December 2013 – Page 2 – See You Next Tuesday

In our performance, we have used objects which are used in the analysis of semiotic theory. “Semiotics or semiology… involves addressing physical objects in terms of their ability to convey meaning” (Saussure, 1974, p. 3).  This can be seen through signs such as body movement to which express a certain attitude or emotion, colours that can show the mood or atmosphere or even what a person wears could identify what sort of person they are in terms of class, race or gender.

Ferdinand de Saussure who studied linguistics and is known as the former for semiotics, states that there is two parts to semiotics, one is the signifier which is “the material phenomenon we are able to perceive” (Fortier, 2002, p. 20). For example, waving to someone in the street and the second part to the equation is the signified, this is the acceptance of that sign from someone else.

Being able to receive signals from objects when watching a performance gives the audience an indication of not only what the actors are saying but also what the space around them signifies. Semiotics are everywhere including lights, sound, costume and set design, it all takes massive part when analysing a performance.

So how are we going to show this? In our experiment everything that is being used or displayed is a form of semiotic analysis. There are eight categories that we cover; sexual references, disgusting objects, blasphemy, animal names, ethical, racial and sexuality, physiological deviations, ancestry and vulgar terms. By using visual objects and seeing the words printed on paper, this will give the audience more of a reaction and feel to the experiment as they will be hearing and seeing these subjects all around them.

Within our set, we have created a den that includes blankets that are suspended from the ceiling to create an intimate atmosphere, and pillows to associate ourselves with a safe and comfortable environment.  In and around the space, we have added objects and words that represent the categories that we are trying to show.

From a young age we are told by society that certain words are frowned upon and should not be used. Within a group we have picked out five words in which we think are the worst words to be said such as: cunt, nigger, whore, paki and retard. To create this image, we have made a mobile that suspends from the ceiling with words stated dangling above us. This is a representation in which that these words are always around us whether they are being used or not in day to day life.

Still carrying with the child theme, we have created a child like presence in the space, we have A-Z carpet squares which are for children who are learning their alphabet. These will be displayed on the floor where the audience can sit and interact with us throughout our performance. By doing this we have created a teacher and child relationship which is what we are trying to portray.

So linking it back with Saussure’s theory, the teddy bears and the alphabet tile flooring is the signifier and the signified is the audience responding it childlike and innocence. This is the same equation with the sexual objects. We don’t have to say anything to do with the topic but having them objects there signifies to the audience that they are to do with sex.

Works Citied

Frontier. M (2002) Theory/ Theatre – an introduction. Oxton: Routledge.

To be intimate with someone takes time and trust and we often find that we are only intimate with the people closest to us.

Why do performance artists strive for a strand of intimacy in performance?

After being given the task of creating a one to one performance, I decided that I wanted to develop the concept of a ‘safe space’ which will be used in our performance. I wanted to draw all the components I associated with being safe and put these in to a space which could be transformed in to an intimate space. It is here that I would create a friendly bubble for me and one audience member/ participant to simply enjoy being with another person. This is also what we aim to create in our final experiment, although the space will be shared between 14 people rather that just 2. I find being in the presence of another, without feeling the need to make meaningless conversation, exciting and interesting and, personally, this creates a form of intimacy that only you and the other can experience. A sense of enclosure, for me, gives a sense of safety and intimacy as it create a world only the people present can participate in and enjoy.

Performance art, especially one to one, one on one and audience of one performances, have seen a ‘shift in the traditional performer/spectator divide [which] can reallocate… the audiences’ role into one that receives and responds’ (Heddon, 2012, p.120). This is an aspect of intimacy that will find itself in to out final piece/ experiment. We aim to create a place where the audience’s response drives the piece. We are fortunate to be able to do two performances (each to 10 audience members) allowing us to gain a wider reaction than we had originally hoped. It will be their questions and (un)willingness to explore the taboos with our guidance that will decide which course the performance takes. A group of participants that are engaged and involved will create a very different path to one which feels exploited or disconnected with the piece.

To enable us to engage with our audience from the moment of registration we will have them sign up through twitter (See Profile https://twitter.com/TabooLincoln ).This will allow us to form a relationship with them through virtual media which will contrast the performance and the ‘real’ interactions. Intimacy naturally occurs when people share time and space, although as the Information Age is developing ‘we have come to accept the virtual as real, online as social and Facebook as face-to-face’ (Hulsey, 2011, p.23). The relationships formed virtually through twitter will form the foundation of the relation we will develop with in the performance. These contrasting forms adding to the jarring of content and context of the piece.

Can we create intimate relationships through social media?

The creation of relationships can most defiantly occur through social media, whether they are intimate poses a different question. To be with someone, to share the same air, to see the same things and experience the same atmosphere create the conditions required for me to obtain an intimate and close relationship. I believe that with the development of technologies and the diminishing efforts put in my members of the human race, the beauty of intimacy has the potential to become lost in a world of social media and virtual lives. As Hulsey states ‘more time living virtually seems to result in poorer functioning in the real interpersonal world. (2011, p.23).

Works Cited

Heddon, Deirdre, Iball, Helen, Zerihan, Rachel (2012) Come Closer: Confessions if Intimate Spectators in One to One Performances. Contemporary Theatre Review, 22 (1) 120-133.

Hulsey, Timothy L (2011) Empathy 2.0: Virtual Intimacy. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 91 (1) 22-23.

Month: December 2013

Semiotics in the space!