Stable Foundations are crucial for Experimentation

CZ version

N.A.Toˇ (Nose Assembly for Tomorrow) is an international project that bridges clowning and activism, focusing on the theme of ecological crisis. Originating as a concept within Florent Golfier's performance Atlas, where participants created imaginative, often absurd plans for change, N.A.Toˇ has since grown into an independent series of workshops. These multi-day events explore poetic protest, clowning, and social imagination connected to it. CEDIT co-organized with Terén the first N.A.Toˇ at 2023 in Centre for Experimental Theatre. Since 2023, N.A.Toˇ has organized gatherings in Brno, Vienna, Maria Schutz, Budapest, and Visalaje, attracting participants primarily from the Czech Republic and Austria, fostering collaboration and a vibrant community committed to artistic activism. The last three events were co-funded by the European Union (Small Scale Partnership Program) 2023/24.

What is the first thought, feeling, or idea that comes to mind when I say N.A.Toˇ?

Kiara: My first thoughts, well – network. N.A.Toˇ created a network. It sparked a movement of activist clowns. It brought the right people together and created connections between activists, and rebel clowns who will develop this further. This is my first thought.

Barbora: My first thought is connected to the transcultural element of N.A.Toˇ and how we dealt with it. There are people from different countries and cultural, social and political contexts. I realized that communication in this environment needs a lot of time. The focus on “how we could communicate” is necessary. In the past, I was part of some collectives that were transcultural, like various studying fellowships, the difference was that certain rules were already in place, given by some authority.  In N.A.Toˇ we were trying to gather the rules from the transcultural space and various contexts. We tried to create our own rules. Everyone could participate in this process and thus feel well in this environment. It certainly takes time and energy.

Laura: It was a learning process, a big learning process! Learning how to write applications, invent topics for workshops, and then waiting for the decision. That is when the whole learning process began.. It was a long journey, a big organizational task to implement five N.A.Toˇ, three in the frame of a small-scale partnership program of the European Union. We worked with a lot of people active in different fields. They had their ways of communicating, collaborating and creating. It was a big learning process for everyone. It was stimulating to observe how this collaboration developed over time and eventually became one diverse community.

What was the most important thing you learned during this process?

L: How to communicate and how to reflect on established patterns. One game struck me. It was during N.A.Toˇ in Vienna. The theme was Queering Spaces through Clowning. Kiara and some others introduced the game. During the game, it was not wished to use any pronouns to address each other, only nicknames. Everybody chose a nickname and used it throughout the N.A.Toˇ. Everyone agreed with it and had fun. The main idea was to create a field for experimentation. Throughout the days, it became an organizational principle. It started as a game, and then the group accepted it. Everyone had fun, but I struggled. I knew some of the people and was aware of the pronouns they used, so I knew how to address them. I support the concept though. It was interesting that someone offered a game with specific rules and a different reality—a different way of communicating—and I was self-reflecting on what that did to me and why I was a bit angry about it.

B: It was a long journey for me personally as well as for the group. The first workshop was in Brno, the last in Visalaje in the Beskydy Mountains. In Brno, it took a lot of time to start communicating and working effectively in the transcultural environment, to start understanding each other in the sense of what we create together, do we have any same goals, and how we approach these goals. On the contrary, in Beskydy, during the last event, I felt we already had quite a lot of experience and organizational skills to establish the community for a while. The difference between the first event in Brno and the last event in Beskydy for me was, that I suddenly had the energy to be aware not only of our group, relationships and work but also of the space we were in – the nature, mountains, people. We had already established an infrastructure for the group. Therefore, we finally had the energy to be aware of our surroundings.

K: What was special for me was that N.A.Toˇ created a space where experimentation could happen. We experimented a lot. I think it is unique to have spaces like this. In daily life, we do not often have the chance to think outside of the box or turn things upside down. N.A.Toˇ was structured to encourage this. We worked in small groups, which allowed us to explore and go deeper. It was important to create the space and time to delve into it. We invented new clown games and creative exercises. We do not have enough of these spaces in everyday life. N.A.Toˇ was a fountain of creativity and discovery.

B: I also realized that for experimentation, we need basic things like food, rest, sleep, and care for children and so on. Clowning, experimenting and the program itself can be changed and adjusted. However, the “foundations” cannot be so easily changed.  One of the foundations is also plenary sessions. They were not just a tool because someone said plenaries were good for organizing groups. In my experience, they were essential for the daily experience, helping me and others feel comfortable. We could speak about things we needed to share, whether emotional or health related. When we had a stable foundation—though it was emotional and complicated—it created a free space for experimenting.

