Artists enter through the audience to begin Where Heaven’s Dew Divides. (Photo: Kevin Monko)
Scheduling was a nemesis poised to undermine our best intentions. Every member of the group was balancing a mix of endeavors—performance projects, their own and others’; children, partners, and extended family; teaching; jobs and parallel careers. No number of doodle polls would minimize the challenge of overcoming scheduling conflicts. Determined not to let calendar conflicts wreak tyranny over the project, I turned to a strategy that I first encountered more than a decade ago at a national conference of independent theatres. Along with the conventional plenaries and break-outs, the conference organizers created times during the day and well into the night when attendees could structure their own sessions to talk about issues of interest and concern. On a large board in a well-frequented spot was posted a grid of time blocks and locations. Any attendee could claim a place on the grid by filling in his/her name and a critical question or issue that would focus the session. The convener did not need to be an expert on the topic or make a presentation; all he/she had to do was have a passion for the topic, host the conversation by making sure that people stayed on topic and that everyone had a chance to talk and engage, and see that careful notes were made of the session. Whoever showed up for the session was presumed to be the right people to be there. If no one showed up, there was no disgrace—it just told the convener that others were not as passionate about the topic as he/she. Anyone who did show up was encouraged to exercise the Law of Two Feet—ie., if you aren’t learning or contributing, you should leave. I learned that this self-organizing meeting model was called “Open Space.”
I was sufficiently intrigued by this group process strategy that I attended some trainings, including one that is given annually by Open Space’s creator Harrison Owen. At these trainings, I learned some of the science and philosophy behind the method, and some of the diverse contexts where Open Space has been used, including organizational strategic planning, labor negotiations, and civil conflicts. There was no need for us to import the entire Open Space design into our PLC process, but some of its procedures and rationale could help us use our time productively, and could rescue us from the disappointment and frustration over irreconcilable schedule conflicts.
With Open Space in mind, we increased the number of workshops with master leaders so that there would be more opportunities for people to accommodate their schedules to the workshop schedule. It meant that we were constantly figuring out ways to incorporate new people into a process that began one or two sessions earlier. By adopting the Open Space mantra that “whoever is there are the people who are supposed to be there,” we found ways to make newness and a changing array of participants an asset. Peter DiMuro, in workshops led at the Historic Johnson House, was especially adept at using newcomers to deepen the work of earlier sessions.
We also invited learning community members to propose Open Space sessions inspired by issues in their own practice or recent experiences they wanted to share with others. And when we started rehearsals for a production for the Philadelphia International Festival of the Arts, we scheduled many “drop-in” sessions and committed to creating new work with whoever showed up.
Open Space might not be the ideal method of organizing time for a project like this one. But with project members being consumed with many professional and personal demands, it sure beat weeks of doodle polls and piles of regrets.
— Germaine Ingram
In the following clips, Ellen Gerdes ties the Open Space methodology to the “rhythm” and improvisatory nature of the project.
What I think is so interesting about rhythm is, you know, we think about this as sort of a way to divide up time. But from the very beginning, Germaine said, “Time will not be a tyrant.” So in terms of our scheduling, we wont be at the mercy of our timing together and sort of work through our different timings. So I think rhythm is also about our entrances and exits into the workshops and project in general. At first it seems very straight-forward: “Oh, we’ll learn some rhythms from the tappers in the group, and we’ll put them on our bodies.”
I was also thinking that as a structure for the whole year, there was a lot of improvisation. We’re using this open space philosophy, so who’s free shows up, and what happens, happens.
Germaine Ingram:
But that really speaks to this idea: “unexpected, uncontrollable space.” I mean, certainly, it was planned. Every event, every workshop, every session took a great deal of planning. But it was planned in a way that allowed lots of space for improvisation, for coincidence, for serendipity. I love that [Shavon] saw it as everytime she opened the door she saw this space that was really pregnant with opportunities and ideas that could be shifted and taken other places , and mashed up in ways that you didn’t anticipate before you walked in the door. I think that’s a wonderful way to think about it. I’m excited that she saw that – not only in individual session, but as a metaphor for the whole year.
Kristen Shahverdian shares her thoughts on the impact of the “open space” approach:
That’s something I’ve taken away: how you might make a piece like Heaven’s Dew, and not have to have all these people all the time going to the same exact experience. That’s maybe a fear that we have. “Oh, we have to be there. We have to have the same experience,” even though we’ll experience it in different ways. And to make this learning community that fluid, and how to make work like that were both really huge things. I feel like there was a richness, because you could sit with it. And it could resonate. You know, sometimes you’re going to see a bunch of artwork one after another, and you don’t have enough time to actually experience it or reflect on it, or have it change you or move you. But when you have the space, I think it can do that more. You need that space.
Khalil Munir describes the trusting, collaborative environment encouraged by the open space approach:
I thought it was cool. I thought it was an opportunity, really, for the space to be opened up to really expand the learning, because if I’m comfortable with something and another person isn’t, that’s my opportunity to share. And I’m sure there’ll be a time in the community where I’ll have an opportunity to learn from that other person. Or even—I always say this, too—even when you’re teaching, you’re learning. So if I’m expressing this thought or idea to someone, I have the opportunity, really, to express it to myself as well. I’m not just talking to the individual; I’m talking to myself as well. So I have an opportunity to give and receive in that manner.
Corrine Karon on why she so valued the “open space” approach:
Yes, I love that concept. Why? Because I work seven days a week, about 20 hours a day, literally. So to be able to be part of a project was phenomenal, and not have to juggle around or move things or bring substitutes or all that kind of stuff. It was amazing. If you can make it, you can make it; if you can’t make it, you can’t make it. There were so many options to make, and that was incredible, too. So there was always something going on that you could jump into, which was really nice. Just having that ability was amazing. Because most other things are so set… And I also loved that both Germaine and Leah were both very welcoming to having 3-year-olds at rehearsal.
Dew Crew Memoirs 