#2 HOW WE STAY TOGETHER. ROLES AND RULES OF INTERACTION IN PARTICIPATION // YARYNA SHUMSKA, VIRA IBRIAMOVA-SYVORAKSHA, YEVHENIIA NESTEROVYCH

[00:00:05] – [00:00:32]. Anton Tkachuk: Welcome to the podcast “How We Stay Together” – about participatory practices in art. In this part, Yaryna Shumska, Vira Ibriamova-Syvoraksha, and Yevheniia Nesterovych give answers to the questions: why safety and trust are important in participatory practices, what are the roles and rules of the game here? And they also talk about how working with group dynamics has changed given the full-scale invasion.
[00:00:52] – [00:01:24]. Ye. N.: Participatory practices are procedural. They are much less visible than a sculpture, a theatrical performance or something that can be filmed, shown, and felt as a “job done.”
Do you have a feeling and fear of the fragility of this work? And what other fears in this process do you feel the most as an artist?
[00:01:24] – [00:02:52]. Ya. Sh.: I wouldn’t say about the fear of losing contact. It can be stronger on some occasions, we can support it, it also happens; that someone still writes and periodically sends their poems to be read. But in my experience, it was not that the community I was dealing with continued to work in the same combination. After all, we are talking about some of its territorial affiliations. And we all move somewhere, migrate – sometimes there is, sometimes not. But as for the humanity that is acquired, that we develop in ourselves during that joint action, then there is also fragility here. Especially when we talk about our context now; of course, this is a very delicate field. And here there is a significant specificity: what we can talk about and how to talk. But it’s not about fear. I think that fear is what will rather limit us, and here we still have to dare – and just listen to each other and work, and together focus on what we can do.
[00:02:53] – [00:05:08]. V. I.-S.: I have a fear — a fear of causing harm, especially now. We haven’t talked about the war, but I think we will. And in general, this fear existed even before the invasion. And I work with it to minimize it. I will explain why I have specifically this fear. We have already repeatedly mentioned that this is work with very subtle matters, with very subtle internal processes, psychological and physiological — at the level of the person himself and the level of communication, even non-verbal, of people in a group. It is always important to remember that there are these two ways of communication. And it is impossible to know all the undercurrents: how each of the participants can react to a certain situation, even to the tempo of the music, to the color of the marker, to the rustling of the paper. And this is very important. I now rewind the thought to the side of how to predict it – rather talk to people before [the day before] to understand what can hurt them, or through some very tactful questioning. In any case, it is about communication to the process. So there is a fear of harm. If it didn’t hurt, it’s already very good. And only then can those fragile internal processes be left fragile, because it is also a great value that it is so immeasurable, that it cannot be touched and cannot be explained with words – and nothing can be done with it from the outside; although you and I are talking about it today [laughs], and we will not be the only ones talking. Or, on the other hand, they [processes] can be thickened and made stronger. But, in my opinion, each of the participants chooses how he wants to proceed with it.
[00:05:10] – [00:06:42]. Ya. Sh.: For me, the challenge is that we are all different or the awareness of this fact. And for sure you can never predict how a person will react to something. We all react differently to different things. But why go far?! I know for myself: some banal things sometimes act as a trigger for me, bring me to tears, where it would seem, “God, what’s the point!?”. We just have to be careful. And, probably, the best thing is to remind one more time why we are here and for what purpose. And be prepared for such situations – where we hurt someone – may arise. This is unconscious: working in a group can cause this by itself. But [it is necessary] to be ready for it: and how to get out of it? I define it this way: I can’t keep fear to myself (because it will be a limiter, some kind of limit), but just be aware of [what can happen] and think about how to steer clear of such a situation, how to get out of it.
[00:06:43] – [00:07:32]. V. I.-S.: I want to add. For me personally, fear is like a motivator: that is, I am afraid of what I have to do so that this [what I am afraid of] does not happen. It seems to me that you [Yaryna] had a great thesis about readiness. That is, when this situation happens (after all, no one is immune from this), you are ready to accept it. So it’s about readiness, also partially about responsibility, because I, if globally, became the initiator of this. And for me it is also about honesty. I openly say: now there is such and such a situation with a person and “Let’s go through it together. Let’s get out of this together.”