Who was doing this work—who laid down these foundations? Who organized the practicalities, like booking the place?

L: For the first two N.A.Toˇs, production manager of tYhle collective handled bookings for example. Erasmus+ supported the last three events, so we had collaboration partners, and each partner contributed one or two persons to the N.A.Toˇ implementation team. In addition, there was an overall coordination team. All tasks were divided among the team. For certain fields, like cooking, we approached people who wanted to help and share their skills. In this respect, the core team did a lot of the work before the event even started. On the other hand, the participants were essential too. We found them through an open call. In the end, the basic structure and schedule were more like proposals. We had to stick to the program we got funding for, but we tried to create as much space as possible for others to bring their proposals. For me, the organizational structure is a complex issue because some people were paid while others were not, which raised questions of transparency. We tried to clarify roles beforehand and work from there.

K: That was important. We tried to create horizontal, non-hierarchical structures. You have the dynamics of an implementation team that organizes things, but you also want to invite others to participate and decide the important issues. Therefore, finding a balance between these two aspects is essential. It is still an ongoing question.

B: The Erasmus+ project provides a way to create a space for self-organizing. They are leaving daily life to join something like N.A.Toˇ, for a longer period of experimentation, requires time, and in our capitalist society time is money. That is an ongoing question for me. I am grateful for the opportunity to be there, with these people, because of the foundation and the paid work. Maybe the next step could be finding a way in which everyone, team members and participants, is being paid as compensation for their time.

K: It is connected very closely to the question of diversity. Who can afford to participate in these workshops? Students and artists often see this as a valuable opportunity to gain skills for the future. In terms of diversity, we would like to pay people to take part, allowing thus access for a wider group who might not otherwise be able to come.

B: Our target group was narrow, as Kiara said. There is a certain pattern in how we organize camps and workshops—someone organizes, and others participate. We had these patterns in mind, but I have learned we can think beyond these limits.

It seems to me that it is difficult to find a delicate balance between effective organization, participation and horizontality in this imperfect world. Toxic patterns can emerge, too, leading to ambiguous situations. So, were there instances where questions of hidden hierarchies or ambiguities came up?

K: It happened a lot. In Vienna, the team organized the workshop, and some other people later volunteered during the implementation phase. Each project partner contributed one person, but funding was not so flexible. It created a hierarchy: a paid implementation team and a voluntary team. We wanted to challenge these hierarchies, but we were still somewhat stuck within them. It created struggles, and we learned that we are somehow locked into these pre-set hierarchies. I learned a lot about how we are confined by these pre-existing structures. The implementation team needs to be more open, more accessible, and we need to invite others to the table. It is an ongoing process to make it more participatory.

L: Another topic was that we—the core team—were two heteronormative families and a few individuals, and we were not very diverse. We tried to open up, but it was challenging. I did not know how to step out of my bubble. What kind of language to use? It is not easy when you have institutional funding, where it has to be employees who do the work. We could not have an open call for everyone to become an employee. Although, during N.A.TOˇ, certain patterns emerged. I learned a lot about cultural codes like who holds the “speaking stick” more often and who does not. Cis-male participants would often dominate the discussion and activities, while others were less visible and less dominant. It's about who speaks during plenaries, who brings up certain topics, who speaks in team meetings, who takes care of the kids—and who does what. It brought up a question: is a plenary always the right concept for everyone? It takes courage to speak up. You are visible in that situation like on a stage. What if you are a more introverted person, like me? I want to be heard, though. So, what kind of instruments do we need to invent to make sure all voices are heard?

K: Sure, you cannot force anybody to speak up, but you can create a setting where everyone feels safe to do so.

B: For example, we talked about affinity groups—groups that are formed beforehand consisting of three or four people, who trust each other. In this smaller affinity group is maybe easier for the person to speak about their issues, emotions, and other things. Then, someone from the group can present the results publicly. It is still an open question for the future: how do we include more voices in the plenary?

Are these your reflections, or were all of these things discussed during the plenary sessions?

K: The Budapest workshop was the first place where it came up. It exploded. During the plenary, people could not speak up; we were pressed for time, and the setting just was not right. It was too much. Everything felt like chaos, so we had to skip the whole program, sit down, create a circle and have a session. We asked everyone to share what they needed and what was on their minds. This was necessary. So much came out—like how things should be structured differently in the future. Once we opened the space, we could continue. Until that point, we had not had a space where everyone could contribute. It sparked many conversations about creating a space of care.

