Daniel

Daniel's research proceeds through deliberate acts of conceptual destruction. His proposal of “twenty ways to destroy a theatre” is representative of a larger methodology: remove the accepted category, institution or vocabulary and observe what artistic necessity survives after the removal. The gesture is iconoclastic but not nihilistic. Destroying the word “theatre,” the proscenium or even the category of art becomes a thought experiment for identifying what cannot be eliminated from the desire to make.

His questions also repeatedly return to collective creation. Devising is treated not merely as a production technique but as a form of distributed knowledge in which structure can reveal content that no individual participant fully possessed beforehand. Fatigue, inertia and rest become legitimate research materials rather than failures of productivity. Daniel therefore consistently resists the assumption that artistic activity must justify itself through continuous output.

For Clarisse, Daniel is less a methodological twin than a useful inversion. Clarisse tends to accumulate images, histories, myths and theoretical references in order to generate a dense constellation. Daniel often begins by removing inherited structures.

Yet both approaches share an iconoclastic impulse: neither is satisfied with simply reproducing the existing image. Daniel clarifies the extent to which Clarisse remains attached to the survival and transformation of images rather than their complete abolition. Where Daniel asks what remains after destroying the theatre, Clarisse increasingly asks what survives after an image, body or mythology has been transformed beyond recognition.