The purpose of this paper is to discuss findings from a specific research project aimed at developing shared understandings of collaborative artistic processes. In general, collaboration between artists is usually focused around a particular performance or product. While the outcomes of this research project did include the presentation of two performance art events, the purpose of this paper is to reveal and discuss the nature of the collaborative process undertaken rather than to critique the resulting performances.

We begin this paper by exploring the nature of collaboration across or between artistic mediums, and across or between cultures. Literature relating generally to collaborative practice in the arts, and specifically to the nature of cross-cultural and intercultural collaboration, is discussed. We then briefly outline the research design and methods used in each stage of this collaborative artistic research project. Presentation and discussion of experiential findings constitute the remainder of the paper, including discussion of issues arising within the research. Finally, we offer our conclusions.

This research project grew from our shared desire to explore collaborative creative process, not merely for the creation of enhanced performance products but also to better understand collaboration itself. Collaborations in which we had previously been involved typically required the independent creation of elements for a performance event in response to a director’s vision, such as choreography, visual design, sculpture or sound composition (Barbour & Ratana, 2003; Barbour, Ratana & Walker, 2003). Often the different artistic elements would come together for the first time within the technical rehearsals of the pressured production week leading up to the performances (pressure most often caused by the financial constraints of creating performance events). The artistic elements were expected to cohere successfully within this production week. However, a common experience we shared was that there was either a lack of cohesion in the performance product, and/or a dilution effect created by compromises in the artistic elements in order to achieve some semblance of cohesion for performance. Additionally, we reflected that we had not fully engaged in collaboration, but rather, we had continued to work as independent artists within the requirements of a director’s vision. Further reflection led us to question whether it was possible within a collaborative process to experience self-determination or tino rangatiratanga as individuals or as a group.

These experiences led us to consider how we might collaborate more effectively, and specifically to the research questions which guided this project. Our general focus question was framed as: What is the nature of collaborative artistic research, across our artistic disciplines and across our cultures? Within this general focus question we asked more specifically: What collaborative processes can we develop? And: How can self-determination or tino rangatiratanga be maintained for artists within collaborative artistic research?

Limited research has been undertaken into the development of collaborative artistic research processes that might guide artists and performers, although there is a body of research into collaboration in other contexts. We focus our discussion of literature on research that supports collaboration in the arts across artistic mediums and cross-culturally or interculturally. Where possible, we draw on literature from Aotearoa New Zealand.

Maintaining the integrity of different artistic mediums while creating an overall performance event that presented a clear, shared statement is certainly a challenge. While aiming for integrity in each art medium, the opportunity also exists for collaborators to develop understandings of the range of different artistic practices and mediums of expression. Learning from each other, risk-taking, shared discovery and appreciating multiple perspectives are seen by some researchers as integral in collaboration (Belton & Belton, 2002; Burnaford et al., 2001; Mitoma, 2004; Wasser & Bresler, 1996). As Papastergiadis commented, “Collaboration presupposes mutual understanding, shared languages, common goals and the ability to negotiate across differences” (2000, p. 1). In some contexts, the development of shared understandings may require the translation of individual artistic processes into shared processes, and in others, the translation of shared thematic ideas into different artistic mediums of expression (Asker, 2003; Burnaford et al., 2001; Kester, 2000; Papastergiadis, 2000).

For some artists, the activity of collaboration may be a new and confronting experience (Papastergiadis, 2000), at odds with their perception of creative process as solo practice. A common image of the artist is of the “solitary figure, rebelling against social rules and pushing the boundaries of institutions” (Papastergiadis, 2000, p. 1). However romantic, this image of the artist does not acknowledge the dialogues and exchanges (even those of rebellion) that inevitably occur between artists and their communities as art is created. Engaging in processes of collaboration makes such dialogues and exchanges explicit.