B: I am realizing now how safe I felt during the events because of the microstructure of the family, who was present too - my partner and children. I perceive my family at N.A.Toˇs as my natural affinity group. It was a special level in the whole community structure for me, where I could think about issues in the community in different ways than in public plenary. I think that the possibility of thinking and formulating personal issues concerning the community at different levels in the community structure could be helpful for the well-being of both members and the group.

L: For me, it was not a big difference that my partner was part of the team. I trust everyone in the organizing team. I felt heard and safe there. Everyone wanted the same thing. I also had other experiences. I became an introvert because I was in a hostile environment were speaking up was not easy—everyone could attack me and eat me alive. It was very different at N.A.Toˇ. There was no hostility; there was acceptance, which made me feel safe. It was not really about my partner’s presence. Even if there was a conflict, there was an essential openness to discuss it.

Do you think the “clown aspect” also played a role?

B: I thought about the clowning too, since we had not talked about it much. Without people who want to play, who invite unpredictability, we would not be able to create these N.A.Toˇ environments. I think that creating a self-organizing space requires imagination, playfulness and skill to deal with errors.

K: Well, maybe it would be nice to end this interview with clowning. For me, N.A.Toˇ was my first experience and it opened up a world to me. It is funny; most of this interview has been about organizational levels, structures, and breaking societal norms. At the same time, I had this process with my clown. That is what a clown does—turns the world upside down, breaking free from social expectations, questioning how to act in public spaces. N.A.TOˇ was a lot about organization, but for me, it was also, about my clowning.

L: I was so involved in the organizational structures that sometimes I lost my connection to clowning. I kept wondering why we chose to clown. I felt like I found my clown in the first N.A.Toˇ, but then I never played with it. I found this character, but I did not perform it during N.A.Toˇ because I was so busy organizing. It was always my last priority. In future, I could create events like N.A.Toˇ, while one part of me could be this clown—Agnez. Using clowning as a tool for making something different; for organizing differently. Yeah, inviting surprise and unpredictability into the process, thinking from a clown’s perspective. Clowning is a precious tool for activism in this world. This is something I learned, something I want to develop further, to play with more. It is also like an everyday action—what if you have an invisible clown nose in your pocket? You just put it on and use it as a tool to change a situation you are in. What would that change? The way we work. The way we parent. The way we communicate. This invisible clowning is very interesting to explore.

--------------------------------------------------------

Laura Golfier-Brechmann (she/her) (*1990) works as a theatre scholar, dramaturg, and production manager in Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. As a production manager, she has been organizing since 2019 together with the dancer Florent Golfier performative laboratories on the topic of “multilingualism”, since 2021 the performative walks of ‘Atlas’ and since 2022 the networking platform “N.A.To - Nose Assembly for Tomorrow”. From March 2021 - March 2023 she was a project collaborator in the PEEK project “Navigating Dizziness Together” at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. In 2023 she received a cultural management scholarship from the BMKÖS and worked for six months for the Czech performance and dance collective tYhle. Laura became pregnant during the implementation of the last three N.A.To and was suddenly engaged in the process as a member of the core team, as a clown, and as a mother.

Barbora Liška (she/her) (*1993) works as a freelance lecturer and organiser of creative-educational events, theatre scholar and dramaturg based in Boskovice (CZ). She is a mother of two children and with her partner, she tries to apply a feminist approach in care practises and trans-family organising.  In 2019 she established with Jakub Liška the journal CEDIT, where she worked till 2021 as writer and editor. From 2021 to 2023 she organised a creative laboratory for students CED_observer - a space for theory, practice, creativity and knowledge. Since 2022 she has been part of the project N.A.Toˇ and since 2024 she has collaborated with Florent Golfier-Brechmann and Laura Brechmann as a co-dramaturg on the performative walks Atlas. Since 2023 she has developed as a dramaturg with Lukáš Karásek and Florent Golfier-Brechmann a performance (Ne)boj on conflict.

Kiara Gezels (they/them) (*1998) is a participatory theatre maker and community organiser. They work as a theatre educator and producer at Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) Vienna, mainly on queer-feminism and climate activism. Kiara combines TO methods with other street theatre approaches such as clowning to explore creative ways of activism. Within N.A.To, they were co-creating and implementing the last three assemblies in the framework of the Erasmus+ project.