“6+1” Marks the Start of a Journey of Reflection and Discourse “6+1” Marks the Start of a Journey of Reflection and Discourse “6+1” Marks the Start of a Journey of Reflection and Discourse

The workshop establishes a platform focusing on conceptual deconstruction, creativity generation, and critical thinking through various performing arts related exercises. Every session of the workshop begins with a warm-up activity that is connected to the elements. The students themselves lead this activity to showcase their understanding and curiosity about each element, after which there is a reflection and discussion based on experiences and observations made by everyone involved in the workshop.

The warm-up portion of the workshop differs from the performance-oriented warm-up exercise. Instead of being guided by instructors, it is led by the students themselves. It could be taken in various forms, such as discussions, games, or creating activities related to the elements. This allows the students to demonstrate their comprehension and appreciation of the elements and encourages a shift away from discussions solely focused on performers.

From imagination to physical space, from indoor to outdoor, the students explore the intrinsic correlation between the body and space through their body: a constant collective movement process (constancy) and space as the mutation of the experiment (variation). How can creators and performers use this to reflect on the performance space that we are familiar with?

A “creative practicum” assignment is conducted at the end of each workshop session, extending from a one-minute framework to a 40-minute long performance; encouraging individual and collective growth. The students are motivated to accumulate their questions, thoughts, and arguments and to transform their ideas into concepts that can be presented in the “empty” space right there at the workshop, thereby bringing the theatre to life.

The “creative practicum” assignment starts with the elements discussed earlier that evening, adding specified frameworks and materials. Students work in groups of four and use up to ten sentences selected from a specified text within 15 minutes to develop a 5-minute creation related to “symbols”.

In the last two weeks of the workshop, the focus shifted to the final presentation of the creative work. The two groups of students developed different and unique works for the first half and second half in their performances using the same creative framework, with vocabularies such as forms, symbols, and other elements repeatedly echoing each other throughout the works. By observing the other group’s classes, students were able to take a step back and engage in pre-class preparation or review of their learning. This repeated experience allowed them to use the perspective, discussion, and practice of the other group as a reference and trigger for their own learning, facilitating a continuous process of learning and growth.

Initially, some students felt pressure from having to stay on stage for a long period of time. However, Liu Xiaoyi effectively helped everyone to realise the importance of first understanding the ‘structure’ by analysing and deconstructing time through simple improvisation exercises, so as to highlight the creation’s “symbols” and “narrative”. He also emphasised that “blank space”, on the contrary, could encourage more audience engagement and further experience of the work.

The showcase performance The Death of God emerged from the creative elements and fragments accumulated by the students during the workshop. It constructed a balanced narrative and discussion inspired by German philosopher Nietzsche’s “The Death of God”. The rehearsals were not only designed to serve the purpose of performing but also extended to explore observations and discussions of the workshop.

After the performance, the students continued to discuss the content and structure of the workshop, responding to and challenging the audience’s questions. For Hong, one of the participants, what stood out the most was the workshop’s emphasis on constant creation, allowing for continuous experimentation and feedback. “It was very enjoyable and comfortable to continuously develop these sudden ideas with other students,” she said.

Another participant, Deng, felt that “the workshop had a varied impact on performers at different stages and levels of ability.” Workshop participants are good at different performance forms, and the discussion and experimentation allowed for different perspectives and reflections on their creative work”, which deeply influenced her direction in thinking.

Course planner Danny Yung was pleased to see the enthusiastic discussions among the students. He thought that they were no longer simply “doing homework” but instead transforming their experience into something that belonged to themselves. He urged the students to “not adhere to conventions and try to go beyond what exists, which is the true beginning of experimentation.”

The idea of “6+1” was raised by Danny Yung, culminating years of discussion and practical experience comprising six elements: body, voice, space, technology, symbols, and structure, which encapsulate the creative philosophy of the Danny Yung Experimental Theatre. Initially, the elements were introduced as the course framework for “Creative Playground – Danny Yung Experimental Theatre Education Programme”. Later, by Liu Xiaoyi’s suggestion, critiques were added as footnotes, creating a platform that emphasises conceptual deconstruction, creativity generation, and critical thinking, which is known as “6+1”.

Curator: Danny Yung

Tutor:  Liu Xiaoyi

Producer: Doris Kan, Cedric Chan

Coordinator: Chuk Yin Man, Ellen Kong

Trainee: Zhang Mei Ping, Martin Choy、Chuk Yin Man, Lam Ka Ting, CK Liu, Ip Chin-Chin, Ruan Chen, Tang Wai Yee, Yang MeiShengMing(Guang Zhou), Zhang JieQiong(Beijing), Elvin Cheung, Cleave Lam, Chloe Li, Candy Hung, Ellen Kong, Vince Lai、She Lok In, 鄧浩薇, Tang Chi Fung, Zachary Pink YUNG