However, some artists, such as choreographers, regularly use inherently collaborative practices (Risner, 1995; Way, 2000). Dancers, for example, are integral to most choreographic processes, although their role and their experiences are not always acknowledged (Risner, 1995). Research exploring collaboration between dancers and choreographers reveals that the social context and the relationships developed within the choreographic process are significant for both the dancers and the choreographer (Risner, 1995). As Risner commented, “the relationships the dancers share help to define each as an individual. Therefore, it would seem appropriate for choreographers to acknowledge and nurture the social context within the rehearsal” (1995, p. 84). The social nature of choreography suggests that relationships involving trust, respect and support are important to the processes of collaboration and to the wellbeing of collaborators (Ito, 2004; Risner, 1995; Wasser & Bresler, 1996; Way, 2000).

It is worthy of note that Diaghilev stood out in Western collaborative practice in relation to working across artistic mediums because he stood against the background of the Western art canon that had become increasingly separated into distinct artistic mediums, such as painting, drawing, sculpture, opera, ballet. In contrast, within traditional Mäori life for example, the arts were integrated in everyday activities and events and continued the cultural practices of ancestors.  Some of these traditional practices continue on the marae today, as well as at other sites. The point of relevance to our research is that the desire to collaborate across artistic mediums assumes a particularly Western separation between artistic mediums. It may be that Mäori artists do not make such assumptions when creating art.

An understanding of collaborative processes aiming for synthesis provided some background for this research project. We focused more specifically on how we might achieve such synthesis within cross-cultural and intercultural collaboration, in order to develop more effective and satisfying collaborative processes.

Definitions of collaboration vary across cultures and communities and the processes of collaboration are continually under negotiation (Jorjorian, 2004). However, “cooperation, sharing, trust, compromise, willingness to listen are key components to the collaborative spirit” when sharing across cultures (Libal, cited in Ito, 2004, p. 27). Asia Pacific Performance Exchange (APPEX) artist Zhou Long commented about cross-cultural collaboration that

Extending Long’s comments, collaboration across or between cultures can be seen as involving the sharing of unique cultural perspectives by artists working together, again within creative processes and in shared artistic performances, products or research. Collaboration thus entails exchange and transformation of ideas and practices, leading to new understandings and new relationships between collaborators. Much cross-cultural, intercultural and integrated artistic practice continues to occur in various cultural contexts (Schechner, 2002). The extensive research undertaken through the APPEX program and the Centre for Intercultural Performance (Jorjorian, 2004) provides insight. The aim of this exchange program was to provide “a space for artists and writers whose work is rooted in the local concerns of culture”, an aim that acknowledged that “global information technology and mass communication favor the interests of commerce and the power elite” (Mitoma, 2004, p. 6). A non-hierarchical structure that did not privilege any particular artistic or cultural authority was therefore established within APPEX, compatible with the collective group ethos that was seen to characterise many Asian cultures (Mitoma, 2004). Processes of co-creation within APPEX involved selected local artists from Asia, America and the Pacific working in residence together, sharing cultural, professional and personal perspectives with the group, teaching and learning new skills, experimenting and collaborating to create without a requirement to perform on stage (Mitoma, 1996). Within APPEX, the terms ‘cross-cultural’ and ‘intercultural’ were often used interchangeably, but there was a recognition that “the histories of both genre and person can be folded into an intercultural frame” (Trimmillos, 2004, p. 18). In this sense, individual artists can be seen as already intercultural or culturally synthesised, perhaps more so than they are artistically synthesised in their arts practice (Trimmillos, 2004). Some researchers have argued that perhaps a focus should be on intercultural exchanges within artistic practice, rather than intercultural performance per se (Pavis, 1996). Pavis commented:

The perspectives advanced by Pavis (1996), Schechner (2002) and writers involved in the APPEX project (Ito, 2004; Jorjorian, 2004; Kam, 2004; Mitoma, 2004; Trimmillos, 2004; and others) suggested that intercultural and cross-cultural collaborations resulting in artistic performances necessarily involved exploration of identities and cultures, and involved shifting perspectives and practices within the processes of co-creation.

