See You Next Tuesday – Taboo or not taboo, that is the question

After the Experiment….

Posted on December 15, 2013December 16, 2013 by Jessica Golby

Two sections of the piece contrasted dramatically and had differing levels of effectiveness in achieving our aim: to explore and decontextualize taboo words. The song mash up, which consisted of classic melodies (Eye of the Tiger, Girls Just Want To Have Fun, YMCA), didn’t work as well as the breakdown of the phonetically spelt profanities.

Although we liked the songs, the response of the audience was not as positive. During the first performance the audience found the humour and laughed along with the ridiculousness of the well-known song lyrics being replace by profanities. The majority of this audience were a similar age range as us. Maybe the absurdity and stupidity of this section appeals to the humour of people in their late- teens and early 20. From the second performance, which consisted of a wider age range of people, this section received negative reactions. Some of the older members of the audience either didn’t respond or made clear the disapproval by refusing eye contact. This mash up came after a section which placed the profanities in a DADA- like soundscape which distorted the words and their context. The previous section worked well in achieving our aim but the song potentially ruined the progress we had made. Although we enjoyed the song section, it became a very self-indulgent section of the experiment as our enjoyment was the reasoning of its place within the experiment.

Before the experiment we should have thought more about the wide range of people attending the piece and done further research in to their ideas of what and what isn’t taboo. It became clear to us, during the experiment, that different people have differing ideas of taboos and what are acceptable topics of discussion in public places. Our research had not accommodated for this and was very one dimensional as we placed emphasise on the words and phrases that we though were taboo.

The phonetically spelt taboo words, which were introduced in a way which a teacher would speak to their students, worked favourably towards our aim. The break down of the words in to their most basic form worked but the context in which we placed it, the reference to children, maybe let this section down. The piece as a whole enveloped the idea of teaching and children but the DADA-like section, which was most effective, had no links to children. Having carried out the experiment, we have learnt that the child-like setting and the sections placed in child-like contexts didn’t work as well as those that explored the words and the words only. If we were to perform this experiment again, a change of stance to a more natural and mature setting may enhance the results felt by many participants.

We potentially overthought our experiment and tried to add in extra strands which added interest to the piece. Instead we should have stuck to the basic exploration of taboo words and focused on experiment in a simpler, less complex manner.

The experiment also used a wide range of taboos; from common swear words (fuck, cunt) to racial and sexuality slurs (nigger, muff diver) to taboo subjects (cancer, Madeleine MacCann). In order for this experiment to be more effective, we need to reduce the wide range of topics we address and focus on the words and their decontextualization, rather than the taboo topics.

We received mixed feedback from both the experiments. This was to be expected. However, if we were to carry this out again, we would need to simplify our idea, reduce the amount of material we aim to cover and research more widely to gain understanding of taboos in communities other than our own.

Concept, Evaluation, Performance

How Did It Go?

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Lauren Simpson

“Swearing is certainly not yet acceptable in public, and still occasions fines, law suits and censure”, however, recently there seems to have been “a great change in attitude” within society in general (Hughes 1991, pp. 250). Our performance aimed to open more people’s minds to this change and make them aware of the misuse of taboos. To some extent, this was achieved and in certain sections of the performance we were successful. However, there were also aspects of our piece that did not work in achieving our aim. This is something that is bound to happen when creating experimental theatre.

Arguably, one of the strongest elements during our performance, in terms of portraying our concept, was the sound scape. This involved a surrealist element and the distortion of letters and it worked in decontextualizing the words. The constant repetition begins to slowly alter the sound of the words, and they begin to form new words. We could have extended this section further, if we were to perform again. One experiment that we could do to further this is to set up a durational performance where the sound scape would be continuous for a number of hours. This length of time would allow the words to completely decontextualize and no longer sound like the same word.

The use of microphones during this section added to the atmosphere in the space. The amplified sound filled the entire ‘den’ and surrounded the audience members with the sounds of the words. Placing the speakers around the performance space meant that all the participants could hear the words being spoken by all four performers rather than just the one sitting nearest to them.

We were not trying to make swearing or the use of taboos into a good or a right thing to do, we simply wanted to make people more aware of their meanings. So, if they were to be used, then at least they are being used in the correct context. We felt this was important, as if people think about the context and definitions of these words then maybe they will be more reluctant to use them in such a ‘throw-away’ manner. We also wanted to alert our audience to the fact that there are constantly new taboos being created.

Works Cited:

Hughes, Geoffrey (1991) Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Performance

Experiment One or Experiment Two?

Posted on December 13, 2013December 15, 2013 by Jamee-Lee Fleming

The experiment was shown twice with two different types of audiences. The first audience consisted of our peers. This meant that throughout the experiment they were more responsive such as laughing and getting more involved than the second audience. The second audience had people which were from a different social bubble, and because they were not as responsive as the other group made me realise that the experiment was going to have two very different outcomes after had finished.

This pattern continued throughout of the two experiments:

Experiment one had developed into a friendly, fun atmosphere which had a lot of laughing and clapping along with the music and songs which were performed. In the discussion, people were responding to the questions confidently as more questions were being, the group had become a non – judgemental and ‘safe’ place that people were using these words freely without feeling insecure. The feedback from the audience after the experiment claimed that they felt comfortable in the setting and that they were able to say these words and answer the questions without feeling worried they were going to offend anyone as everyone shared their own opinion and it was respected.

