See You Next Tuesday – Page 3 – Taboo or not taboo, that is the question

So it goes a little something like this

Posted on November 25, 2013December 16, 2013 by Christopher Greenhall

The angle that we have decided to take with our performance will involve taboos in society. How they are received in society and we plan to present them on stage in such a way by decontextualizing them which will result in them losing their meaning for the duration of our performance and making them appear as just words. The ways we plan to do this is by presenting them in speech as nothing but words by elongating the vowels in certain taboo words giving them a somewhat surrealist sound. We also wish to jumble the letters around to show that they are just 4 letters. An example of one of the words is ‘paki’; in the Surrealist part of this section, the word ‘paki’ would be presented in speech as ‘paaaaaaakkkkiiiiiiiii’ with pitch and volume being altered within saying the word. This way we’re still saying the word but by saying it in such a way as we plan to, it will show that they are just words. Often with words such as ‘cunt’, ‘nigger’ and ‘fuck’ for example, 99% of the time, it’s the context and the way in which they are said that denotes them their derogatory reputation.

In the word-jumble section, offering a word like ’cunt’ to the audience but then rearranging the words to then offer ‘unct’, ‘tunc’ or ‘ctun’ gets their minds thinking about how the meaning behind the word is all reliant on the order these letters are in. However, the flaw in this section is that no matter how much you attempt to alter the meaning of the word or make the word seem no longer derogatory by this technique, you still will not succeed in essentially changing the actual meaning.

Another section we have planned is to install the taboo words into numerous mainstream songs from the 80s and 90s. We are plotting to keep very few of the song’s original lyrics; we’re doing this to decontextualize these words even further and to make them appear as just sounds. For example, in a parody of ‘Don’t stop me now’ by the iconic band Queen, we will be replacing the words don’t stop me now with ‘cum’, ‘fuck’ and ‘dildo’. Singing this in a cheesy, over the top manner will hopefully detract the audience’s attention away from what the meaning is behind the word. It will also help just making the word sound like a sound. So in this section of our performance, the main plan is to decontextualize these taboo words and to make them appear as just sounds. Obviously the issue with this is that we’re not actually dealing with meaning behind the word which is what gives them their derogatory usage.

We’re currently arranging a section which will involve questions being asked within the performance space about certain taboo words and topics within the society so that fellow audience members and ourselves can hear opinions on these sore subjects. This will hopefully generate some additional thoughts by the audience as well as some influential discussion; it could also bring to audience’s minds subjects in society that they never usually even dream to think.

We originally thought of performing a durational piece which would involve us running in a set space till our bodies could no longer operate at any kind of level; the point of exhaustion which professional athletes call ‘the wall’. We then considered the theatrical element of this idea and that essentially, there isn’t any and it’s more associated with the science and sport. On a search for a new angle, we stumbled upon Forced Entertainment and their performance of Filthy Words & Phrases (1998). We’re seizing the concept but rather than showing the hard work of language which was their intended outcome, we choosing to look into the origin of these words and presenting them in a space where they’re acceptable.

Sources

http://www.forcedentertainment.com/page/3073/Filthy-Words-and-Phrases/91rces

Concept, Performance, Practitioners, Rehearsal Process

Intimacy Exploited

Posted on November 23, 2013December 11, 2013 by Lauren Simpson

Taking inspiration from Marina Abramovic’s piece The Artist is Present, intimacy became a concept that appealed to us during the devising process. “Museum patrons were invited to stand in line for the chance to sit in the empty chair and make silent eye contact” with Marina for as long as they wanted. This blurs the line between performer and spectator and makes them one in the same thing. It also creates an intimate performance space as the two participants are close together with only a table between them. As the show progressed, the table was no longer used to enhance the intimate feel. “Intertwined with feelings of closeness, trust and familiarity, intimacy occurs through effective communication between people in some kind of relationship” (Chatzichristodoulou & Zerihan 2012, pp. 1). The performer and the audience already have an established relationship, so why not test the boundaries of that relationship by incorporating intimacy. This can be achieved through careful audience participation.

