Therefore, it is because of my questions about how to survive this system? I value and make use of the concept of the fissure. In this way, as I have been walking along, during the course of this process; in my third year at the institution, I have been able to find myself in a field in which I have been able to pick myself up, and this has been flamenco.
It must be said that it was not traditional flamenco, or the flamenco, that was instrumentalised during the time of the regime. The flamenco, that happened within this cultural institution, has allowed me to be in a place of exception and at the same time on the periphery. Since within the Catalan context, flamenco does not form part of the main cultural production plans proposed by the institution. In fact, making it very clear that the interests to which its cultural policies, systems of production, and diffusion respond have a past and are still reflected in the current socio-political situation. This is one of the main reasons why the institution was seeking academic autonomy by propitiating its affiliation to the University for the 2020-2021 cycle.
But, I would like to go back and situate myself during the 2017-2018 academic year. It was that under the tutorship of Juan Carlos Lérida (a Sevillian artist currently teaching at the Institut del Teatre), I have been able to find a space for questioning and concerns regarding my practice as a professional. During my transit as a student and in my future as a pedagogue, and that being so, when the following 2018-2019 academic year arrives, I have been able to provoke this proposal.
It is directly articulated with the compulsory exercise that the teaching plan proposes in the training of Dance Pedagogy in the Higher Conservatory of Dance at the Institut del Teatre in Barcelona, and which refers specifically to Pedagogical Assistance. This training content commits the dance pedagogy student to observe and learn didactic models practised and validated by the institution within the work in the classroom. This proposal, for a teaching plan applied to the subject, simply leaves the student in the position of a witness. Where he/she is only able to make notes and reflect them in a written work for a second tutor of the subject (who is not present during the process). And it is here that I find the fissure, and so I ask myself.
Is the fissure to be found, or is it to be designed?
In order to explain myself I make an analogy, that when talking about the Bone System as a structure, a fracture can be greatly identified by the doctors, and they try to restore it. If it is an exposed fracture it is much bigger and consequently the intervention that they do to be able to solve it is of the same proportions. But when a fissure is made it is almost undetectable but equally or more dangerous because it cannot be determined what is the level of affectation that it can leave in the structure. Trying to answer my question in relation to the system and its policies, I try to manoeuvre under the obligatory nature of this situation: first, because Pedagogical Assistance is crossed by the rule of optional subjects provided by this educational system, without realising it, and second, because of my closeness to and interest in experimentation in the field of flamenco.
This led to the creation of a new subject which, coincidentally, was not dictated by the Central Government, not by the Regional Governments, and which did not go through the review of any Higher Council of Artistic Education, and going even further, without the intervention of any kind of Autonomous Council of Artistic Education. So, it was after this turning point that I interacted by elaborating a proposal that Juan Carlos Lérida and I entitled: Flamenco Optativo (Optional Flamenco). It was carried out during the second semester of the 2018-2019 academic year and lasted 45 hours. Students from the fields of choreography and pedagogy enrolled in this proposal.