Content uploaded by Tyyne Claudia Pollmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tyyne Claudia Pollmann on Sep 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://enpanthro.net/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/ENPA2021_Conference_Programme_Abstracts.pdf
Prof. Tyyne Claudia Pollmann
1) Dear conference team, dear participants,
I am thankful, happy and excited to provide the keynote for this conference and
welcome all of you to start our session by briefly introducing thoughts on the title terms
Embedded & Embodied.
From here, we visit the artistic research project visions4people, which was a
cooperation between the art academy kunsthochschule berlin weissensee and the
Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Charité Berlin Mitte.
The conclusions drawn from visions4people reflected back into academia and caused
changes in teaching and learning.
Finally, we will open the session for unmuting you and getting interactively connected.
So, let’s start!
2) with Madeness!
This title might sound unknown to you, unsurprisingly, as it is a neologism: madeness
is made. I took it from “make” to “made” to “madeness”.
The title oscillates between “madeness” and “madness”– especially as we will be
talking about a project in psychiatry.
And here we touch the main topic interspersing the keynote: our madeness - and our
makings, of course, and we can now get into the conference title terms:
3) Mind Embedded Embodied and start from the back
4) EMBODIED While at first glance one might think that this term refers to bodies, it
rather hints at subjects that are embodied: theories, ideologies, thoughts, desires. It
does not lead to the matter that embodies: it does not lead to the bodies.
Nevertheless, I will pronounce the making of embodiment. And by asking for the bodies
that perform embodiment, the agents will appear: (they can be) texts, images, things,
actions, gestures, any forms of articulations or living bodies.
For this conference of psychological anthropology, and as various science fields have
recently rediscovered our minds as being embodied, I will focus on human bodies as
the agents performing embodiment.
5) It seems, that almost no thing or object has been more exposed to cultural, societal
and political inscriptions, measures of control, punishments and threats as the human
body. Starting with Foucault, Deleuze&Guattari, Haraway and Butler, especially in the
fields of philosophy, sociology and gender studies, an immense number of papers on
human embodiments and its societal relations have emerged and I am sure in your
fields of knowledge as well.
Therefore, I would now like to draw your attention to the human body as a body of
inscriptions - but not to the inscriptions (!) and ask, who or what has been excluded,
neglected or hidden by omitting the bodily component in theoretical discourse about
the human being.
We find bodies of people, who have been and still are devalued and deprived of human
rights because of bodily components: people of color, indigenous people, people with
colonial backgrounds, whose rights have been disregarded for centuries - and still are,
bodies of people in war zones, people who live in geographically or communally
precarious regions, bodies suffering from malnutrition and lack of access to drinking
water, bodies exposed to toxic conditions, like contaminated water, air and soil, bodies
of people whose systematic exploitation and work under inhumane conditions result in
chronical diseases and shorter life expectancies, bodies of people who are banned,
excluded and discriminated against because of their sexual orientations, bodies of
people who are female, who get mutilated, disregarded and still do not experience
equal treatment, and, as the list continues, all people whose bodies do not fit the
incessantly mediated forced globalized standards of health, beauty, and body images
and therefore are treated pejoratively.
The list also includes the frail, vulnerable, exhausted, abused, aking, sick, challenged,
unsheltered, dirty, infected, tortured, dismembered, the killed, highjacked,
disappeared, dying and dead bodies. We are not talking about minorities here; the
majority of people on this planet belongs to at least one of the mentioned groups. And
by voicing the bodies - and not what they embody (!), they come to our minds.
I now ask: what conditions of human beings have been discussed without getting
aware of their embodiment. It must have been quite an abstract interrogation, including
idealizations of the discussed matters:
6) the human being, the body, the mind, the embodiment, the embedding.
To make up for the gross neglect that might occur and disconnect us from our
embodiments and the conditions we are embedded it, namely our worldly presence, I
suggest a pluralization that puts the terms into perspective:
7) human beings, bodies, minds, embodiments, embeddings, thus also making visible
and audible that we are dealing with multiplicities. But how do the bodies embody the
forces, that inscribe theories, ideologies or desires on them?