Experiment two’s atmosphere was the total opposite to the previous one. As I mentioned before we had the public involved. The whole experience had a different feeling towards it. You could see the audience feeling very uncomfortable and didn’t enjoy it all. This is because they have been put into a different environment in which had sexual objects scattered around such as dildos, lingerie and sexual books. There were words which had personal attachments to them which were performed in many ways such as distorted soundscapes and cheesy pop songs. This could be seen has insensitive and threatening towards them which automatically brought up their defence barrier.
During the discussion, this was shown as the audience members answered our questions. For example, people expressed their concerns with what was being asked which had a different tone to the previous audience. I feel as though asking these questions put us in a vulnerable position as this let the audience express their feelings not only to the questions but also expressing the emotions they were feeling throughout the experiment.

The outcome of this experiment is that taboo words are not a social issue in today’s society. It all depends on personal experience and what these words of topics mean to you, whether you have experienced them yourself or in your own social bubble. I can understand as to why the audiences reacted differently to one another because personally if I had experienced something that I did not believe in or that I felt uncomfortable with, I would automatically not enjoy it and would wish for it to end straight away. But also I can see it in the way of how the first audience experienced it because to them it was their peers not meaning to offend or harm anyone emotionally, just to express the breaking down these words.

Overall, if I had to do this experiment again the idea of the den I would keep as we did create a comfortable and secure setting, but just remove the sexual objects around the space as this automatically put the audience on edge and were scared to know what was coming next. To not try and create a threatening atmosphere like the second audience felt, the songs would be removed and I would concentrate on the shock factor of the words and working more on breaking down these words through different mediums such as little sketches like the soundscapes and the ABC song.

Evaluation

Paint a Vulgar Picture

Posted on December 13, 2013December 16, 2013 by Christopher Greenhall

Upon completion of our piece, it’s now time for us to evaluate what worked within the performance and what did not. The way in which we decorated and set our space was with the intention of making it ‘safe zone’; making the concept of giving these words acceptance viable. We constructed the set with a child’s ‘den’ in mind; bed sheets draping across and down as a roof and walls. We also filled the space with cuddly toys and seemingly harmless and child-like objects. This was so that once audience members entered the space, they feel welcome and secure. However, if a participant was to delve deeper into the space they would discover subtle hints of a darker agenda. Slightly hidden in the organised mess of children’s toys and cushions was a number of sex toys and sexual paraphernalia, hidden because we appreciated the idea of participants getting the ‘secure’ sense first and then after visual investigation, begin to see what the content could possibly involve.

The segment of our performance which involved offering audience members a big bowl full of bits of paper which each contained a question seemed to work. As the questions were topical about taboo words and subjects, they generated a good amount of discussion and contemplation. We were concerned that people would feel as though they could not speak their mind about these subjects; on the contrary, we were finding it difficult to move from one question to the other. It’s apparent that the way in which we set our space made participants feel more open and accepted to discuss their thoughts. Overall we feel our performance went very well and we had masses of fun in the process. We feel it ran smoothly and the audience involved themselves when appropriate.

Concept, Performance, Rehearsal Process

ABCDEFGAY

Posted on December 11, 2013December 11, 2013 by Lauren Simpson

There are hundreds of different possible words that the English alphabet can make. Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein developed his theory of the ‘language game’. This is the concept of language being in its simplest form. It is the most recognised form of language. Wittgenstein “counteracted a longstanding tendency among philosophers to reduce language to assertive statements,” and he began to form this idea of “ideal language” (Huemer 2004, pp.1). An example of a ‘language game’ would be giving orders and obeying them. This demonstrates the sheer simplicity of them. A ‘language-game’ that we exploit in our performance is the teaching and learning of words. This is possibly the first time a language game occurs in someone’s life. We want to take the audience back to their childhood in order to reteach them the words.

Wittgenstein’s work also “focuses on detailed investigations of how words are used in diverse contexts of human practice” (Huemer 2004, pp. 5). Society has continually used certain words in a derogatory way, and so they have become a type of anti-ideology. Younger generations are brought up to understand that there are certain expletives that should not be used. Taking the word ‘slut’ for example, it is simply four letters constructed together to create a sound. How is this any different from creating the word ‘lust’ with the same four letters? Societal ideologies stem from the Marxist theories and Louis Althusser. An ideology “is a system…of representations…endowed with a historical existence and a role within a given society” (Ferretter 2006, pp. 76). Taboos fit into this definition, as they are historically known as being wrong, and so society knows not to use them openly. The issue is that these words are constantly phasing out of our common language. This means that new derogatory and offensive words are continually forming to replace them. This replacement needs to stop if we are to live in a world with less or even no taboos.

Through our performance, we are simply trying to show that these are just words and their harmful use within certain communities is wrong and pointless. We show this by distorting the words through our voices and playing with their structure.

Works Cited:

Ferretter, Luke (2006) Louis Althusser, Oxford: Routledge.

Huemer, Wolfgang (2004) ‘Introduction: Wittgenstein, language, philosophy of literature’, The Literary Wittgenstein, London: Routledge.