Alessia Zanchetta (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)

Daniel Favier (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)

Elisabetta Bisaro (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)

Hazel Hodgins (Dance Ireland)

Janice McAdam (Dance Ireland)

Jeanette Keane (Dance Ireland)

Kerstin Evert (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)

Kristin de Groot (Dansateliers Rotterdam)

Merel Heering (Dansateliers Rotterdam)

Roberto Cassarotto (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)

Roberto Cinconze (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)

Ulrike Steffel (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)

Valentina Toth (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance)

GUEST LECTURERS:

Annette Nugent, Arts Marketing Consultant

Karen Hand, Social Psychologist and Brand Strategist

Eoghan Nolan, Creative Director and Copywriter, Brand Artillery/Think & Son

What are we talking about?

A strategy can be defined as a cunning plan (to achieve specific aims); communication as the imparting or exchanging information by writing, talking, visuals or some other medium, and contemporary dance?  That’s where we got a bit stuck.  A room full of experts in the area found it difficult to offer a concise definition, without describing what it is not.  This was an interesting starting point for our discussions, and highlighted just how big the communication gap potentially is between the artist/organisation and the general public.

What did we learn?

Creativity and commerce are lovers, and communication is their match-maker.  Once we accepted the role of commerce in the arts, it opened us up to using words like ‘brand’, ‘product’, ‘sell’ and ‘market research’, which actually made it easier to talk about communication in the arts context.  We needed to accept that if we wish to communicate a piece of work, we do wish to ‘sell’ it (which may or may not involve monetary benefit).  This requires a certain mind-frame while also acknowledging that adopting this mind-frame when needed does not have to compromise or undermine the artistic integrity – if done well, it just broadens the reach and impact of the art object, which is a good thing for the work and the art form as a whole.

What will we do?

A number of important ideas were started at the Dublin meeting.  The two that we will keep central for the continuing meetings to explore further were:

Road-mapping the process of the artist, and all of the different stakeholders they encounter along the way: identifying who needs to know what, and when (it sounds simple – it wasn’t!).

A vision for the future – if we know where we collectively would like to go in terms of a big vision for the communication of contemporary dance, from the individual artist to the dance organisations and venues, to the audiences and funders, we can then make steps to get there, and it opens up the possibilities for making sure we have the right supports in place to achieve these goals.  The vision we came up with will be tested over the year with a wider group of stakeholders.

One of the items included in our vision was that there would be a known understanding in the wider world of what contemporary dance is.  So we will also work this year on an accessible, understandable definition which we can agree on as a starting point.

Alessia Zanchetta (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)
Elisabetta Bisaro (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Hazel Hodgins (Dance Ireland)
Janice McAdam (Dance Ireland)
Jeanette Keane (Dance Ireland)
Kerstin Evert (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Jenny Beyer (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Kristin de Groot (Dansateliers Rotterdam)
Lody Meijer (Dansateliers Rotterdam)
Merel Heering (Dansateliers Rotterdam)
Peggy Olislaegers (moderator)
Roberto Cassarotto (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)
Roberto Cinconze (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)
Mirna Žagar (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance, Zagreb)

Guests/participants
Agnese Rosati (creative producer)
Alexis Vassiliou (Dancehouse  Lemesos)
Cecilia Moisio (choreographer)
Dario Tortorelli (choreographer)
Dave Schwab (programmer City Theatre Rotterdam)
Giulio d’Anna (choreographer)
Hiskia Linnenkamp (marketer)
Joriene Blom (creative producer)
Lana Coporda (choreographer)
Leonie Clement (programmer Festival Cement)
Lisa Wiegel (programmer Brakke Grond)
Rainer Hofmann (programmer Spring performing arts festival )

Resume Rotterdam residency 360-BSCD February 22-24, 2017

What are we talking about?

In discussing the slippery concept of an authentic narrative and the even more elusive concept of something as unique as an individual’s artistic fingerprint, many questions were raised. Some of these included:
How do choreographers articulate their practice and what do they want to be co-responsible for?  How do artists make themselves available?  
What is at the heart of their practice, and how can this be expressed beyond their artistic medium?
How can they define their values and interests?
How do they deal with and manage expectations?
How does dialogue sharpen their thinking?
What is the role of invitation and seduction?
These questions were also asked other dance professionals, such as programmers, creative producers, dramaturges and artistic directors to reflect upon. There was a lot of discussion about how the dialogue between programmer/artist/director and the communication person/department is of vital importance to feed in on an authentic narrative. In addition, we discovered that being clear in what you can offer and what you cannot offer, as well as trust, are traits we all value very much.

What did we learn?

1. Good communication often starts off from a personal and direct connection.
2. Common ground is of crucial importance for a communication process to become successful.
3. Agreeing on and sharing values and principals as well.
4. Stating the obvious is helpful to not create elephants in the room and to prevent creating false expectations.
5. Communication is not only verbal, a physical approach can also be as valuable and effective.