Balme (1996), Ponifasio (2002) and Potiki (1996) relate specifically to cross-cultural and intercultural collaboration in the arts in Aotearoa New Zealand. To explain these processes and expand an understanding of intercultural theatre further, Balme (1996) employed the concept of “syncretic theatre”, in which new theatrico-aesthetic principles “result from the interplay between the Western theatrico-dramatic tradition and the indigenous performance forms of a postcolonial culture” (p. 180). These principles develop in contrast to the on-going traditions of both marae-theatre (Potiki, 1996) and Western theatre.

New Zealand based choreographer and director Lemi Ponifasio (2002) wrote that the term cross-cultural referred “broadly to encounters both historical and continuing between cultures. It suggested therefore, a transformation of material, beliefs, meanings, values, imagination and the customary practices of society” (p. 51). Cross-cultural performances and productions could also be described as “those which overtly draw upon the encounters between different cultural sensibilities” with the intention to re-imagine the world (Verma, 1996, p. 194).

Notwithstanding the potential for collaboration to contribute to transformation and re-imagining the world, the emergence of collaborative cross-cultural and intercultural performance has been critiqued by some as an attempt to gain political favour and funding by including the voices of minority cultures within a dominant Western Eurocentric perspective (Ponifasio, 2002; Potiki, 1996; Verma, 1996). A challenge made by Ponifasio (2002) was that cross-cultural exchange needed to occur in both directions, not only through the efforts of artists from minority cultures ‘building bridges’ between cultures, but also through artists of dominant Western cultures making the effort to step outside majority perspectives (Ponifasio, 2002).

The focus and challenges of cross-cultural and intercultural collaboration were central to our interests as artists/researchers collaborating within this artistic research project. As Mäori, Pakeha (non-Mäori citizens born in New Zealand and typically of European ancestry) and Asian artists/researchers and performers involved in this project, we had the intention of re-imagining collaboration across cultures and artistic mediums. Ponifasio’s (2002) challenge was particularly important for our research project, given that we believed that Mäori and Asian artists within our group were generally expected to participate in majority Pakeha artistic practices and research, but the reverse was not often expected. For this reason, we wished to move our research and practice outside familiar Pakeha-centric contexts (Smith, 1999). We detail our specific choices in research design and methodology in the following section.

The research design for this project grew from a qualitative research focus (Denzin & Lincoln, 2001; Reinharz, 1992), incorporating Kaupapa Mäori research and Pakeha feminist and phenomenological perspectives. These research perspectives were appropriate given our cultural backgrounds as predominantly Mäori and Pakeha artists/researchers and performers, and in terms of acknowledging the partnership responsibilities within Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 by Mäori chiefs and representatives of the British Queen). We accepted the challenge for cross-cultural collaboration laid down by Ponifasio (2002), acknowledging that we expected Pakeha artists/researchers and performers to engage in Mäori practices (Smith, 1999). A brief outline of our theoretical perspectives in relation to research design and methods is provided to contextualise this specific research project, although a full discussion is not the focus of this paper.

Feminist and phenomenological perspectives focus on researching the lived experiences of those involved; in this case, of the artists/researchers and performers (Barbour, 2002; Du Plessis & Alice, 1998; Reinharz, 1992). These approaches include “an acknowledgement of the importance of the embodiment, difference and the socio-cultural context of the individual[s]” participating in the research (Barbour, 2002, p. 106). Kaupapa Mäori research is related to being Mäori and is connected to Mäori philosophy and principles (Smith, 1990). Particularly important is that this research perspective takes for granted the validity and legitimacy of Mäori people, language and culture and is concerned with Mäori having autonomy over their own cultural wellbeing (Smith, 1990). Further, Kaupapa Mäori research is culturally safe, relevant, appropriate for Mäori, and ideally involves mentoring by Mäori elders (Irwin, 1994). Bishop described it as “collectivistic, and … oriented toward benefiting all the research participants and their collectively determined agendas” (1995, p. 24).  Bishop’s understandings of Kaupapa Mäori research in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi also provided space for Mäori researchers to work in partnership with non-Mäori researchers (cited in Smith, 1999).

