March 2013 – Page 2 – ________-Safe House-_________

She Looks Back.

Lauren Bethany Elouise Watson / March 21, 2013May 8, 2013 / Documentation, Performance process, Research, Rooms

“As in life, actors need to be aware when staring at others is and is not appropriate” ((Schiffman, Jean (2005) ‘Eye to Eye’, Back Stage West, XII (22), 1531572X, May: N.P.)).

Eye contact in performance is vital. It establishes relationships between performers whilst also forming a relationship between the audience and performer/s. But what happens when this eye contact deconstructs or challenges a pre-established relationship? Forced or prolonged eye contact alters the dynamics of a performance, often leaving either recipient or instigator feeling uncomfortable, scrutinised or even exposed.

In our performance, it this surprisingly, usually easy and expected convention of the theatre that is becoming our biggest fear and ask.

“In the theatre, gesture appears typically in conjunction with spoken text, underlining, undermining or counterpointing it” ((Scolnicov, Hanna (2010) ‘Stripping as Gesture’, ASSAPH: Section C: Studies in the Theatre, XXIV, pp. 139-152, p. 140.)), however, in our performance we are playing with this convention. Subverting it, almost. The eye contact happens in silence. The performer is unable to speak, yet the eye contact becomes justified and essential. To hold eye contact is to hold the power within the scene or scenario. But when this scene is subverted, the eye contact becomes a challenge in itself. To create power where there was none through eye contact is an intimidating task, and to subvert a strong, dominating relationship through eye contact alone is empowering.

Witness, UCLA (2011). Counesy of Allison Wyper.’Witness: Notes from the Artist’, Platform, VI (1), pp. 57-76, p.62.

When we are hidden behind the blindfold, we become an object to be viewed. Aspects of the ‘actor’ are stripped away, and we become a possession, as “beneath the mask the actor hides not merely his face but also his identity” ((Scolnicov, Hanna (2010) ‘Stripping as Gesture’, ASSAPH: Section C: Studies in the Theatre, XXIV, pp. 139-152, p. 142.)). The audience knows us on merely an aesthetic level. A possession to be viewed. Although the identity of the performer is not known, the scene presented to the audience is still an intimate one. “Looking at someone is almost like touching them” ((Schiffman, Jean (2005) ‘Eye to Eye’, Back Stage West, XII (22), 1531572X, May: N.P.)), and when that person has no power to look back, this notion of touching them is heightened.

To subvert this power balance without the use of direct address is really an electric moment. “To deconstruct language is to deconstruct gender; to subvert the symbolic order is to subvert sexual difference” ((Showalter, Elaine (1989) Speaking of Gender, London and New York: Routledge, p. 3.)). Suddenly, through the abandon of language, our sexual difference has been subverted, with all the power handed over to us, the exposed performer. This “female self-unveiling substitutes power for castration” ((Showalter, Elaine (1992) Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siecle London: Virago Press, p. 156.)), castrating the voyeur (if male), removing all previous power he held. When we remove our blindfold, the male gaze becomes scrutinised and challenged and abhorred.

This transference of power, and a ‘one-on-one’ audience/performer situation is similar to Allison Wyper’s Witness (2010-2011). Witness is a “participatory performance for one audience member at a time in which the viewer is configured as accomplice to the performance event, a ritual in which power is borrowed, trafficked, and stolen” ((Wyper, Allison (2011) ‘Witness: Notes from the Artist’, Platform, VI (1), pp. 57-76, p.57.)). By participating in this transition of power and status, we make ourselves vulnerable, and question where we stand within the performance.

“As we watch others we are also conscious of being watched” ((Wyper, Allison (2011) ‘Witness: Notes from the Artist’, Platform, VI (1), pp. 57-76, p.62.)).

The behaviour of both performer and voyeur changes throughout the performance. Although first making eye contact is intimidating and scary, once our gaze restored, the power balance shifts. Suddenly, the object looks back and takes on a persona. Challenging the roaming gaze of the voyeur. In our practical sessions, the voyeur has held our gaze. This is either out of respect or fear. Fear to be seen looking at you naked and totally exposed, but also because you are owed respect.