[00:07:35] – [00:07:37]. Ya. Sh.: Honesty and sincerity.
[00:07:37] – [00:08:41]. V. I.-S.: Yes, yes. It’s about being prepared and honest in these situations. Here, it seems to me, as a work option, especially now — to talk that there may be such cases. And outline the scenario: if you [participant] feel certain processes inside, how can you react? This was a basic option for me even before the invasion: if you feel any internal resistance, even minimal, you can leave the circle, from the process, from the premises or just leave it alltogether if necessary. That is, to make yourself better by trying to listen to yourself, how it could be better. Therefore, it is always worth speaking up so that a person knows about his rights, options, what he can do. It is important.
[00:08:41] – [00:08:46]. Ye. N: Are these the rules of “safety protocol” in participatory practices?
[00:08:46] – [00:08:46]. V. I.-S.: Yes.
[00:08:46] – [00:09:21]. Ye. N: But sometimes it happens that we immediately understand that a controlled construction of dynamics will be needed. Maybe you will correct me, but for example, this year [2023] the Jam Factory deliberately chose such an inclusive approach and among the coaches in residence were artists from Ateliernormalno with Down syndrome.
How did you work with it in the group, Vira? How did it change the dynamics of work?
[00:09:22] – [00:10:48]. V. I.-S.: It was a colossal experience. And a big thank you to everyone who contributed, especially Ania. After all, in reality, it is also about maximum people-centeredness and maximum attention to each person who is, no matter how banal it sounds, here and now (because everyone changes a lot every day and changed then). And we had two processes: establishing a connection, contact between the residents, the trainers themselves, and the participants separately — and then we connected these two values. Therefore, there were many processes. And if it is very large-scale, then it is about maximum attention to a specific person. Then you can see her for real – and only after that establish some kind of contact, dialogue with her. And then go to a certain process: what do you want to do together? It took a lot of energy and time, it’s true, but it’s a very important experience.
[00:10:48] – [00:12:09]. Ye. N: When we talked about the participants until now, we always talked about them as a homogeneous community, to a greater or lesser extent. We say that everyone is different, but it’s still about community. And from my experience, observation and partial immersion in this year’s [2023] residence at the Jam Factory, I got the feeling that these are, so to speak, solo artists who gathered together at this residence with the desire to realize some of their creative intentions. Let’s talk, how do these participants solo? How do you work with these personalities? How do you perceive the group, the groups you work with? Because we talk about you as trainers or facilitators and as participants. How do you overcome this limit? How do you enter into this process? And is it really possible to be on an equal footing with the participants? Is it your task to create a “megaphone” for their voice, manifestation and action? How do you see it?
[00:12:10] – [00:14:55]. V. I.-S.: I am absolutely comfortable being, as it seems to me, on an equal footing. But let’s be honest: in fact, if we are already in these conditions when I am a trainer and they are participants, then I can approach equality (don’t pretend because it would be completely unfair), but to a large extent I cannot be with them one hundred percent the same; because we are already [before the beginning] in different conditions. And this should be remembered. And this is again about honesty. We have these rules of the game. And that’s absolutely okay. Therefore, I have a personal task as a coach — to remove myself from the position of an icebreaker, that I go forward, and everyone seems to contemplate or mirror me. So I’m constantly trying to change the point I’m at. Of course, I can be ahead, and everyone follows me: when, for example, I propose something – and people, if they respond, agree. I can then go back — and, on the contrary, others will lead. I can be on the sidelines, an observer, and people then make the rules, we can discuss it, and I come in later. Or – to be inside. And it seems to me that this is the value: no matter what, I will be a trainer. I will not be able to be completely equal with them, but I can give all participants this equality – when they are all absolutely equal to each other. And when we talk about our roles, interactions, there is also the question of what we call ourselves and the participants. It is important. I just used the term “trainer”. And we can often hear it in various tangential information fields. But I also really like the word “mediator”: it has more equality, and if it’s about equality, it has more breadth and opportunities for a person to get involved in what I’m talking about. I am just a guide.
[00:15:04] – [00:15:18]. Ye. N: To what extent is this an amplification of the community’s voice – this mediator a megaphone, an amplifier? Is that how it works? How is it going for you, Yaryna?
