conversations in ten questions 6 : Delphine Ciavaldini (Feydra Tonnerre Production) - Prendre dates
In this series of interviews we try to get to know the directors/choreographers who will be the international guests at the 23rd Istanbul Theatre Festival in November 2019. Our sixth guest is Delphine Ciavaldini.
Ayse Draz & Mehmet Kerem Ozel
Art Unlimited Performing Arts Editor & Writer
[The Turkish translation of this interview is published and can be accessed on art.unlimited]
What is the spirit of theatre in your opinion? How do you define contemporary theatre today?
I would say the spirit of theatre comes from the necessity of catharsis. The unlimited number of issues devouring human condition counts as so many topics theatre can embrace. The translation of these issues into stage language allows for symbols, images and metaphors to occur. With these figures, the spectator’s imagination co-creates an additional mental and emotional space in which previous certitudes can be questioned. Theatre’s live performance is an intellectual and sensitive process that simply feeds perspective. I don’t have a definition for contemporary theatre. I feel the spirit you questioned me about can take as many forms as the world calls for (that is currently very many).
Do you believe in the transformative power of art? How?
Art allows for this additional-transitional mental and emotional space I was telling you about. When you consider a piece of art that is a good piece of art, what you consider is not what the piece strictly contains but the movement it allows in you. How you can re assess what surrounds you and what takes place within you. The entire history of art is about questioning and re assessing perspective in a broad sense. So yes, I do believe art ‘s high vocation is transformation!
When you consider the current state of the world in every sense, what is the most important and urgent issue for you as an artist?
Again, reassessing perspective. It doesn’t seem domination and oppression of people and nature has done such a good job so far.
When you are working on a piece, what sources inspire you? Do dreams play a role in your works?
I don’t have any specific source of inspiration apart from trying to be thinking and feeling part of my time. I simply try to make sense of what I can grasp. I feel this takes place in a sort of awake-dream when consciousness inhabits a slightly different frequency where I am detached and profoundly embodied at the same time.
When do you decide to give a title to a work you are working on if it already does not have one?
Titles have a life of their own. I have no idea what logic they obey. It seems they come from an unruly place where time and origin are mysterious.
What’s your favourite line (or moment) in this performance, and why?
My favourite moment in this performance is highly tragic. Serge Renko, speaking the words of Mathieu Riboulet, refers to the Second World War and human obsession for absolute wreckage. This is where the idea of art as transformation and reassessing perspective seriously comes in as an imperious necessity.
What is the relationship of theatre to history?
Concomitant, inquisitive, contradictory, complementary and possibly ambivalent.
Who do you trust more, a historian or an artist?
I guess they are more complementary than antagonistic, whether they were rigorously independent or served a given power. Either way they give a perception of what they felt and thought or what they wanted the public to feel and think. Both ways, they give an insight on a specific period of time.
Who has better insight for the future, an artist or an historian?
I am not sure they would speak about exactly the same thing. It seems the historian might have a more political perspective and the artist a more sensitive or metaphoric one. They again might be complementary but I don’t know that one should be considered better than the other.
Is there anything in particular you want to tell people before they see this show?
Is there anything particular you would like to tell the Istanbul audience? Most members of the team working on this project were in Paris when the killings occurred. Some of us were just a few streets away. What happened questioned so many aspects of our daily lives that it was difficult to find a way to apprehend it beyond shock. When "Prendre dates" (Taking Stock) was written, it was the first literal production that gave a personal testimony with a political and historical analysis from both writers. The words of their personal emotional and intellectual perspectives combined gave us means to apprehend the issues for ourselves. When we worked on the stage version, we chose to integrate everyone that had taken part in these terrible days. The passers-by, the victims, the president, the journalists and the terrorists were all us. We thought we would not split the world. We play so our world does not split.
Ayse Draz & Mehmet Kerem Ozel
Art Unlimited Performing Arts Editor & Writer
[The Turkish translation of this interview is published and can be accessed on art.unlimited]
Delphine Ciavaldini (Photo: Zoé Forget)
What is the spirit of theatre in your opinion? How do you define contemporary theatre today?
I would say the spirit of theatre comes from the necessity of catharsis. The unlimited number of issues devouring human condition counts as so many topics theatre can embrace. The translation of these issues into stage language allows for symbols, images and metaphors to occur. With these figures, the spectator’s imagination co-creates an additional mental and emotional space in which previous certitudes can be questioned. Theatre’s live performance is an intellectual and sensitive process that simply feeds perspective. I don’t have a definition for contemporary theatre. I feel the spirit you questioned me about can take as many forms as the world calls for (that is currently very many).
Do you believe in the transformative power of art? How?
Art allows for this additional-transitional mental and emotional space I was telling you about. When you consider a piece of art that is a good piece of art, what you consider is not what the piece strictly contains but the movement it allows in you. How you can re assess what surrounds you and what takes place within you. The entire history of art is about questioning and re assessing perspective in a broad sense. So yes, I do believe art ‘s high vocation is transformation!
When you consider the current state of the world in every sense, what is the most important and urgent issue for you as an artist?
Again, reassessing perspective. It doesn’t seem domination and oppression of people and nature has done such a good job so far.
When you are working on a piece, what sources inspire you? Do dreams play a role in your works?
I don’t have any specific source of inspiration apart from trying to be thinking and feeling part of my time. I simply try to make sense of what I can grasp. I feel this takes place in a sort of awake-dream when consciousness inhabits a slightly different frequency where I am detached and profoundly embodied at the same time.
When do you decide to give a title to a work you are working on if it already does not have one?
Titles have a life of their own. I have no idea what logic they obey. It seems they come from an unruly place where time and origin are mysterious.
What’s your favourite line (or moment) in this performance, and why?
My favourite moment in this performance is highly tragic. Serge Renko, speaking the words of Mathieu Riboulet, refers to the Second World War and human obsession for absolute wreckage. This is where the idea of art as transformation and reassessing perspective seriously comes in as an imperious necessity.
What is the relationship of theatre to history?
Concomitant, inquisitive, contradictory, complementary and possibly ambivalent.
Who do you trust more, a historian or an artist?
I guess they are more complementary than antagonistic, whether they were rigorously independent or served a given power. Either way they give a perception of what they felt and thought or what they wanted the public to feel and think. Both ways, they give an insight on a specific period of time.
Who has better insight for the future, an artist or an historian?
I am not sure they would speak about exactly the same thing. It seems the historian might have a more political perspective and the artist a more sensitive or metaphoric one. They again might be complementary but I don’t know that one should be considered better than the other.
Is there anything in particular you want to tell people before they see this show?
Is there anything particular you would like to tell the Istanbul audience? Most members of the team working on this project were in Paris when the killings occurred. Some of us were just a few streets away. What happened questioned so many aspects of our daily lives that it was difficult to find a way to apprehend it beyond shock. When "Prendre dates" (Taking Stock) was written, it was the first literal production that gave a personal testimony with a political and historical analysis from both writers. The words of their personal emotional and intellectual perspectives combined gave us means to apprehend the issues for ourselves. When we worked on the stage version, we chose to integrate everyone that had taken part in these terrible days. The passers-by, the victims, the president, the journalists and the terrorists were all us. We thought we would not split the world. We play so our world does not split.
Comments
Post a Comment