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.