From both feminist phenomenological and Kaupapa Mäori research perspectives, power can be shared amongst artists/researchers and performers to promote empowerment, and to allow self-determination or tino rangatiratanga. Research projects can therefore be undertaken in culturally appropriate ways and knowledge can be co-constructed and consensual. Ideally, the research is then shared directly with the communities involved (Barbour, 2002; Bishop, 1995, 1996; Smith, 1999).

Throughout this research project, video and photography were used to document activities and reflective writing and sketches were collected. The project produced research outcomes in the form of edited video footage of the two live, public performance art events and the Collaborative Workbook. In this paper, however, we discuss some of our key findings from researching collaborative artistic processes.

Within this section we have juxtaposed text, video, photographs, sketches and quotations in order to represent the various artistic mediums and to allow for the expression of the artists/researchers’ and performers’ own words. Edited video is offered below to represent experiential ‘findings’, and slide shows and photographs are interspersed throughout. We do not attempt to translate these ‘findings’ into text, but rather choose to honour the power of embodied and non-verbal representations that express aspects of collaboration across cultures and artistic mediums, as discussed in the literature we reviewed for this research. We discuss our findings in relation to each stage of the process. In particular, we highlight the importance of relationships within collaboration, the value of moving outside Pakeha-centric practices and experiences of self-determination within the process.

During the initial four-day residential hui, the whole group of artists/researchers and performers lived, ate and worked at Te Kohinga Marama Marae. Together, all brainstormed ideas through on-going discussions and sketching, beginning to develop shared conceptualisations of thematic ideas for researching collaboration and towards performance. Shared thematic interests developed around the image of the koru (spiral) – a common motif within traditional Mäori art that we saw as embodying both our processes and our themes of negative and positive spaces, ecology, community and the life cycle.  Within these themes, the group felt that both harmony and tension/conflict in collaborative research and in performance could be explored and resolved. The beginnings of a narrative around the need for land/home for community emerged to connect these themes. Even in initial discussions, the processes of hui and the research agenda itself provided themes – the process of collaborating, of developing a shared agenda, of finding a place to stand, of finding a voice or artistic medium with which to contribute – actually contributed to the thematic content for artistic development.

Alongside and feeding into the discussions, the artists/researchers worked together with the performers to develop understandings of each other’s different art making processes. Specific experiential immersion sessions were allocated for each artist/researcher to work with performers in each artistic medium. All involved immersed themselves in the working process of each artist/researcher in order to gain an understanding of the processes each artist/researcher offered (see Video 1). For example, with Donn Ratana, the group experimented with becoming sculptural forms and anchored themselves to the walls and ceiling with fabric. With Karen Barbour, the group explored an improvisational movement structure to create a short section of dance in the studio and in an outdoor environment. Thematic ideas about sound and compositional structures with the composer were the focus of another session with composer Kim Walker. Within a theatre environment, the group explored lighting and spatial effects with theatre designer Michael Knapp. As we all grew to know each other better, discussion with Cheri Waititi also focused on the way in which a narrative and characters were beginning to develop from each performer’s personality, role and response to thematic ideas.

[Please click Photo 1 below to play Video 1. Stop and start at any time by clicking on the Play/Pause button.]

 

Throughout the initial hui, structured and informal discussions, journal writing, sketching, composition and design ideas were undertaken by the whole group and collected as documentation. Beginnings were made in understanding and co-constructing collaborative artistic processes that might be used by the artists/researchers and performers. The following quotations taken from performers’ and artists/researchers’ journal entries illustrate a diversity of interests and perspectives during the hui:

Individual reflection and development following the initial hui was ongoing during Stage 2. Meetings between artists/researchers and performers, along with discussions via email, allowed for continued shared development of thematic ideas and processes. The performers met with Karen Barbour to work specifically on developing short sections of structured improvisation and duet choreography. The performers also worked with Kim Walker, responding to excerpts of sound and compositional structures both in movement improvisation and in written journal entries. Each artist/researcher continued the development of ideas, meeting together as time permitted to discuss and document their processes of collaboration.