“All spectators are active irrespective of the form of performance”

(Chatzichristodoulou & Zerihan 2012, pp. 4). However, if they can be seen by all other audience members and the performers themselves, they are less likely to hide away when it comes to the participatory aspects. Opening up the dramaturgical barriers, and inviting the audience in could be very dangerous and requires a huge amount of trust in them. However, if you are fully committed, “offering them real choices; giving them a sense of ownership, or the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution” to your performance, then you are more likely to gain reward from their input (Freshwater 2009, pp. 76). One section of our piece involves opening up a discussion around taboo words or subjects, which has the potential to go very wrong. However, this is one of the experiments of the piece. We want to see people’s instant reactions and hear their thoughts. This ties in with the techniques of Marina Abramovic who “encourages the idea of ‘confrontation’ with the audience: the artwork should provoke a response” (Richards 2010, pp. 68). This section of our piece is directly asking for a response and so prevents us, as performers, with a number of risks. However, this is the idea of experimental performance. It should provoke a number of different responses and cause discussion or debate.

Directing dialogue directly at the audience engages them to listen intently to the words that are being said. This is particularly important with our piece as the main content throughout the performance is the spoken words. We will be limiting our audience capacity to a maximum of ten people. This will allow us to address each individual and their opinion won’t get lost in the crowd. “Louis Althusser’s subject hailed by the policeman,” refers to the fact that it is easier, and more effective, to address one person rather than an entire ‘public’. This is “suggesting that any onlookers will move on when they understand that they are not the subjects of address” (Sherman 2011, pp. 56). Applying this to a performance, it means that we can articulate a clearer message to less people. If we had a larger audience, people would lose interest when they were not being directly addressed.

Intimacy can also be achieved by creating a ‘safe’ performance space. Our style of performance takes on a teaching approach. It’s as if the audience are children learning language for the first time, and the performers take on a teaching role. We thought back to our own childhood and where we felt the safest. Safe places are where children “feel they can explore and roam with some freedom” (Hancock & Gillen 2007, pp. 348). They are places of familiarity and comfort. Instantly, the idea of a den came to mind. This seemed like the ideal option for a performance space. It would lead the audience into a sense of security which juxtaposes the content of the piece. This picture represents a snapshot of childhood that we want to reproduce.

The toys are innocent and the cushions are brightly coloured. Everything is soft in texture and inviting to touch. The fairy lights create a warm atmosphere as opposed to harsh lighting. We liked the idea of the content of the piece being very oppositional to the environment.

Works Cited:

Chatzichristodoulou, M, & Zerihan, R (2012) Intimacy Across Visceral And Digital Performance / Edited By Maria Chatzichristodoulou And Rachel Zerihan, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Freshwater, Helen (2009) Theatre & Audience, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hancock, R, & Gillen, J (2007) ‘Safe Places in Domestic Spaces: Two-Year-Olds at Play in their Homes’, Children’s Geographies, 5, 4, pp. 337-351.

Richards, Mary (2010) Marina Abramovic, Oxon: Routledge.

Sherman, JF (2011) ‘Plural intimacy in micropublic performances’, Performance Research, 16, 4, p. 52-61, viewed 18 November 2013.

Concept

Mic Check 1, 2

Posted on November 15, 2013December 16, 2013 by Christopher Greenhall

Intermediality is an imperative aspect of performance for many contemporary experimental companies. Its ability to punctuate and convey emotion is too powerful to disregard. Intermediality, transmediality and multimedia are all techniques of theatre performance, especially contemporary performance, which require media within performance but each term defines a different type of usage. When discussing an abstract from Chapple and Kattenbelt’s Intermediality in Theatre and performance, Hadjioannou and Rodosthenous make noteworthy statements in analysing the author’s attempt to explain intermediality by commenting that it’s “the process of merging diverse media in theatre as a power that triggers a reconfiguration of the relationship between performer and audience” (Hadjioannou, 2011, p3). I can only assume that the configuration they are referring to is one that was set by conventional theatre and is still associated with standard theatre today where the characters attempt to perform the story without the help of media. Many artists and theatre practitioners in the Avant Garde have tried to reconfigure this relationship such as Meyerhold and Piscator; Meyerhold “recognized the impact cinema had on drawing an audience away from theatre” (Sheldrake, 2007, p13) and to create spectacle theatre, he argued that theatres must be “cineficated” to meet the demands which have been made necessary by the technological advancements in cinema. Piscator’s use of multimedia, which was highly political and agenda-orientated, was evident in Rasputin (1927) as it involved powerful tactics such as staging “a discussion on the finer points of military strategy in front of a screen showing genuine film clips of a massacre of the Somme” (Mitter, 2005, p43).

