‘Esitys’ sanan kääntämisestä

Artikkelini “Mistä puhumme kun puhumme ‘esityksestä’? ‘Esitys’ -sanan merkityksestä ja kääntämisestä” on julkaistu niin&näin lehdessä 1/19.

Jutun voi lukea täältä




For the SAR conference in Zürich this year, we proposed expanding the Long Table format with objects and actions. Given our past experiences in this conference, we also convened to create a structure that would both introduce our project and propose ways into the format through actions.

Annette began by introducing the project, followed by Hanna proposing the rules of the interaction, specifically that we wished for a constructive, critical arrangement, with action as well as discussion, but that was respectful of each other in the spirit of the Long Table ‘dinner party’ format. Next, Pilvi brought several different kinds of objects, with different kinds of materialities, to the table with her statement:


The format, as Split Britches describes it, already allows for written or drawn commentary. We had printed our questions to turn them into objects, too, and these got spread around the table:


After Annette read her proposal and set up her video projection at one end of the table, Tero described his action in which he read a text placed in a shredder that would be turned on either after one minute or after Hanna had thrown three sixes on a D6. In our tests, the one minute had always passed before Hanna managed to throw a six three times, but the performance of course proved to be different. The shredded paper became an object-pile on the table, malleable, incoherent, fragmented text.

This mess later provoked one of our guest artists to ask who will clean the space, alluding to how low-income and precarious work is often performed by immigrant labour and is gendered – here, as Tero pointed out, the artist cleans the mess they make. A conversation that could have been about politics of precarity in the art world did not emerge, perhaps because as members of SAR attending an international conference we were all too privileged to notice this.

The second time a conversation emerged was after Hanna told a story around the Russian doll Pilvi then exposed as someone else’s property she had not yet returned. This conversation connected to earlier discussions on voice and giving voice in performance, but once again, the long table format somehow kept the discussion to such a level of politeness the contents remained rather shallow nods towards identity politics. Perhaps no conversation of this kind amongst a random selection of participants can arise without specificity of focus that would, in advance, limit the scope or topic to a degree of clarity necessary for any in-depth argument. In this instance, the allusions to earlier conversations certainly did not help us achieve coherence.

In the third moment of conversation, which already turned towards the metatextual level of the arrangement, Annette pointed to how citations had functioned in a previous instance of a long table she had attended. This, like the above questions about privilege and focus, turned the discussion also to how, by bringing in objects and other materialities than conversation (spoken or written), we had made the performance more of a performance. There was, in effect, relatively little said during the one hour of discussion, whereas objects moved a lot, provoking drawing, tracing, illustration, and movement. Some of the participants even turned the chairs around the long table into moveable objects, marked with post-it stickers, shifted and piled in what momentarily became almost a competitive re-arrangement of the space within the circle of chairs for the audience.

Nobody sang, but a musician working with improvisation made a sound-art piece from the black balloon and microphone. At one point, the moderator immoderately threw the kiwi birds that sang in our Plymouth SAR performance at the window in what was probably the most violent act and the sole instance of someone actively disobeying the rules read at the beginning.


In the Q/A led by the moderator, perhaps the most interesting discussion was what made the performance a performance. The focus was on the issues of sharing practices across interdisciplinary and methodological gaps that the call for papers for this conference also raised. Afterwards, as we were cleaning the space, one of our invited artists apologised for not having joined in, because they found the objects alien to their practice. They suggested we should have filmed the performance, because that was what they saw it as being, and analysed what we might not have seen by participating. However, as this performance was also a rehearsal for something already planned for the summer, perhaps it pointed to what needs be fixed and the gaps that have to be minded in participatory acts, especially if we do wish to bring uncomfortable differences to the table.

Thank you all for joining to Research Day IV!

Again, we had a great and interesting Research Day with multiple forms of presentations and viewpoints to the topic, performance and feminism. Thank you for all presenters as well as to the audience! The link for video documentations will be published here as soon as we get them edited.

