1. inter-face/inter-space
In greek the word for door – thyraten – means ”at the threshold”, and in japanese, the word hashi means both border and bridge. I don´t know if there´s a similar linguistic turn in the chinese languages, but somehow this wordplay, and the difference/similarity in its cultural connotations could be an interesting point of departure.

in Neither You Nor Me the story has the function of an interface, the dividing membran that both separates and connects the individuals reading/interpreating it. The Stage in this way is not a space for telling an already existing content, it´s an interspace that is created when we engage in an encounter through the narrative/interface.

Besides the story, we also use the white wall/black holes ”mask” as some sort of inter-face; the face as both outside and inside, the sur-face that activates a machine producing meaning, rather than communicating a finalized meaning in itself.

Another possible layer is the parallel functions of interface, passage and translation. The basic conflict in Antigone is that Kreon has forbidden anyone to bury Antigone´s brother; thematically the story thus evolves around the ritual for passage, which is also understood as a translation of the living to the dead.

So, it could be really interesting to somehow focus on the interface not only as sign, but also look at it out of strictly technical applications and tools for translation between different media/fields/languages. I don´t know what it means, yet; but a lot of your context deals with the encounter between art and science and it just seems to make sense, somehow.

2. the stage as translational inter-space
In a surprisingly contemporary notion, Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe discusses the dilemma of the translator; to submit the foreign to the known or the known to the foreign. In his translation of Antigone, the german poet Hölderlin investigates third alternative: neither the known nor the foreign, but a language inbetween.
The task is not to solve the conflict, but to create the conditions for the space where it occurs.
(Marcia Cavalcante Schuback, Lovtal till Intet)

I feel a reluctance towards the act of filling out the gaps; furthermore an increasing suspicioun against the real intentions of my own rethorical movements. Time after time I seem to catch my linguistical figures in the act of seeking coherence and truths where none are to be found; they are chimaera, are exactly rethorical and exists only as a constructed glue to connect pieces that in their own reality in no way create a totality.
In the investigation of the linguistical spaces being born by a thought, new thoughts arise that – without being in opposition – to a certain extent outdate their own origin. They demand their own space; they exist incomplete but perfectly in their own unfinished right, and defy any tendency to be paired with other spaces of thought – just because the rethorical form of their creator would find that desirable.

In meeting the Other the Self turns every object into a part of its own subject. This is the process we normally define by confirmative pronouncing the Formula ”I understand”. The understanding as Power apparatus; a tool for my subject to appropriate the experiences of the Other and place them within my own referentiality.
The utopic potential to defy this mechanism lies in the Becoming; the possibility to stay in a mutual imagining of the world, that refuses every form of concreteness or materialization.
For the Utopy to keep its special quality as Becoming it has to stay Utopy. In the moment it becomes reality, goes from abstraction to concreteness, it no longer can survive as potential, but becomes a dogm, a new system that forces the world to follow its logic. The Being as Becoming thus conditions a balance, between abstraction and concreteness, idea and reality, where one side never is given supremacy over the other.

The art of Imagining demands a highly developed ability to direct my attention towards that what I do not understand; not until I understand, but until it starts talking to me. Therefore, time is a legal capital for the theatre. That what creates response without invested time communicates nothing but my already existing identity.

The virtual nature of the Stage carries the Becoming as its biggest potential. What I have materialized in a physical form – given shape – no longer is imaginable as anything else than what it is; the spectator has been incorporated with my subject and that what has been shaped no longer has any potential, alternative existens.
Therefore, what I look for is shapes that are capable of holding parallell subjects. How can I make it possible for the performance and its spectators to collectively perform the act of ”reading? The basic principle is simple; we do the same as everytime we read a novel. The trick is to use the work on stage – gestaltningen – to activate the reading, rather than to present the images.
To think in non-realised potential instead of result. What becomes possible if I abstain from giving my thought a particular, material form in reality?

Rather than disappeared, our knowledge on the symbolic has hidden; burrowed in that corner of our conciousness where we store the things we do not longer need, but still understand as too valuable to be thrown away.
The result is problematic: We confuse the symbol with the parabel, mistake it for a sign that actually only describes itself, even if disguised.
This way, we live without depth; captured in our own one-dimensionality – which of course is a dilemma for an artform that has its fundament built on the representation.
The objective of my practice thus must be to find the symbol that I don´t understand, but still can believe in.

We live in a time obsessed with recognition; quality is measured by recognizability, and the only thing we really can recognize is the mirror image that reminds of our own face. Thus we also communicate values on which experiences that can be called human.
In this way we communicate the same projected image, built on the same segment of ourself and our own reality, over and over again. We can – provided that we are given enough time – step by step integrate new members in our reality; in the way that we the two latest turn of centuries have seen first the woman and then the integrated second-generation immigrant enter the stage. But we don´t have any real strategies for how to encounter that what is really external or unknown.
Still, it is reasonable to assume that the fundamental human need to create artistical representations originates in our need with what we do not understand or recognize, rather than in creating identity with what we already know as our own reality.
Empathy only becomes necessary in relation to what I can´t house within my own identity.