[00:15:19] – [00:17:32]. Ya. Sh.: I like the idea of ​​a guide, but not in the sense of leading forward, but of transferring something from one person to another – as a mediator, probably, that’s how I would define myself. On the one hand, yes, we try to be equal, but we are in different roles, that’s true. And hence also the question of responsibility: participating in the process, I cannot name myself or be one hundred percent the same participant as everyone else. I need to remain a side viewer. And the participants get involved here – they can give and, in the end, give their assessment of what is happening, but not everyone concentrates on it. And somewhere in me, I catch this moment that you must be ready and lend a [shoulder], and be a support to someone who will need it. Because we all strive to create this support, to support those who are next to us. But there must be constant awareness here because of the responsibility we bear in the process. But it cannot be about any kind of leadership or management, because then gradation immediately appears – higher, lower; we immediately find ourselves at different levels. If a ladder appears, from which someone starts waving and commanding, another level of subordination is immediately formed. And it is important for us to lay those bricks together – and grow together, see this horizon from a different angle together, strengthening each other.
[00:17:33] – [00:18:04]. V. I.-S.: I also thought about the fact that it is very interesting to observe such processes as happened this [2023] year in Lviv when already one of the participants wants to become a mediator (again, this is not a coach). Yaryna, have there been such cases in your practice? Have you seen when someone grows above the horizontal line of the group?
[00:18:05] – [00:18:52]. Ya. Sh.: Yes, it happens. In general, here I would talk about different roles because everyone has a different character: when we get used to each other and feel each other better, some other qualities begin to manifest. Sometimes they work for the plus, and sometimes they can even contribute something destructive. And for this, a mediator is precisely here: this is a person who must direct that energy in a common direction – otherwise we will lose what we worked on, what we built.
[00:18:53] – [00:19:40]. Ye. N: How much has the situation—working with these human dynamics within the group—changed with the full-scale invasion? It seemed to me, at least at the beginning of the full scale, that there was a very quick reactivity: people were very nervous and scared – and it was a very dangerous contact. Did you experience participatory practices in the first half of 2022? Can you trace the difference between this work and the full-scale invasion?
[00:19:41] – [00:21:06]. V. I.-S.: There is definitely a difference. Now every person in Ukraine (and even outside Ukraine) is in their state of being, which is understandable, but also has a completely different experience of living in this war. And what it is, we do not know. And this is also a very important point that should be discussed and communicated before starting any practices. After all, someone could not hear a single explosion at all – and just feel it internally, someone can lose their entire family or home because of the war… These are very, very different gradations – this should be constantly remembered. It is about a personal inner very different experience. But, I am more than sure, that the general social condition in which we are is imposed on him. It affects how things are going on the front. Our information bubble is very influential. And it has certain general vibes and moods. It is important to remember this and work with it, of course.
[00:21:08] – [00:22:35]. Ya. Sh.: The level of vulnerability has increased. The vocabulary has completely changed and the meaning of words familiar to us before has changed. And, as Vera said at the beginning, the less you say, the better. Sometimes you don’t know what you can say, what you can’t – and you concentrate a lot on choosing the right words. And the reactivity of society in general. In principle, it seems to me that Ukrainians are a bit like this: we don’t really give ourselves the right to make a mistake, everything has to be at the highest level at once, super classy, ​​super professional, as good as possible; it doesn’t happen here that an idea comes and you implement it immediately. This is where aggression comes from – there is no room for error. And it limits, but also forces you to concentrate more on what you say, how you say it, on the gestures you offer. It’s such a constant balancing act, and I’m trying to find that balance.
[00:22:44] – [00:24:09]. Ye. N: I also thought that the crisis period of the full-scale beginning was also a period of very drastic change of view and undermining of everything we knew about the world around us. This also applies to stereotypes, a set of stereotypes that a person usually does not even pay attention to daily; she does not consider them stereotypes but simply lives with them. But then, when some situation happens that turns everything upside down, it is just the moment to change such stereotypes, to see in a completely different way everything that is around you, the people who are nearby, what and where you can and what can’t you do This also applies to participatory practices as an opportunity to overcome stereotypes, as an opportunity, for example, to suddenly start singing or performing in adulthood, or to play in some other way – and express yourself.