The keynote Irin van der Tuin was really inspiring! Read an interview of her here.

Research Day IV with Iris Van der Tuin 20 March – program

The program for the Research Day IV Performance and Feminism with Iris Van der Tuin on March 20 is now published:

10-10.10. Auditorium 1. Opening and Welcome. Annette Arlander

10.10-11.30 Iris Van der Tuin: “Doing in feminist research in the algorithmic condition”


Pilvi Porkola:“Situated knowledges – Artistic research and feminism”

Hanna Järvinen:“Intersectional Histories, or Decolonize Your Canon.”

Tero Nauha: “Some feminist strategies of the Polish avant-garde”

Annette Arlander: “Revisiting the Rusty Ring – ecofeminism today?”

13.00-13.45 Lunch (at your own expense)

13.45-14.45 Room 525 moderator Hanna Järvinen

Tanja Tiekso:“Listening Batsheba”

Zhenya Mukha: “Documentary puppet performance as an attention-getting mechanism to the problem of LBT women in the North Caucasus of Russia.”

Katie Lee Dunbar:“And I still want to work in demolition – Classism from a femme queer feminist perspective”

(14.45-15.00 Coffee Break)

15.00-16.00 Room 525 moderator Pilvi Porkola

Kim Modig and Marina Valle Noronha: Performing professionalism: Why do we travel for art and what does it do to us?

Minna Harri: “How time shapes us, how we shape time”

Lim Paik Yin: In[formal] Interchange

(16.00-16.15 Coffee Break)

16.15-17.30 auditorium 1 moderator Tero Nauha

Elina Saloranta:“Correspondence with the past”

CRI (Teresa Albor, Lara Bufford, Moa Johansson):“CRI” (via skype)

Amble Skuse: “Balancing Act” (via skype)

Grace and Grace and Grace: “Louise” (via skype)

Louise Vind Nielsen: “Tongue reads Philomela”

17.30-18.00 Discussion, moderator Annette Arlander

The day is free and open for all, welcome! We would like you to register in advance, however. For updates and registration, se here https://www.uniarts.fi/tapahtumat/pe-01032019-1502/reseach-day-iv-performance-and-feminism


Call for Research Day IV: Performance and Feminism

Welcome to present or participate in our fourth Research Day on 20 March. We are excited to have Iris van der Tuin as our keynote speaker. See more about her and the full call here.

There is a long tradition of feminist performances, feminist studies of performance and debates on how to perform feminism. From “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” (1792) to Queer Ecologies (2010), from Alexandra Kollontai to intersectionality, feminist theorizing has been foundational for epistemological critique and utopian political thinking. And feminism has been performed, in provocations against patriarchy like Carolee Schneemann’s “Interior Scroll”, Valie Export’s “Genital Panic” or Pussy Riot’s punk rock as well as in subtle autobiographical gestures or collective consciousness raising like Meetoo. How else is feminism performed today?

We invite everybody interested in the connections of feminism and performance, performance art, live art, performance-as-research, research on and in performance, or performance studies to join us in exploring various approaches to feminism and performance. How, in what various ways, is feminism performed today? What aspects of feminist thought are important for contemporary performance art? How can performance art contribute to feminist struggles? How to do feminism with performance?

Deadline for proposals is 20 February. Welcome!

In the year 2018…

… HTDTWP published a few texts together – not articles but reports – which are worth listing here. The serious, peer reviewed stuff each one of us published individually, but these reports describe probably much better what we have been up to:

Annette Arlander, Hanna Järvinen, Tero Nauha and Pilvi Porkola “Miten tehdä asioita esityksellä – tutkimushanke Sao Paulossa” [How to do Things with Performance – the research project in Sao Paulo] in Anna Thuring, Anu Koskinen and Tuija Kokkonen (eds.) Esitys ja Toiseus, Näyttämö ja Tutkimus 7, Teats Teatterintutkimuksen seura 2018, pp 204-214. See here

