In 2016 we had debuted with Xebeche and we had received as feedback – from people we fully trusted – some annotations that it was a difficult show. Instead, it seemed to me that I had made a huge effort to make it elementary. It was then that we began to wonder why our work is so difficult to read. Were we making reading or communication errors? To find an answer, we went into the rehearsal room to analyze our compositional process point by point, to find words that unequivocally summarized (at least for us) concepts and practices, to work on evidence. Over the course of two years we have found four macro-places of composition: body, time, space and relationship. We understood that there are four elements that are inextricably linked to each other and we analyzed them by establishing temporary hierarchies, thus focusing each time on one of them.
After a year we met students of the history of theater and dance from the University of Parma and we put them in front of our devices – improvisational paths that start from declared rules – asking them to read what was happening by enunciating key words during the ‘action. A path that we could define as one of other direction was determined: the moment a student named what he saw, the dancer became aware of it and returned the action with greater evidence. In the moments in which the proposal was not clear silences arrived, or the keywords became “sentences” indicating that what was happening was confused.