the hyper-mobility in the arts also touched the ‘political dimension’ of being an artist. In part, that has to do with their relationships to their audiences, to the public. I have
discovered that my work can take place within the phenomena of arts centres and theatres that are internationally interconnected. But that also means that I can be on stage in Brussels, then Timisoara, and Tallinn, and that every time, I am standing before a kind of same, predominantly ‘bobo’ audience. The geographical location does not make much difference. It is not about geography, but about demographics, about the question of which population groups you can or cannot appeal to. In that sense, I find that the dimension of the ‘international’ is always filled in too generically. 38 Sarah Vanhee points out that participation goes far deeper than audience numbers. It is also about diversity. That is extremely important for working internationally, and for its effects. Unlike what is often being claimed, travelling does not automatically mean that you reach different audiences. At this point, the intentions on the parts of artists and institutes are generally benign. Compared with the past, requests for artist talks, workshops, participation in debates and lectures, and for other formats that frame artistic presentations and expand relations with audiences, continue to increase. Artists and groups indicate that working together with initiatives of this kind is expected, but there is often no budget for it. The perverse aspect of this sort of request or even demand is that it sometimes constitutes part of the financial negotiations. Taking the time and space for meaningful exchange, whereby artists are not only travelling around the world with their work, but are also able to learn from the environments into which they arrive: for this as well, in the way the system works today, there is very little of that time and that space available. In the words of artist Hans Bryssinck:
44
—
k unsten pock et # 2