Unsettling environments

Andrew Tinley / March 18, 2013April 13, 2013 / Music / Sound, Performance process, Rooms

What makes a home different?

At home you are generally safe, comfortable and mostly in control of what comes in and out. You feel guarded somehow from the outside world right? I find the places and sites where we spend most of our lives begin to build up a barrier of familiarity, and a sense of understanding. You become well acquainted with the place, whether it be because of its furnishings or maybe even its inhabitants.

So the real question here is ‘What makes a familiar place unfamiliar’? Is it something to do with space, its temperature, its contents? All these things make your home special and unique to you. So I’ve decided to make the kitchen, probably one of the most lived in spaces of the house, different. I feel as though if audience members don’t feel comfortable in an environment their actions and opinions may be more interesting to explore during the performance. The various sounds of a kitchen, which I’ve been experimenting with, will certainly add to that unfamiliarity if edited and manipulated correctly. I find myself editing sounds constantly and changing the way they almost speak to an audience member. What happens when you’re trying to have a conversation with someone who speaks a different language – It all sounds like unknown noise and it’s difficult to communication and understand what is going on.
[peekaboo_link start=”visible”] Warning! Contains Performance Spoliers [/peekaboo_link][peekaboo_content name=”Spoilers” start=”hidden”]

Messing with people’s perceptions about what to expect is what Daniel Kurkakovic’s sound project called Other Rooms, Other Voices is linked to. Firstly his title, “I hoped there would be the recognition of something familiar, but on the other, I intended the inversion would cause a certain confusion” ((Weiner, Lawerence et al (1998) other rooms other voices Switzerland: Memory cage editions. ) )). Firstly the word “other” is very vague and could have a large scope of different meanings. This gap between familiarity and unfamiliarity could be potentially quite small. This is the place where I would like my audience to settle in during the performance, to know that they are familiar with certain aspects of the performance but not fully in control due to the changing soundscape and environment.

Kurkakovic states

“I am interested in the association, which can awaken a very personal story or anecdote of the listener…the tension may then lead to the following questions: Where is my voice? Where is my own perceptual ability?” ((Weiner, Lawerence et al (1998) other rooms other voices Switzerland: Memory cage editions. ) )) Audience questioning is a heavy part of my performance and the ability to access those thoughts will be crucial to the individual unique performative experience.

(Weiner, Lawerence et al (1998) other rooms other voices Switzerland: Memory cage editions)
“Beescope uses the main medium of radio: language. In itself, language does not have any meaning. It generates meaning depending on how it is used” ((Weiner, Lawerence et al (1998) other rooms other voices Switzerland: Memory cage editions. ) )) Recording and importing kitchen sounds on their own sound like random noises collaborated together, but I do believe the interpretation and manipulation creates its own voice. This therefore enables audience members to have the scope to explore and discover ideas and thoughts for themselves throughout the soundscape.

(Images taken by myself Tuesday 12th March 2013 source: Flickr)

This feeling of unsettlement and unknowing is exactly how I want my audience to feel, to undergo a journey of their own personal discovery through the connotations which the soundscape ignite for them. To enhance this experience I have decided to make the room red. The colour red has many contrasting and different connotations which will hopefully add to the confusion and uncertainty. I will also be adding several heaters to the environment to make it quite warm, stuffy and claustrophobic this should hopefully make the environment quite unsettling and unfamiliar. Making the audience listen to the soundscape in this stationary environment may make the headphones seem safe. This may force the audience to keep listening and therefore continue the performance. The fact that the environment is so still may add to the tension and the nervousness created by the soundscape.

