discussions, as much as to the unknown and unexpected. We acknowledge that some issues, development and concerns need time.

Within the festival, we present artists voicing their critical thinking, their visions, their experiences, their dreams, opening small windows to the world we are living in. Our motor, our pleasure, our passion is bringing people together to be affected, moved, challenged, stimulated and triggered by performing arts.

Moving in November takes usually place during a limited period of time each year. In combination with this short and intense explosion of festivity in the beginning of November, we now seek for ways of spilling the festival over its set time frame. This changes the role the festival has in the city of Helsinki and Finland in general, it enables new ways for collaboration with other arts organizations and allows us to support and follow artists in a continuous way. The festival is already spreading over different locations in the Helsinki metropolitan area through collaborations with different venues, but one of our goals is to find partners to work with in other parts of Finland as well.

We want to engage in supporting the local artistic scene and its development in a continuous way, throughout the year. First and foremost, by arranging a festival. By presenting various artistic initiatives, pieces, projects and current artistic thinking to the local scene. But we are seeking for other forms of supporting and developing the local art scene. We want to be in dialogue and strive to develop strong relations. Our support can take different shapes and it is developed together with the artists in question. Currently we are actively looking for ways to collaborate, advising and thinking along with some local artists. We think along on a content level and try to advise on productional and relational issues, as much as touring and funding possibilities, by using our networks and expertise, helping their development, to expand and broaden their artistic practice.

We like to be in dialogue and to develop strong relations.

The selection of each festival edition is an on-going process. As an independent structure we are able to be flexible. As much as we like to invest in long-term conversations, we also enjoy the ability to take last minute decisions, to go with the flow.

This process includes following artists and attending performances, but also having various conversations with artists. Reflecting together on their desire towards the festival and a possible collaboration. We work in close communication with the festival’s different partners* and reach out for new ones, which is closely connected to the evaluation and thinking of the best possible place and context for the presentation of each artistic initiative.

We are searching for more sustainable ways of presenting and producing contemporary dance and performance, using the existing connections and resources we have access to. We are aware that this is a slow process and something that we can’t change alone. We need help from funders and partners, as it is a question of finances. But it is something we stand for, defend and work on, on a practical and political level.

We think the encounters with artists and taking part in live-performances is highly important when making an international selection for a festival. Obviously this includes travelling which is not always possible by train, bike or foot. One of our strategies is to look around us, before travelling far. We work from Helsinki and from Paris, which gives a good foundation for this strategy.

Slow travelling is not always possible for everybody, but we discuss the possibilities closely with the artist and producers coming to the festival. We would like to give the opportunity to artists to stay for the entire festival (or even longer). It is our goal, and we try to find help and resources for that.

We strive to use local services (practical arrangements, food, housing, transport etc.) and search to collaborate with especially artist driven initiatives.

We search actively for alternatives to big corporate companies. We encourage the artists and institutions we are working with to do the same and question the way these companies are built and making their profit.

Our thoughts and principles that guide the work we do in the frame of the festival are an on-going process, we update and continue to explore, think and educate ourselves. We are open for suggestions, questioning and proposals.

An interview with Kerstin Schroth, the new artistic director of Moving in November festival, Helsinki, Finland. Done on April 9^th, 2020, during the lockdown.

How are the preparations of the festival going?

Luckily, we have started quite early with the preparations and a lot of decisions have already been made. I spent some time in Helsinki in the end of last year and in the beginning of this year getting to know the festival, artists, and partner organizations. I engaged in many conversations about the festival, sensed the atmosphere, and built bridges that allow us now to continue working from a distance.

I feel that the preparations of the festival are a life saver under the circumstances we are in right now. To continue thinking this first edition of my three-year term as the artistic director puts my concentration mostly elsewhere, allows me to think about the future and artistic content.

What are the leading questions that are reshaping the direction of the festival?

