Performance – See You Next Tuesday

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.

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.

Concept, Performance, Practitioners, Rehearsal Process

Semiotics in the space!

Posted on December 10, 2013December 13, 2013 by Jamee-Lee Fleming

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.

Performance, Rehearsal Process

Beauty of Imtimacy

Posted on December 1, 2013December 11, 2013 by Jessica Golby

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.