How do you work with this as mediators? Do you put any special emphasis on it? Does it happen naturally through participatory practices?
[00:24:10] – [00:26:14]. V. I.-S.: In my practice after a full-scale invasion, I noticed that if we work in a group, people primarily work with themselves. If, before the invasion, this message, this need to unite in a group was either immediate or appeared quite quickly (after each person immersed himself in himself, then he had a thirst: “Yes, let’s unite!”), now I observe something else on my own experience. People want to be within themselves as much as possible because nothing is clear in themselves. And participatory practices actually help a lot in working with yourself. Often we can hear about their “therapeutic effect”, and now many people are enjoying it. It’s great, it’s a very cool tool to help in times of crisis. And only when people get a taste of it, they are like: “Yeah, well, there are groups here. We are not alone – let’s unite.” They are grouped. From my own experience, especially from summer singing classes in Chernihiv: people are very hurt. And if we have, for example, periodic meetings that last two hours, then this process of internal singing, when everyone tunes in, could last an hour and a half. And everyone says: “Now we need more time. Vira, please add more time.” Of course, I hear them, and so we do as they ask. But it was different before, for sure.
[00:26:15] – [00:27:12]. Ya. Sh.: I think it is important for us now in the current instability not to lose faith in ourselves. We believe in ourselves when we do something when it succeeds. And this is just an opportunity to rediscover something, to allow yourself something; it is probably also about allowing ourselves: whether to come and paint, come and sing. It’s not about demanding yourself, but about time to be with yourself. And if you are good with yourself, at least for a little bit, you will be better with others. Then maybe we will all be better off. It seems to me that this is the value of communities, collective work, being together — this inner self-permission.
[00:27:13] – [00:27:58]. V. I.-S.: I also wanted to mention the internal permission. For me, these [participatory] practices are especially important now, because they have such tools for personal inner deep work, for working in a group, when you are in contact with other people. And it’s about security. After all, now many people do not know whether these people can talk about their own here. When we go to these practices, we already understand a priori that it is safe there and it can be done there. I think it is valuable.
[00:28:13] – [00:28:38]. Ye. N: I think we can stop here with the questions (we have answered all the planned ones) and try to outline the terms that were discussed today. It is very important to talk about who the “mediator” is? It is important to talk about “participatory practices”. Try to make it a phrase (not a single sentence, but a phrase).
[00:28:39] – [00:29:07]. V. I.-S.: I will try. In my opinion, a mediator is a person who has mastered a certain kind of art or certain kinds of art and has knowledge of how to talk about this art or arts, how to show it – and how to lead into it.
[00:29:08] – [00:29:48]. Ya. Sh.: A mediator is a person who has a certain set of professional qualities and, sharing them, is oriented to co-create together with others. And a mediator is someone who shares, offers joint action as a starting point and is ready for what the current will lead next. Here we have point A, but we don’t know where it will all lead us.
[00:29:49] – [00:30:19]. V. I.-S.: Participatory practices, I think, can be defined now as artistic practices, where we and the participants create art together, on equal terms. That is, we have one starting point, we all leave from it. And we can have a result, but for me, the focus here is still on the process.
[00:30:19] – [00:31:09]. Ya. Sh.: Yes, in the very word “participant” there is an encoded particle “I join something”, and it seems to me that it defines itself quite clearly. Participatory practices are when you agree to be part of something bigger. You have the opportunity to completely fulfill yourself, your interests, your desires, but at the same time be attentive to those around you and remember that you are a part of this team. And our goal is the life of this organism. Then, it seems to me, that everything becomes both simple and good, and we can make discoveries together.
[00:31:12] – [00:31:40]. Ye. N: I thank you for today’s conversation. We were accompanied by Vira Ibriamova-Syvoraksha and Yaryna Shumska – artists, mediators who work in participatory art. And it was the podcast “How We Are Together”, created with the support of the Magic Сarpets project, co-financed by the European Union program “Creative Europe” and the Harald Binder Cultural Enterprises Foundation.
[00:31:40] – [00:31:41]. Ya. Sh.: Thank you very much.