8) They disclose the foreclosed, exhibit what was meant to be inhibited, unveil the
veiled. The forces appear in and on body parts, organs, tissues, fluids, as wounds,
scars, deformations, mutilations, dislocations, traces of violence and violations, signs,
signals, stories that might be illegible, unreadable, undecipherable, but claiming,
showing, witnessing - as non-discursive material - deeds done. Embodiments reach
down into the nanosphere: hybridizations, chimeras, viruses, gene transfers, mutants,
synthetically designed biological entities, parts and particles, codes: cut, merged and
recombined, creating new species, new drugs: our recombined corona vaccines,
interacting with human bodies around the planet - if available.
9) Each body is deeply rooted in essential, diversified and contradictory landscapes of
cultural, historical, political, hegemonic and physical embeddings. And here we arrive
at the second title term. As a derivative of the “bed”, this term suggests a comfortable
stay that adapts to the needs of the embedded being and even provides for rest and
regeneration. Body in bed sounds so relaxing: “Here I belong, please, do not disturb.”
But the metaphor is deceptive.
Far from being “just a bed”, an embedding is an active component that in fact invades
or assimilates its object, defines its destiny, performs an appropriation of space and
content.
As embeddings are unluckily often justified by mock-up scientific reasoning and
consolidated by theories that persist, merely because they have been handed down
over centuries as common cultural consensus, appearing like given facts,
naturalizations, traditions, they are but “made by man” and have been traded and
deliberately inscribed and forced upon the respective bodies, people, lives. Every
embedding defines and modifies its content.
Discovering the madeness of circumstances, structures and embeddings also means
that they could be different. Therefore, this awareness calls for making a change.
With this little intro in mind, we can now move on to visit the artistic research project
visions4people.
10) As mentioned, visions4people started out as a collaboration between an art school
and a psychiatric clinic. It was originally designed as an artistic educational endeavor,
but it soon challenged basic assumptions and routines of thinking and acting. Artistic
research might be an uncommon field of knowledge production to some of you, so I
will give a short 3-slide input on the project’s embedding:
11) I start with a quote by Jaques Ranciere:
“If "art" is but a mode of perception, also "artistic research" must be the mode of a
process. Therefore, there can be no categorical distinction between "scientific" and
"artistic" research - because the attributes independently modulate a common carrier,
namely, the aim for knowledge within research. Artistic research can therefore
always also be scientific research. For this reason, many artistic research projects are
genuinely interdisciplinary, specifically: indisciplinary.”
Artistic research topics and methods for investigating can be selected from all areas of
human activity and will be compiled for the specific projects. Their structures might not
follow the classical linear structure of scientific studies but apply spiraling, self-
reflective constructions.
12) Gilles Deleuze, who had a strong impact on artistic research thought of art and,
now I quote Anne Sauvagnargues, "[…] literature as a clinic that complements or
corrects medicine, for it situates itself at the level of a symptomatology of real effects
rather than an etiology of abstract causes.”
According to Deleuze, artistic activity does not consist of a production of aesthetic
forms, but instead of capturing the forces that permeate our bodies and societies. The
assembling, disclosing and displaying of these forces allow intensifications, subverting
stereotypes and clichés, thus unleashing political power through the artwork.
13) A reason for the interest in artistic research from other research fields but also for
the challenges in transdisciplinary projects is provided by the following quote, again by
Sauvagnargues:
“But the image is not a statement and, according to Deleuze's distinction, requires
semiotics and not semantics, that is, a theory of non-discursive signs that is not content
to duplicate the rhetorics of signification or to imitate linguistic operations. Semiotics
defines itself as a system of images and signs independent of language in general.
Hence the difficulty of an analysis of the non-discursive arts, for it is necessary to learn
in discourse what is not derived by it, and to extract thought from a signaletic, non-
linguistic matter that is nevertheless not amorphous but semiotic."
Artistic thinking and acting might be initiated by different perceptions, capture different
aspects of our complex realities and choose different paths, compared to those of
classical knowledge production. This might have been the case with visions4people.