This has led us to think that not only does the art form need a vision for the future, but also the individual artist needs a vision and a mission statement, which connects directly to fingerprint and essence and the core of an artistic practice.

What will we do?

Following this work session, we will expand our framing of the project to include questions that are applicable not only for dance artists, but also for programmers, communication people, dramaturges and directors. We will continue to unpack the nuances of the understanding of various terms, and acknowledge that meanings and definitions are not common across all contexts or for all artists.
The information gathered over these days will be implemented in the road maps that we began in Dublin. Who needs to know what, and when and how and which communication tools/means then do we apply. 

What else?

Do we use the words dance and choreography often enough? Are we explicit enough about the value and strength of our art form? Or do we want to explain ourselves maybe just a little too much and by doing so unconsciously undermine the meaning of dance and choreography? Considering politics and the position of dance across Europe, we may have to use these words more often and with more conviction. More about this later!

Hazel Hodgins (Dance Ireland )
Jeanette Keane (Dance Ireland )
Roberto Casarotto (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)
Alessia Zanchetta (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)
Roberto Cinconze (Centro per la Scena Contemporane, Bassano del Grappa)
Kerstin Evert (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Uta Meyer (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Elisabetta Bisaro (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Daniel Favier (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Pascale Pommat (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Cecile Vernadat (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Laurence Moreau (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Ayakan Duku (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Valentina Toth (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance)
Nina Kunek (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance)
Mirna Žagar (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance)
Kristin de Groot (Dansateliers Rotterdam)
Merel Heering (Dansateliers Rotterdam)
Annette Nugent (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Aoife McAtamney (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Lionel Avignon (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Christian Ubl (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)

What are we talking about?
This session centred around one main question: How do we make dance (more) relevant?

“The function of relevance is to create a connection between a person and a thing. […] Our work matters when it matters to people”, that’s one of the definitions of the word ‘relevance’ by Nina Simon included in her book The art of relevance.
Do we know who we want to make our work more relevant to?
Do we know for whom it is already relevant: who are our insiders and our outsiders?
What are the risks of only serving our insiders? What are the long-term risks of only serving outsiders?
How do we identify who we want to reach? How can we communicate well beyond words? How can we be relevant to our colleagues and collaborators?
How can our work be more vital to our community/communities and, ultimately, to our society?

What did we learn?

On communication in general:

• Honesty in communication is vital: do not mislead people; give them instead a reason to go see a show/engage in a project and help them take a risk
• Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious - always check in: what is the voice of the project? Who is it for? What is the position we are taking? What is our common ground?
• Not all the people are the same or share the same attitudes, opinions and motivations about the arts
• People’s differing attitudes, opinions and motivations shape behaviour: it can show how and why people are likely to engage with the arts
• Thinking about audiences early in the process will help ensure we do not accidentally put up barriers to who we want to reach with a show or a programme
• In defining audience segments, our primary goal should be to identify a group of people who share a common need that our organisation or project can satisfy
• Segmenting audiences will save money and time!
• It is important that we get people onto the same page, especially regarding what we want to achieve.

On non-verbal communication:

• Words, images, posters, videos, sound are all filters between an artist/institution and the public: they should illuminate not obscure a work!
• You can always find a photographer you can afford!
• Designers and photographers should be part of the creative process from the beginning.

Culture connects people: if we can show that culture produces empathy, we can scale it up to prove that culture makes our society more empathic. Consider the implications for documenting, measuring and evaluation arts’ public impact.

What will we do?
We will develop an online tool that includes a roadmap and a glossary. The glossary will be composed of a list of 10 key words: audience, dialogue, translation, relevance, identity, documentation, collaboration, trust, communication and evaluation. Each of these words condenses many of the discussions and concerns shared in this project’s process. Each of them will lead to theoretical and practical content developed by and for artists, programmers and other cultural stakeholders over the next two working sessions. We aim to create a final tool that can be as informative as its user requires it to be.

Hazel Hodgins (Dance Ireland)
Jeanette Keane (Dance Ireland)
Roberto Casarotto (Centro per la Scena Contemporanea, Bassano del Grappa)
Alessia Zanchetta (Centro per la Scena Contemporanea, Bassano del Grappa)
Roberto Cinconze (Centro per la Scena Contemporanea, Bassano del Grappa)
Kerstin Evert (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Jenny Beyer (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Uta Meyer (K3 – Zentrum für Choreopraphie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Elisabetta Bisaro (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Daniel Favier (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Valentina Toth (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance (HIPP), Zagreb)
Mirna Žagar (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance (HIPP), Zagreb)
Kristin de Groot (Dansateliers, Rotterdam)
Merel Heering (Dansateliers, Rotterdam)
Lody Meijer (Dansateliers, Rotterdam)
Peggy Olislaegers (Dramaturge and Panel Moderator)
Carla Pelusio (Local B&B Owner)
Stefania Cadore (Local Retailer)
Giovanni Fanton (Teacher)
Sabrina Venzo (Lawyer)
Claudio Brunello (Artist)
Federico Faggion (Manager - Center for people with disabilities)
Giovanni Cunico (Counsellor, Bassano del Grappa)

What are we talking about?
Over the three days, we focused on being close to audiences to observe, share, discuss, test ways to inform and engage them about dance.
We asked: Who are the spectators of contemporary dance today? Through a panel discussion dance audience members of varied backgrounds shared what they appreciate and what they feel as a discomfort when they see dance. As they see more dance, they recognised that they have evolved as audience members, and opened their eyes and their minds about what they see, need, and feel towards the art of dance. 