One initial methodological issue identified by all during Stage 2 concerned the extent to which each ‘should’ develop thematic ideas and to what extent ideas needed to be co-constructed with the whole group present. The reflective comments below indicated that this methodological issue presented a tension between wanting to share the development of thematic ideas with all involved but also to further extend thematic ideas within each artistic medium through focused development in appropriate studio spaces.

Through negotiation it was agreed that, when possible, everyone would work together, but that each artist/researcher and performer could also develop thematic ideas further with the collaboratively generated themes in mind. The practicalities of other employment and specific creative processes, such as experimentation and manipulating materials in a sound recording studio or art studio, or hours devoted to duet choreographic development, necessitated artists/researchers and performers working in their own studio spaces for some time. This allowed each of the individuals to pursue his or her own interests around the collaboratively generated themes and to then also offer further developments that each valued personally. Each individual thus had a place to stand, and role or purpose within the collaborative community. Subsequently, each was more satisfied that he or she was working to maintain the integrity of the artistic medium rather than compromising his or her contribution. For performers, consideration and research into options for their roles within the group became a personal focus. The ongoing development in Stage 2 provided an experience of self-determination that supported the collaborative process as a whole. Quotations from journals below illustrate some of the performers’ experiences of the collaborative process.

The collaborative creation of a short duet with performers Patti Mitchley and Kane Day and choreographer Karen Barbour provided an opportunity to specifically explore movement in depth over a longer period of time. This collaborative process and duet choreography became the basis for subsequent duets extended and developed with different duet dancers throughout the research. Perhaps more importantly for the performers, the relationships between performers deepened and assisted each performer and collaborator to find his or her place within the process and his or her role. In the context of the duet created between choreographer and performers, self-determination began to be clearer to all, as Patti’s journal quotation illustrates below. Kane indicated that he began to feel more confident in working with others throughout the process.

[Please click Photo 5 below to play Video 2. Stop and start at any time by clicking on the Play/Pause button.]

Kim Walker described the sound score he composed after experimentation during Stages 1 & 2 as follows:

 

Quotations from journal entries below demonstrate growing understanding of the collaborative processes as they further developed during this stage. Performers articulated their appreciation of the importance of valuing each other and the relationships between people within collaboration, as well as valuing self-determination within the process. Importantly, passion is evident in the written language about both thematic ideas and process in creating performance art work.

[Please click Photo 7 below to play Video 4. Stop and start at any time by clicking on the Play/Pause button.]

 

Journal quotations show further reflection on the processes of collaboration. In particular, main points that can be identified included: that the whole group began together to collaborate; that the whole group contributed throughout the process; and that the process was as valuable as (and perhaps more valuable than) the performance.

 

[Please click Photo 8 below to play Slide Show 1 of sketches and photos. Stop and start at any time by clicking on the Play/Pause button.]

 

Performers were photographed by Cheri Waititi during Stages 3, 4 and 5 and the following slide show illustrates some of the collaborations to enhance performers’ roles through the development of facial art designs. The design process enabled the performers to collaborate directly with Cheri as their roles and personalities became clearer in relation to the themes of the performance.

[Please click Photo 9 below to play Slide Show 2 of designs and photos by Cheri Waititi. Stop and start at any time by clicking on the Play/Pause button.]

Following this extensive research project, we also collaborated in discussing the nature of our own collaborative research in the arts. We developed a visual representation of our collaborative processes as we experienced them (Figure 1). Our experiences were a result of the initial hui immersion experience, ongoing meetings, workshop and discussions, performance events and understandings of different artistic collaborative processes that developed between the artists/researchers and with the performers. The arrows in Figure 1 indicate that the processes of our collaboration were on-going. Of particular importance too, was that prior to any performance output we collaborators might cycle through stages in the process more than once and that a performance output might not represent the final stage of collaboration.