Overall I aim for the audience to feel unsettled in this room and so hopefully their own experiences can be delved in to, therefore producing an individual, unique personal experience for everyone involved. [/peekaboo_content]

Performance writing

Lauren Elizabeth Walker / March 18, 2013May 13, 2013 / Documentation, Performance process, Research, Uncategorized

Previously in our performance in the living room, we decided to have a video with 5 minute sections of different films and bits of CCTV footage constantly playing as the audience sit in our space. As we watched tapes about home, and privacy such as ‘rear window’ and ‘life is sweet’ we instantly found ourselves asking the question ‘who is that actor?’. This gave us an idea about coming up with different characters and playing with the idea of “who’s that?” Each of us came up with characters of our own some real and some made up. An example of one of my characters is
Julie key – Elvis Presley’s secret daughter he had by having an affair with the presidents wife.
We then expanded this idea by incorporating the pizza boxes we have been using and writing on them asking questions to each other about our audience member, we tested this with an audience member and the reactions that we got were really interesting. They said that they felt like they were being talked about, which made them want to know what was being said about them. One idea that I have had since having an audience member, is to never show them the box so they will go away wondering what we have written about them, so they go away not knowing and will always wonder what was said. Or we could go a totally opposite way and show them what we have written about them, they won’t fully understand but there’s something interesting about the fact that they will never really understand what it means and will always wonder who the character is and why we related that character to them. Another idea is that each of the performers have a sign or a label on them, saying there name or a made up name. Or something personal about us, giving the audience member an insight into us as people. An example of this is in the picture below which I have taken from “Certain Fragments” written by Tim Etchells.

Michael living a lie. — “Tim Etchells” Certain Fragments Section 2 Performance text.

When reading the section on performance I had a lot of ideas for us to incorporate his work into ours. “Writing for performance doesn’t necessarily have to be a script it can be a range of different types of writing for example- a text of half remembered songs, a text for a megaphone, love letters, posters, emails or a text of nonsense”. ((Caroline moore. (2012). On performance writing. Available: http://worldtheatre2.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/on-performance-writing-tim-etchells/. Last accessed 17/03/2013.)) Text of nonsense really interested me, the idea that what we write on the pizza boxes or maybe even signs on the wall covered in made up words, no punctuation or even a made up language on them, or even in a different language all together. Maybe even shapes and pictures that don’t mean anything. We will know what we have said about them but the audience will never unless they look it up after the performance. This idea is carrying on from earlier, the idea that the performance carries on even after it has finished. We could even ask the audience to write something on the boxes, asking them to write their thoughts about home or even make their own character so we as performers take something away from each audience member. In the last section I experimented as we sat in the space by taking a pizza box and just writing the first things that came to my head by the end of the session I had covered the whole box. I would like to do more of this because the writing I wrote, even though it didnt really make any sense was really interesting and could be incorporated into our performance.

Distorting the face of reality

Andrew Tinley / March 18, 2013April 13, 2013 / Music / Sound, Performance process, Research

How far can you change something to make it a distant reality?

Changing the impression of a room can be difficult because it relies heavily on audience interpretation and so their own individual associations. This is quite stimulating because it enables you as a performer to set up a base foundation for the audience to explore and almost create their own performance.

At what point does a performance become personal?

Sound is a powerful tool for engagement and as a performer, through experimentation, I found that certain sounds placed together in different ways evoked contrasting feelings and emotions. The time in the performance when feelings and individual thoughts and memories come to the forefront of your mind is the main focus of my work and so the other sections of the environment only supports this.

“DoMA/at Home is a meta-theatrical performance project which explores everyday living spaces using a combination of theatre, performance, fine art and movement, along with a strong emphasis on games and involvement of the audience in the process”. ((Lotker, Howard (2006) Divadlo HoME online: http://blackboard.lincoln.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_67088_1%26url%3D (accessed March 2013.) )).

(Home, DoMA/at home sourced: http://www.divadlohome.net/shows/doma_gallery.html (accessed 13th April 2013))

Throughout this performance the audience are going to be aware that they are watching or being involved in a performance, especially with the specific cliental that this site specific work interests, however, it’s the ability to get the audience so lost in their own world through distraction and distortion that makes the performance truthful. Involvement of the audience in a main theme in my work and so I intend to not only involve them physically using headphones but also in their own performance of their thoughts and ideas will be individual, giving them a strong connection with the piece and therefore hopefully leaving my space feeling confused and not in control of their ideas.