And now, we plunge into the project!
14) vision4people, the cooperation between the Clinic for Psychiatry and
Psychotherapy Charité Berlin Mitte - which you see here - and the art academy
kunsthochschule berlin included higher degree students from 8 art and design
disciplines, gathering empirical knowledge on site in direct exchange with the patients
of the psychiatric clinic. The input formed the basis for artistic or participatory designs,
intending to positively contribute to the recovery process. The "people," namely the
patients, for whom the institution originally was (or should have been) created, were
the most important communication partners. These contacts were the starting points
for "visions" that were transformed into artistic productions.
15) From the 28 methods and practices performed during the project, I will mention the
3 essential steps that changed the project’s development and produced an overarching
impact, extending into academia.
Change 1)
Waiving questionnaires: From applying to creating (“making”)
In preparation for our joint visits, some students had drafted specific questionnaires for
the patients. To our surprise, the patients unanimously waived the prefabricated
questionnaires, or filled them in with absurd comments. They told us that they would
very much like to spend time with us but were not willing to fill in forms or answer
predefined questions. Also, they rejected taped interviews and live notations with a
computer. They explained that they had been the objects for analysis and data
retrieving in countless ways – they were tired of it. And despite all efforts to distribute
their knowledge, no condition had improved so far. They also asked us back lots of
questions. When they found out that we were from an art school and not involved in
the health care system, there was a palpable relief. Intense and open-hearted
discussions commenced, with topics determined by the patients. We talked about
politics, professions, philosophy, treatment, medication, roles, stigmatization,
boredom, future, art, the sense of life, food, family, money, to name a few.
This experience encouraged us to drop prefabricated formats and we performed
informal, individual exchanges and open communication with the patients and the staff.
Change 2)
From reporting to narrating
Instead of writing field research reports, we produced what we called “scape research
narratives”. The researcher was integrated as a first-person narrator instead of their
“objective” elimination and passive wordings. This allowed individual perspectives to
appear and to be compared and analyzed in a multilayered manner.
Change 3)
From talking to acting (cooperating, collaborating, “making”)
As the patients told us they would very much like to “do something” with us, we
prepared joint activities, as
16) Balloon-session: we brought helium and balloons the clinic and offered them to the
patients, who attached wishes or letters to them. Later, we let them fly.
17) We created a dark room and brought LED lights. The patients could “paint with
light” as my assistant took photos of the colorful movements. Surprising and intense
moments occurred! The following week we brought the photos back to the patients,
who were proud and fascinated.
18) Some patients started cooperating with some students, and some visited the
project rooms. Suggestions, methods, problems and solutions were exchanged.
The planned interrogation had transformed to a shared experience and shared artistic
production. This development initiated the idea of extending and transforming the
project, so that the patients would decide and outline, what a psychiatric clinic should
be composed of. I could convince the head of the Clinic Prof. Heinz, and we sent out
a request to the Senate for an extension; unfortunately, it was never answered.
19) 19 concrete, yet extremely different results were produced by 24 students during
visions4people - and presented to the public and the patients and staff in two
exhibitions.
As I cannot show all contributions here, but the titles and telegram descriptions might
give you an idea of what was realized.
The list starts with artistic contributions for the gardens of the psychiatry, proceeding
to situations inside the building like the floors, waiting rooms and bedrooms, and
leading to system-immanent questions about diagnosis or therapies, and to inter- and
intrapersonal states of mind.
I will show 3 slides as examples:
20) We are the universe: by Pao Kitsch
The planned garden installation consists of movable full and half spheres painted in
mother-of-pearl color. The patients would be able to use, sit, lie on, move and arrange
the spheres according to their personal preferences. Smaller spheres would be
attached to the trees and inspire for imagination about sphere’s origins.
21) Shel[l]ter: by Johanna Taubenreuther
Shel[l]ter was designed to reduce the internal and external tension that arises during
the longer stays in multi-bedrooms in the psychiatric wards. The organic membrane
combines luminous, sound-absorbing and sight-protecting elements. Like an extended
gesture, it can express the need to delineate one’s own territory or open one’s space
to others.
