Today we tried to understand the role of the public in any artistic activity. It is the audience which is the reflection of how your idea works in practice. An observer is exposed to my project, reacts emotionally and intellectually. In a way judges and verifies me as the inventor of the idea. Of course, as the author I am the first censor who evaluates how the project meets my expectations. How the idea differs from its realization. In ideal situation I can say “yes, that is what I wanted to communicate and exactly in such form as it happened”. However it is different from the spectator side. He filters out my work through his personality, sensitivity, experiences and intellect. The better the project is completed, the better viewer’s reception coincides with my intentions. The first exercise, “deaf phone” made us realize how quickly a simple message is distorted by successive “filters” of subsequent recipients. Everyone “hears” something different. There are as many interpretations as recipients.
Of course „deaf phone” game is particular. The message in a way is one-dimensional, not supported by light, images, sounds.
The second exercise involved people walking the streets. Observers became participants of the event. A moving group of students performed a variety of strange poses or gestures. People were observing us with surprise or smile. They were moving along with us, but at any time they could leave the game. They participated in our event, succumbed to our action, however no one broke the convention imposed by us!
Later we had the task to present a chosen street in the form of a short film. The task concerned the relationship of word and image. A word can be illustrated by referring to its construction (division into two parts) using colloquial connotations (beige – color of the sand), or referring to cultural codes of a given community (the character of witch hat).