The problem of theatres authoritative notion of knowledge isn´t primarily ideological or moral; its the high price we pay to be able to claim this authority.
Authoritarian communication conditions that I only communicate knowledge that I already possess; the theatre performance thereby constitutionally is limited to being a forum for everything that we already know.

Good Taste is the subtle strategy of power to practice the inner logic spelled I am I. Through the Taste, the directives controling what representations in the public space that create identity with the self image of Power are communicated.
Therefore the motto of futurism – to be ”a slap in the face of the public taste” – was something more than an obstinate posture, not just an attitude. The art that has any kind of subversive objective needs to define strategies to survive beyond taste; in other words without confirmation from the gatekeepers of established culture.

Because the wall of tiles never has the function to protect against water, but always inexorably functions as a sign for a content, the scenography is so hard to forgive. Scenography – not per definition, but by virtue of the expectations it builds – transforms the work to result, practical act to esthetical, signifying object, thought to configurative expression.
It is the scenography that creates security; brings the process back to the agreed framework – that makes sure that we at the end of the day deliver a result recognicable as ”theatre”.
When the receiver signs the delivery, the act dies the double death in both You and Me.

Only to that what I do not understand I want to give my time. The practical task thus becomes: How can we on stage continue to actively read the story together with the audience; on the way towards an understandning, but without the emergence of understandment?
The movement as a explicitly defined intent – and with a well defined objective, but with the basic condition that the objective is never reached.

I think of the stage as an arena whose most basic function is to give us devices to encounter ”the Other in its Otherness”; to meet the Other, not in an attempt to understand – i.e. incorporate with my own subject – but in an attempt to remain in the movement towards an understanding, where the encounter exists only as long as the movement continues, and where the objective of the work consequently becomes to find strategies to avoid reaching the goal of the movement – the Understandment.
The scenic creativity that emanates from non-identity thus becomes an unexpectedly concrete practice of non-understanding. The scenic act of the actor must be understood as a representative exercise, rather than a depicting representation; an act that opens to the co-creative act of the audience – the lingering eye – rather than asks for its passive consumption of finished objected.
An investigation movement inwards in the text; to find the way for a free fall through the shaft that runs through the voids between the islands of already familiar knowledge, and where the most important condition is that we dare to abstain from the advantage of understanding that constitutes one of the most traditional priviliges of our profession.
The skills of our craft thus should be founded on finding the movements that escapes the understanding; only there we and the audience become free to, simultaneously solitary and in community, discover the glimpses of understanding that make up our own subjects.

The positive formula of the enigma is evident in Kafka´s Before the Law: You sit before the Gate of the Law. It is open; and that is why you can not enter. Maybe later, not right now.
In Kafka the question is admirably specific – and the answer just as inaccessible as the Law. Exactly here lies the potential of the Enigma: To define the question means an opening, that includes anyone who is affected by the problem it approaches.
To define the answer, on the other hand, is to write the Law. The gate of the Law is open, not for us to step in, but for the Law to reach out; not until it can reach anyone of us at any given time, its generality can be executed.

In the jewish tradition the windinstrument Shofar is used in a way that feels relevant for the ambivalent relation theatre has to the nature of exploration: To blow the horn means to call for God – not hoping that he will answer, but that he also this time will remain silent.
A recognizable answer would mean that God confessed his belonging to the human sphere; a detronization that of course is of no more interest to God than it is to humanity. The practice of the tradition in this way can be interpretated out of the idea that we should take comfort in the fact that Christ still hasn´t arised.
An answer from God, a concrete evidence of his existence – recognizable, as a part of the human, material reality – would be a denial of the divine. Everytime the horn calls for God it is being done in the hope that the answer will fail to appear; as long as God remains silent the potential of the world is infinite. If he answers he ties himself, and thereby the world, to a material reality.
Out of the same logic the theatre performance, that manages to resist its own materialization, its own physicality, is the ultimate objective for any given working process.

A dialectic relation between art institutions and the reality they communicate with, both in terms of a political context and an audience, is a fundamental condition for a vital communication to emerge. This dialectic, in its turn, presupposes a oscillating movement between expectation and resistance.
The communication needs differences and distances in positions and perspectives in order to not be transformed in static consent. With leaders of our institutions – theatre, schools etc – that to an increasing extent understand as their task to synchronise their taste with that of the audience, in order to supply a market with demanded products, the movement succesively stanna av, until a point where expectation and work of art has become one – and nothing anylonger can be thought than that what already exists. The oscillation between expectation and resistance is replaced with a sine curve, where what we already know is reproduced in eternity.
A depressive theatre.