reflections

“Food for Thought aims for breaking the borders between a purely academic context and a purely artistic context” quoted the announcements of Food for Thought. In preparation for the congress the phrase was copy-pasted many times on the website, the flyer, the menu and in the emails to the participants. In the talk show of Saturdaynight it almost sounded as a slogan. However, what did this phrase mean in the end? What is ‘academic context’, what is ‘artistic context’? What is ‘purely’ and what do we mean by ‘breaking borders’? How did we picture two ‘contexts’ surrounded by ‘walls’ in a space of ‘purity’. And where was this hammer forcing them into the open? Speaking of World Pictures – where the congress was about - we could imagine a cartoon showing this concept: two high buildings, one purely filled with heads, books and words; the other purely

with bodies, signals of movement, and colorful chaotic drafts. A strong power from the outside would crash the walls and the collection of icons would fly trough the air, get mixed up and fall down in the streets of the city. It suddenly came to us as a forced representation of unclear value, or at most as a funny metaphor.Moving within an either artistic or academic context is a well-designed image. However, the concepts, methods, ideas and - most of all - persons forming this context are not limited by a picture at all. The illustrated persons are, like every human, searching for meaning, that can emerge and be judged within the so-called context, but is a nomad in a world where borders are an illusion. Meaning travels from one person to the other. They only thing we have to do, is paying attention. Food for Thought just aims for that. During attention there are no borders." - red. SPOT (magazine University of Amsterdam)

"By Food for Thought we set up a framework with the barest limits. At two evenings twelve scientists (or rather, theorists) met twelve artists spread over twelve Amsterdam restaurants. Other guests showed up. It was roughly 6pm and everything could happen. But what did actually happen?! We grasped a glance of it by visiting the restaurants. We encountered: lively discussions, bones of fishes, passionate monologues, empty glasses, open folded notebooks, painful silences, chocolate brownies, confused looks, concentrated looks, no looks, broken nutshells, and more. We collected mental pictures and short cut quotes. And although we felt fulfilled being a silent spectator we realized that, as in quantum mechanics, our entrance changed the environment and meaning of what was present(ed)." - Rosa van Toledo (organisation)

"The world as a round stage, the disappearance of borders, the considered position of the spectator and the illusion of one-way-communication all came into picture at the dinner table. How to relate yourself to the others, the environment, the waiter, the given knowledge and a plate full of unknown food in a situation where no rules or structure is evident?"

 “It’s Friday afternoon, the citizens of Amsterdam have finished their working-week and everyone is longing for a drink and a superficial talk. Everyone? No, in the back of a small bar an artist and a scientist are brought together in order to talk about the most important things in life: art and theories about art.
    The surrounding noises force them to raise their voices, to lean forward as much as they can and to repeat every sentence once or twice. On top of that they both have to speak in a language that’s not their own, since scientist Antje Dietze is from Germany, artist Odilo Girod is from the Netherlands and the two listening guests are from Hungary and Great Britain. One could think this all might be a very bad start for an intellectual blind date, but then he ignores the perfect fitting theme of the meeting, which is: ‘exemplary failures: strategies and benefits of missing the point’.
     Let’s be honest: more than once the point was missed. The discussion was about artists that aim to fail in order to succeed, because sometimes the most beautiful things may happen after a failure. The question that raised was whether it’s not just about taking risks, and whether that’s not simply what all art should be about. Even with a whole variety of examples (starting with German artist Christophe Schlingensief and ending with the terrible illusionist Tommy Cooper), the difference did not really become clear. Maybe that wasn’t even the goal, because in the end all participants felt like the evening was a success. ‘It’s always nice to meet interesting people,’ they stated. Business cards were exchanged and everybody got invited to a show of one of the guests, because ‘in a performance I never feel like I can fail.’
    Right before leaving, the other guest just needed a little explanation about the concept of the meeting: ‘Who of you two is the scientist?’ “ – Odilo Girod (participant)

"It will be impossible to reiterate our conversation in an email, it could make for an essay or a film not unlike "My Dinner with Andre". My point is that such an initiative can plant the seeds for ideas to flourish in full blown international exchange and collaboration. All conferences should incorporate this event in their program. Sure I met important people at the conference. But really, I even made a new friend." - Iona Pelovska (participant)

ALL REFLECTIONS ON REQUEST.