Given the apparent omnipresence of intermediality in contemporary performance, we feel it’s necessary to have some aspect of our performance which is aided by the use of media. For that reason, in a section of our show which involves the distortion of taboo words by rearranging their letters and prolonging their vowels in speech, we plan to do the entire section speaking into microphones to impact the significance of our alteration of the words. There is a certain power given to speech once it is empowered by microphones and we feel that a section such as this deserves to wield that power as it’s one of the most important sections in our piece.

We also have a section in our performance which involves the use of music; we have parodied a number of iconic 80’s and 90’s songs by installing taboo words into them in an attempt to decontextualize them. We are going to have karaoke versions of all the songs playing through stereo speakers whilst singing the altered lyrics.

These are the only two characteristics of intermediality that we plan to have in our performance. I feel that with its omnipotent ability it would have been useful to be able to have more intermediality. For instance, it could be effective if we were to interview members of the public about their opinions on these taboo words and topics and have them playing on screens within the space; the audio would be playing through wireless headphones and the audience could have the choice of listening to several opinions on the topics.

Works Cited

Hadjioannou M, Rodosthenous G. In between stage and screen: The intermedial in Katie Mitchell’s… some trace of her. International Journal Of Performance Arts & Digital Media[serial online]. March 2011;7(1):43-59. Available from: International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 10, 2013.

Mitter, Shomit and Maria Shevtsova (2005) Fifty key Theatre Directors, London and New York: Routledge.

Sheldrake, Pauline (2007) Weaving Worlds: Multimedia and Space in Contemporary Theatre, MA: Queensland University of Technology. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16336/1/Pauline_Sheldrake_Thesis.pdf

Concept, Rehearsal Process

Taboo or not taboo?…. that is the question

Posted on November 4, 2013December 11, 2013 by Jessica Golby

Dildo

Cunt

Nigger

Cum

Spazdick

Paki

Coon

Fuck

Chink

Retard

Nazi/ Hitler

Madeleine MacCann

Muslim

Monkey

Anal Rimming

Golly Wog

Mong (mongrel)

Mongaloid

Cancer Aids

Fish lips

Muff diver

Satan

Burn in hell

Optimus Mong

Blackie

Prostate tickling

Shit stabber

Rapist

Paedophile

Do you think any of these word as taboos?

Do any of them offend you?

When do these stop being JUST words and become taboos?

What is taboo?

Taboo words are all around us in the 21^st century. People of all ages, genders and social classes use swear words to help them express feelings which cannot be expressed by nontaboo words. When one uses these words it can lead to a sense of catharsis and ‘emotional satisfaction’ which cannot be obtained with the use of euphemisms (Jay, 2009, 154).

In the English language, taboos words and phrases come from 8 of catagories:

Sexual references (cunt, dick, fuck)
Disgusting objects (shit)
Blasphemy (oh my god, jesus christ)
Animal names (bitch, pig, cow)
Ethical – racial – sexuality – gender slurs (faggot, nigger, blackie)
Physiological or social deviations (retard, spazdick, whimp)
Ancestral allusions (son of a bitch)
Substandard vulgar terms (fart face)

(Jay, 2009, 145).