In general, our conclusions were broad and we hope they will provide some useful insight for others, although we do not anticipate that our processes will be relevant to every context of artistic collaboration, especially given the need for culturally diverse approaches (Jorjorian, 2004). In response to our research question concerning what collaborative processes we could develop, we concluded that collaboration throughout the entire process was crucial for us, as represented in Figure 1 above. Collaboration developed from the initial shared conceptualisation of ideas, through immersion workshops, reflection and developmental stages into performance and back to shared conceptualisations again. In terms of the literature discussed, we focused on processes aimed at producing a synthesis of the art mediums, based on shared themes and shared creative processes (Asker, 2003; Belton & Belton, 2002; East, 2004; Kester, 2000; Molenda, 1994; Papastergiadis, 2000; Potter, 2003). Within this focus, we aimed to work with a deliberate workshop and studio developmental process that involved all being present during development where possible (East, 2004; Potter, 2003) rather than working independently on elements contributing to a shared theme. We also aimed to provide a culturally appropriate context outside of Pakeha-centric practice, with the intention of supporting artists/researchers and performers to negotiate roles within the group.

A perhaps unsurprising conclusion was that our collaboration took a great deal of time and commitment to negotiate across artistic mediums and cultures (Himmelman, 1993; Papastergiadis, 2000; Wasser & Bresler, 1996). Dialogue and exchange were crucial, particularly given that the nature of the social, cross-cultural and intercultural relationships developed was important in terms of performers’ and artists/researchers’ self-definition (Risner, 1995). This collaboration required respect, trust and integrity on the part of all involved (Ito, 2004; Wasser & Bresler, 1996), and time was also required to foster such relationships to support collaboration. While we were not significantly limited by time within the context of this research project, we acknowledge that time is often a major constraint for professional and community artists.

Finally, we asked the specific research question: How can self-determination or tino rangatiratanga be maintained for artists within collaborative artistic research? Within this process, we discovered that fostering self-determination or tino rangatiratanga within the collaborative process involved negotiation by all participants with the group as to how they could contribute to the development of shared thematic ideas, as well as how they might maintain integrity themselves and within their artistic mediums or performance roles. Initially, self-determination related to the group as a whole determining the processes and thematic focus of the research in order to develop a synthesis of artistic mediums and to commit to cross-cultural and intercultural practice. Consequently, integral to our understanding of collaboration was engagement by all in shared agendas throughout the whole process. At times, developing a shared agenda meant letting go of a personal theme, idea or outcome, being involved with other artists/researchers and performers, being ‘fed’ by different artistic mediums, and letting the idea grow, as Donn, Patti and Vicky commented. However, as the collaboration developed, each person found opportunities where he or she could contribute in more specific roles, and offer suggestions related to particular aspects of the process or particular artistic mediums. Early in the process, Debbie reflected on what it might mean to fulfill other artists/researchers’ and performers’ visions, as well as her own. For Debbie, Jarod, Dolina, Kane and Emma particularly, the opportunity to contribute to the development of themes, ideas and outcomes was novel and required confidence in order to try new things and to offer suggestions. The fostering of relationships and the development of an individual sense of self-worth, as well as an appreciation for the diversity of cultural and artistic practices, was important for all involved in working towards individual self-determination within the collaboration.

The findings from our cross-cultural and intercultural collaborative research in the arts confirmed for us that collaboration required a focus on creative processes rather than only on the performance product, and required the fostering of relationships between those involved. We appreciated that collaboration was a cyclical process that was valuable in itself. Finally, collaboration as we experienced it led to performance and research outcomes that demonstrated synthesis in artistic mediums.  Collaboration also involved the development of valued personal, professional and artistic relationships within a diverse community of artists aiming for self-determination and giving voice to shared agendas. Collaboration provided a context for our community of artists to contribute to personal transformation and to re-imagine our world.