22) You are my window: by Eri Qubo
“You are my window” was an installation and performance, based on interviews with
individuals on the topics of vulnerability. In a complex storytelling performance, the
self-image of the artist intertwined with the self-images of the interview partners. The
artist recited passages of experiences, at times turning in to a singing mode, and
accompanied them with body movements, actions, sounds and light changes.
23) (video 30 sec) In 2019, the 304-page publication visions4people was released. The
narration shifts from a chrono-topological listing of methods and practices to
investigating challenges and complex situations. The reader can revisit the psychiatry
and immerse in the experiences via quotes from the scape research narratives and
images.
The authorship extends from a single speaker to a polyphony of narrations and project
outcomes. visions4people provides experience values and working methods for similar
projects in psychiatric or public institutions.
24) visions4people led, in the field of psychiatry, to a critical questioning of the
approaches of design thinking, participatory design or artistic and research activities.
In our assessment, the use of methods such as prefabricated questionnaires and
ready-made interaction kits build up and maintain a distance that prevents the initiators
from getting in contact with the people they want to know something about.
The researchees’ and the researchers’ roles remain restricted by the tools, channeling
the contact and predefining the outcomes.
If the participatory method is reduced to filling in forms, the activity is data extraction
and not participation. The notion of social participation is no more than lip service if the
studiy design does not offer options for participating in decision-making processes for
the respective parties.
The question is always, however, who initiates these processes out of what interest. In
the worst case,
25) and now I quote Markus Miessen: “participation is used as a veiled tactic to
increase profitability.”
So, here I ask: who decides about the “madeness” of projects?
With visions4people, I experienced scenes that could have escaped a bestiary of our
neoliberal capitalist embedding.
From a long list, I present you two beasts; unfortunately, you might know them, too:
26) Beast No. 1: Slash
Make people work with a mutilated project version: a third of the time and two thirds of
financing were cut for visions4people. This seems to be a routine: Projects are only
granted in slashed modes, triggering work overload for each participant and friction
during conduct. This causes a structural shortage of time.
But changes take time, and the shortage of time means that nothing changes.
27) Beast No. 2: Absorb
Keep people busy.
Complicate processes.
Request, detour, retard: Absorb energy.
Example: a cooperation draft was being incessantly forwarded to ever new offices, its
growing email tail accumulating ever new restrictions and desires. After occupying us
for months on end, the bloated conglomerate miraculously died a quiet death in some
office and was never mentioned again. (and we finished the project without a contract)
28) more Challenges, conclusion: Working in transdisciplinary contexts means to
encounter your own narrowed viewpoints and find out about structural rules and
restrictions – and make aware of these.
Science is not the only source for knowledge production, but part of it, with a strong
emphasis on analytic activities.
A scientific disclosure of for example destructive practices usually does not actively
extend into the improvement of situations.
That means that the effect for the field that was data-extracted remains slim.
29) Now I quote Marion Hamm: “Not all authors express this in such a decisive form
as Wolcott 2005, who declares outright: ‘The researcher has nothing to offer the field’
and points out that research is ultimately of use especially for the researcher
themselves”.
It might be time to extend the field of responsibility and create a praxeology that offers
contributions for the investigated people. End the one-way street, so to speak, and
create feedback-loops.
The six words - from being affected to getting involved - outline the conclusion of
visions4people. They do not only refer to the patient’s, but also to the psychiatrist’s,
psychologist’s or researcher’s roles, and are of course not restricted to the field of
psychiatric communities.
In awareness of the made-ness of structures I learned to ask:
30) What am I actually “making”?
Who am I “making” it for?
Is my “making” helpful to those who are affected by it?
Are their voices heard – and if not, how can I “make” them heard?
Do they have the power to decide, and if not, who is “making it” for them?
After investigating at psychiatry’s needs and desires, and underlying structures, I
turned around and asked: how about my own institutional embedding?
I traced back the roots of educational institutions:
31) Weren’t they initially “made” for the students?
Why then do students not have power in the decision-making processes?