When I started to think about the festival while being present in Helsinki and getting to know everybody, the question of the local in relation to the international started to become more and more important for me. Moving in November has been a festival that brought first and foremost international artists to Helsinki and engaged each year in one local co-production together with the production house Zodiak. I am interested in questioning how a festival that has so far invited mainly contemporary art from abroad, can engage with the local artist scene in a stronger way. I would like to give space to the local art scene in an equal way as to the artists coming from abroad.

Another question that I have been busy with is the question of time and temporality. I like to play around with the notion of time. Giving time has been always an important factor in my working and private life. For this year’s edition I also looked for pieces that play with another temporality. Pieces that take place in other spaces than the classical black box and that propose another relation to the audience. The idea is to make space for pieces, that often fall out of the usual logics of festival programs, in terms of time, space and audience capacity.

The third working question for the festival appeared while taking part in the festival in 2019. I was present to get to know the team, meet artists, collaborators, people from partner organizations, as well as the audience of the festival. I wanted to observe and engage in conversations. A strong part of my practice as an artistic director is in being present, giving time, listening, and observing.

My attention during last year’s festival was strongly drawn towards the social aspect. I wondered why people so often left so quickly after the performances. Having gotten used to French habits, I was not used to that anymore. I took this observation as a starting point and got hooked to the area in-between the theater space and the outside world. How could the festival invite people to stay and how could we create a space where people would feel invited to have discussions and encounters also with the invited artists.

What is going to be different in the coming years?

I have been thinking about Moving in November and the role the festival could have in the city of Helsinki, in addition to the mission that it has already. Normally the festival takes place over a limited amount of time. In combination with this short and intense explosion of festivity, I’m interested in seeing the festival spilling over its set time frame.

I enjoy the thought that the festival appears from time to time in different forms throughout the year for example as a residency place, a space for mentoring, as a host of conferences, in collaboration with various partner organization and artists, both local and from abroad. As much as I like to see the festival spilling over time, I would also like to see it spreading even further over the city. We have started the conversation with potential new venues and organise performances in two new places already this year.

One direct change is that this year the festival will be working with a dramaturge for social choreography. I accidently had a very inspiring talk with choreographer Pietari Kärki during the festival last year about the social layer of Moving in November. I invited them to join the festival team this year to engage in a dialog with me on the question of the social. We are working especially on the idea of an invitation for the audience to inhabit the space between the theater and the outside world. In relation to this we are planning for example a series of conversations, the so-called Soup Talks, that will take place every mid-day in one of our festival venues.

Speaking about change, it is maybe important to mention that continuity is an integral aspect of my thinking. Especially regarding Moving in November, a festival I always cherished for its independent approach, for its close and very committed relations to artists. Of course, there will be changes because I’m another person and I bring another energy with me. But apart from this, we will continue to operate in this spirit and there will be a continuity regarding some of the artists that have been presented during the past years.

What have been your strategies for coping with the social isolation?

In the first week of the lockdown of Paris, I panicked about the whole situation and was totally paralysed. Somehow, I decided, that thinking from a moment to the next, from hour to hour, from one day to the other, would help me to find a new daily rhythm. It has been important to accept that there is something at the moment that concerns the whole world and that we have to find a strategy how to deal with it together.

My strategy for coping is to go out in the morning to have air and to run, so that I am able to sit and circle around in a small space the whole rest of the day. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that I’m in an extremely lucky situation because I have work to do. Working with an independent initiative like Moving in November allows us to take certain decisions later than bigger structures, to act in a more flexible way. We have been busy evaluating in which other ways we can support artists at the moment, knowing, that they are again one of the weakest links in the whole line.

It feels encouraging that the festival period is only in November, we might be so lucky to find each other back in a theater space, surrounded by artists and inspiring works.

The interview was held by Minerva Juolahti, the festivals’ new press and communication manager, who started working in the beginning of April. The interview took place on April 9^th, 2020.