Annette Arlander, Hanna Järvinen, Tero Nauha and Pilvi Porkola “Regurgitated Perspectives – Performance”. In Geoff Cox, Hannah Drayson, Azadeh Fatehrad, Allister Gall, Laura Hopes, Anya Lewin, Andrew Prior, (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th SAR International Conference on Artistic Research, University of Plymouth, April 11th-13th, 2018, pp. 299-311. See here

Annette Arlander, Hanna Järvinen, Tero Nauha and Pilvi Porkola “How to do things with performance in relation to what is given?”. In Ruukku Journal issue 8 (voices) 2018. See here

And we made some joint conference panels and performances:

“How to do things with performance in alliance with things, concepts, bodies or plants?”, performance with HTDTWP (How to Do Things With Performance) at the conference Alliances and Commonalities,  Stockholm University of the Arts, see here, 25-27.10. 2018.

“Migrating concepts in performance”, panel at IFTR (International Federation for Theatre Research) conference Theatre and Migration in Belgrad  (see program) 19-23.7 2018.

“Networking Finland, Malta, Korea” – a performative panel across time and space with How to do things with performance? at PSi (Performance Studies International) #24 in Daegu, Chorea 3-6.7. 2018.

“What is Performativity in Finnish?”  panel at Cultural Mobility of Performance and Performativity Studies, Kraków 28-30.5. 2018.

“Regurgitated perspectives – an excerpt”  at The Spring Research Day at Kiasma, 25.4. 2018.

“Regurgitated Perspectives” performance at the 9th SAR conference – International Conference on Artistic Research Artistic Research will Eat Itself at University of Plymouth 11-13.4. 2018.

And then we had our own research days, of course:

Research Day II: Materiality of and in performance 2.3.2018

Research Day III: Performance Pedagogy 16.11.2018

So let’s see what will happen in 2019!


HTDTWP – retreated to Tampere / vetäytyi Tampereelle

Last year we went to Riga for a weekend at the end of the year, whereas this year we wanted to economize and to consider the climate, and headed modestly to Tampere (two hours by train from Helsinki). A full day in a meeting room was productive this time as well, despite the fact that one of us had a flue and participated via Skype. The program consisted of work on the theme issue of Ruukku Journal, How to do things with performance?, the articles of which are at the moment in peer review – some of them already return ed – and which we hope to publish in Spring, as well as a book presenting performance philosophy in Finnish. We also discussed the next research day, which will take place on 20th March, with the theme performance and feminism and with Iris van Der Tujn as the preliminary key-note speaker. And of course other plans for next year were discussed, too. Moreover, we tried a new working method, a recorded conversation, which seemed promising – you will hear more about that soon!

Viime vuonna lähdimme vuoden päätteeksi viikonlopuksi Riigaan, mutta tänä vuonna halusimme olla taloudellisia ja ilmastolle ystävällisempiä, joten suuntasimme vaatimattomasti Tampereelle. Kokonainen päivä kokoustilassa oli tehokas myös tällä kertaa, siitäkin huolimatta että yksi tutkijoista osallistui flunssaisena Skypen välityksellä. Ohjelmassa oli tekeillä olevan Ruukku-julkaisun teemanumero, Miten tehdä asioita esityksellä, jonka artikkelit ovat tällä hetkellä vertaisarvioitavina – osa on jo palautettukin – ja jonka toivomme saavamme julkaistua keväällä, sekä performanssifilosofiaa suomeksi esittelevä kirja. Kevään tutkimuspäivästäkin puhuttiin, sen ajankohdaksi on sovittu 20 maaliskuuta, teemaksi performance and feminism ja pääpuhujaksi on jo alustavasti lupautunut Iris van der Tujn. Ja tietysti ensi vuoden suunnitelmat olivat muutenkin olivat keskustelussa mukana. Lisäksi kokeiltiin uutta työtapaa, äänitettyä keskustelua, joka vaikutti lupaavalta – siitä kuullaan pian lisää!

(photo by / valokuva: Tero Nauha)