In the end, they recognised that they not only to have more respect for the work of the choreographer and the dancer, but also to defend it from prejudices and ‘distracted’ spectators. They shared how they are learning to give language to their thoughts about dance and to their feedback and also how they can share their passion for dance with others.

Being part of an intensive programme of dance events and performances at B Motion offered the possibility to encounter other dance professionals and artists active in diverse and international contexts, and to test, with some of them, our interactive communication tool, as well as some of the questions that have arisen so far in the journey of this project.

What did we learn?

It is difficult for an artist to sometimes understand the mission and vision of an institution, of a programmer, and their expectations, they seem not to be always communicated, verbalised and clarified.

What do people active in dance need? What is required by the system?

From the experience of many artists nowadays one idea often generates many different outcomes or projects.

The linear time-framed set of the roadmap did not reflect the way many dance artists envision and describe their strategies and practices.  Instead the tool should be interactive, flexible and practical!

Some artists cannot afford to employ staff members and therefore often deal themselves and alone with the needs of applying several competences and duties/roles.  With that in mind, the outline of the map is quite realistic but the question is who does what? And who makes sure that we are on track?

From the perspective of a very early career maker, there is a big difference between the commissioned work, with allocated resources, and the independent scene where some creative processes are being developed without secured resources.

The premiere of a production is not the end of a process, performances need to grow by being performed, being adjusted, and keep growing.

What will we do?
The information gathered in Bassano del Grappa highlighted the necessity to develop the idea of a more flexible, non-linear and interactive tool and prepare it for other testing opportunities.

Hazel Hodgins (Dance Ireland)
Jeanette Keane (Dance Ireland)
Roberto Casarotto (Centro per la Scena Contemporanea, Bassano del Grappa)
Alessia Zanchetta (Centro per la Scena Contemporanea, Bassano del Grappa)
Roberto Cinconze (Centro per la Scena Contemporanea, Bassano del Grappa)
Kerstin Evert (K3 – Zentrum für Choreographie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Uta Meyer (K3 – Zentrum für Choreographie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Ulrike Steffel (K3 – Zentrum für Choreographie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Jenny Beyer (K3 – Zentrum für Choreographie | Tanzplan Hamburg)
Elisabetta Bisaro (La Briqueterie – Centre du développement chorégraphique national du Val-de-Marne)
Valentina Toth (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance)
Nina Kunek (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance)
Mirna Žagar (Croatian Institute for Movement and Dance)
Lody Meijer (Dansateliers Rotterdam)
Merel Heering (Dansateliers Rotterdam)

What are we talking about?

Originally for this meeting we planned to speak about online communication tools and their uses. However, due to the dense discussions of the previous four work sessions which already addressed different aspects of online communication, we decided to use this session to develop and test the outcomes of the project to date. 

We split into two working groups to accommodate the work on the different outputs generated.  One working group discussed the content of the publication and worked on the editing of this text. The second working group developed a plan and a structure for practical and useful tips that are essential for dance professionals to know when dealing with communication and PR experts, and discussed an appropriate digital design to deal with all of our different types of content.

In addition to working in two groups we invited 14 dance professionals (choreographers, dramaturgs, communication experts, curators, productions managers, journalists) to test a first draft of a modular map that is designed to help choreographers to develop a communication plan as an integral part of their artistic work plan and production process – but also to view this process as fluid and enjoyable.

What did we learn?
The feedback of the test session with a group of dance professionals showed that on one hand the questions and topics we discussed and developed throughout the first four working sessions are issues that many professionals in contemporary dance are aware of and are dealing with in their daily practices. We learned from the group that we were in fact developing a tool that can be playful, almost a communication ‘game’, that can help dance professionals to communicate with a 360 degree perspective throughout their processes, as well as allowing them to visualise this plan in a flexible way as their projects evolve.

What will we do?
Following the highly encouraging feedback of the test session participants we decided to continue developing the structure and organisation of the information we have generated on our website.

The content of this website will consist of three parts:

Think:  A text which examines key words we identified on our journey that are crucial for successful communication in the field of contemporary dance. 
Use:  A collection of practical and useable essential information on press and marketing issues
Play:  A modular tool that inspires choreographers and dance professionals to create their own communication plan.

The launch of the online publication with the title 360° – Communicating Dance is planned for the second half of December 2017 and will be live at www.communicatingdance.eu.