“There are constant surprises and interesting questions raised about: borders, cultures, what is art (and how is it different or the same as real life), and about what home means to us” ((Lotker, Howard (2006) Divadlo HoME online: http://blackboard.lincoln.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_67088_1%26url%3D (accessed March 2013.) )).

Questioning of the art is also a critical engagement tool in my work and so I want my audience to be constantly questioning themselves and question what they are doing and so hopefully the art is reinforced and justified by individual opinions and ideas. Below is a review of the DoMA performance in which audience maintained the feelings after the performance had ended.

“They explored the apartments and improvised in unconventional ways. The evening is at an end, but afterwards you go away imbued with this intoxicating atmosphere which penetrates you, and for a long time afterwards you will carry with you the gratifying and unrepeatable feeling of this performance” ((Gráfová, Tifka (2005) An Evening of Voyeurism and Sweet Intoxication online: http://blackboard.lincoln.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_67088_1%26url%3D (accessed 18^th March 2013.) )).

Collaborative soundscape experimentation…

Experimenting with sound and the notion of manipulation sets an instant confusion and disassociation. They ask themselves….What am I listening to? Why am I listening? But as the sound plays certain sounds become more obvious and due to the environment some links begin to appear, but having said that, some sounds remain unknown. The unknown sounds are what may make the audience think and question the sources. All the sounds are recorded on site and are kitchen sounds but the level of editing and manipulation on certain noises may start to create different sounds by use of experimentation. The tester above is one of my first ideas solely as experimentation. As you can hear some sounds are obvious, some not so obvious and the tense and unsettling notion that something is that close to your head I feel puts you on edge.

(Tinley, Andrew (2013) Soundscape Tester 1 online: https://soundcloud.com/andrewtinley2012-1/tester-sound-scape-1-mp3/s-5w3fx (accessed 18th March 2013).

I decided to use headphones during this section so that the audience are unable to escape from the performance. This, due to the fact there are only two audience members with two separate headphones on, raises the question – Are they listening to the same soundscape? This question makes the space much more dynamic and creates a notion of isolation inside your head. This is a positive feeling in terms of my performance because I want each audience member to receive a different individual experience.

The kitchen as a space is quite familiar to use all so completely turning that notion on its head and making audience members enter a completely transformed space with subtle kitchen links may put them at unease. This feeling of tension and potential unknowing helps the space deliver its own characteristics because initially the audience may start thinking with the kitchen in the mind but as the performance goes on I do believe that those opinions and thoughts may get transformed and battled against due to their own personal associations and ideas.

Are you a Hoarder?

Tiffany Abatilda Thompson / March 15, 2013May 12, 2013 / Home, Performance process, Research

Over time we accumulate things and memories from our past and present such as; letters, photos, birthday cards, invitations etc. We then become stuck in a rut with not being able to throw them away because the sentimental value they have. In my own room at university I’ve filled it with photos, teddies and pointless objects that remind me of home, by doing this it has cluttered my room but I can’t seem to take thing’s back home to un-clutter it. Without these things in my room I’m reminded that I’m not at home just a room 50 miles from home.

photo 923acf15-3a41-461d-8709-6d33a85b70ce.jpg

My Photo Wall: 155 West ParadeReading Rodinsky’s Room and finding out what was left in his place after he disappeared in the 1960’s then reopened 20 years later we see the life he had by the objects he collected over the years. When the room was finally opened “Every space overflowed with books on subjects ranging from the Talmud to the study of Hieroglyphics” (( Lichtenstein, Rachel (1999) Rodinsky’s Room, London: Grantab Books. p. 11 )).Rodinsky was an intelligent man that taught himself language’s that isn’t known now.

With our performance we thought of filling the space to show the audience that the space has been lived in, in such a dead room. Similarly, with us being still in a room covered and filled with memories and documents gives away clues to what sort of people we are. We want the audience to feel like they haven’t seen everything when they think they have.