Who are the ones that are “making” the decisions?
Would “one of them” be - me?
What are we really teaching?
Do the contents and methods we teach still meet the needs of actual developments,
conflicts, desires?
How are we actually teaching?
Do we “teach how to learn”?
Why don’t we learn how to learn - as a joint constant process?
Learning procedures are made. They can change.
How would a structure look like, that makes the shift from being affected to getting
involved – within academia?
32) I drafted a project called “human subjects” for 103 first semester students during
the lockdown in winter 2020. The title refers to the (human) subjects (or issues) that
emerged during the year 2020, but also concerns the human subjects as being both
initiators and victims of their anthropocentric makings.
33) The heart of the project was a bilingual, anonymous survey with 7 questions
offering open text fields for the students to comment on the “year 2020”, a deliberately
vague term, to enable a wide spectrum of responses. The results, compiled in an
alphabetical order became the source material, from which each student could choose
a topic, to generate an individual artistic outcome. Thus, the decision-making process
moved to the students.
6 student groups attended the course subsequently. Finally, I merged the 6 group-
alphabets into a large
34) (video 30 sec) an-alphabet (an-alphabet, as the alphabet was subverted by the
bilinguality with “jumping” terms: Auge and Eye, meaning the same, would pop up at
different parts of the alphabet) The an-alphabet compiles the student’s perspectives
on the year 2020. It also became the backbone to which the artistic contributions will
be docked, transforming the an-alphabet into a rhizomatic structure, including non-
discursive material and offering multiple ways of reception.
35) The concept was a first important step to modify the teaching and learning
structure. Now the students actively created the pool of topics that they would be able
to choose from. The students also decided about the media and genres that would
embody their concepts. Intense discussions commenced and some students created
joint contributions. (Online of course, with the students stuck in their single-room flats.)
Other students struggled with deciding on a topic and genre, as they were not used to
making decisions, but rather expected to be given tasks to fulfill, as they had done for
so many years in school. I accompanied all processes and productions in individual
and group meetings.
36) The challenge is to make ground for experiences, agency and research to take
place. To allow space-time for improving energy-flows among the respective people to
create new avenues and options for knowledge production.
Finally, I quote Anselm Franke’s clue about how to “make” a change in an institution:
37) “It begins with the sensing of absence, getting aware of what has been
constitutively foreclosed.
And when you bring something back that was excluded, it bears a force of unbelonging
that cannot be pacified.”
38) So, let us now turn to our actual embodiments and embeddings:
This conference, shaped by and embedded in the pandemic environment, means that
we participate as disembodied, socially distanced, separated-connected, psycho-
physical presence-absences (at times frozen or disconnected), gazing at screens or
monologuing before muted recipients, connected by unsafe platforms, digitalized,
wired or wireless, reembodied by pixels and frequencies.
The perspectives on embeddings and embodiments make us face our own our
restricted ways of perception, fragile connections, and our frightening, precarious
vulnerabilities.
And now, we will shift from being affected to getting involved and start our exchange
with unmuted interactions.
39) I thank you for your attention.
Bibliography:
Franke, A. (2019). Lecture-Video: Speculative Narratives: Essay Exhibitions
Part of “De-Centering Narratives”, English original version, Lecture,
Berlin: Haus der Kulturen der Welt
Hamm, M. (2013). “Engagierte Wissenschaft zwischen partizipativer Forschung und reflexiver
Ethnographie: Methodische Überlegungen zur Forschung in sozialen Bewegungen.” In
Eingreifen, Kritisieren, Verändern!? Münster: Westfalisches Dampfboot.
Rancière, J. (2006). Die Aufteilung des Sinnlichen. In Klein, J., & Kolesch, D. (2009). What is
artistic research? Gegenworte 23. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften
2010
Miessen, M. (2012). Alptraum Partizipation. Berlin: Merve.
Sauvagnargues, A. (2019). Ethologie der Kunst, Deleuze, Guattari und Simondon. Berlin:
August Verlag.
https://enpanthro.net/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/ENPA2021_Conference_Programme_Abstracts.pdf