When taboo words are used, the speaker has carefully analysed the social situation and the company they find themselves in to assess which words are suitable in the given circumstances. Pinker (2007) cited in Vingerhoets et al. (2013, p.289) ‘distinguishes at least five different ways of swearing (1) descriptively (Let’s fuck), (2) idiomatically (It’s fucked up.), (3) abusively (Fuck you, you motherfucker!!), (4) emphatically (This is fucking amazing!), and (5) cathartically (Fuck!!)’.

Some words are seen as ‘more taboo’ that others. Shit is heard regularly in everyday life to express a sense of shock or anger but cunt is rarely uttered in a public space. There is therefore, a scale of taboo words with phrases like oh my god, wank and shit and one ends and nigger, spazdick and cunt at the other.

Swearing and the use of taboos can also be placed on ‘a continuum from unconscious/ automatic to fully conscious/ controlled’ (Jay, 2009a in Vingerhoets at al., 2013, p.289). When stress is released or pain is felt an automatic response is uttered which can give a sense of catharsis. A conscious and controlled use of taboos and swearing may give a negative (or positive) response from those around the swearer. Swearing often reflects negatively on the swearer and is associated with lower status and lower classes. In contrast to this, swearing can, in some social groups, elevate the swearers reputation and create a sense of solidarity within these groups.

We use swear words for a number of reasons. We can express feelings; we can offend; we feel a release after using them; we can tell jokes and make self-derogatory comments in order to level a playing field in a social situation and we can use profanities in passing comment (that hat is so fucking cool). The ways in which we use taboo words have positive, inconsequential and negative outcomes (Jay, 2009, 155).

We aim for our performance to be neither, positive, negative or inconsequential. But as medium to decontextualize the words seen as taboo by society.

Can these words ever be decontextualized?

In order to remove these words from the taboo context, we want to create a space that is safe and allows these words, and their meanings, to be relearnt. To do this we will be using a space similar to that of a children’s play area which is colourful, friendly and inviting. When we are children ‘we learn not to use [taboos] when we are punished by caregivers’ (Jay,2009, 153). Our performance is juxtaposing this idea as we encourage our audience to say these words and to experiment with their sound. We want to create a space which is judgement free and allows everyone in the space to play with these words.

The performance space and content will feel fragmented because the social-setting of the piece contrasts with the subject matter. This is purposeful as it develops the concept of these words being constructed form the innocent letters of the alphabet.

In order to test our performance and concept we have shown a small snippet of the performance to members of our class. We received mixed feedback; which was to be expected. Some people really enjoyed the performance and the intimacy of it, whereas others didn’t enjoy it and found the whole situation uncomfortable. The contrasting reactions to the piece emphasis the personal relation we have to taboo words and how each individual views their offensiveness.

The verbalisation of these words feel more taboo that the visual of them being written down. When written they do not offend me as I view them as a collection of letters, just like any other word which can be skimmed passed. When spoken they have a different effect altogether and have the ability to shock and take people by surprise. They can, when verbalized, be forced upon a person, but when written, an individual can choose to ignore them. Through this performance I aim to challenge my perception, along with the audiences perception, of taboo words and what they mean.

‘We grew up in a culture where we quickly learned that swear words are the words we have to know, but we cannot say them (Jay,2009, 157). This performance will allow these words to be said and experimented with in a safe and friendly environment.

Works cited

Jay, T. (2009) The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2) 153-161.

Vingerhoets, J.J.M., Bylsma, L.M., De Vlam, C. (2013) Swearing: A Biopsychosocial Perspective. Psychological Topics, 22 (2) 287-304.

Performance, Practitioners, Rehearsal Process

Tim…The Inspiration!

Posted on October 26, 2013December 15, 2013 by Lauren Simpson

Forced Entertainment are a contemporary company who adopt a very collaborative approach to their performance making. Although they have a writer/director figure, Tim Etchells, they all contribute fully to the development process. This is an idea that we want to adopt for our piece as we do not want to be constrained by a text or a specific structure. Improvising in the rehearsal room “allows for spoken text on stage to be less constrained by the conventions of realism and more responsive to contemporary life.” (Bailes, S 2011, pp. 67) This is a trademark strategy used by Forced Entertainment. We can freely experiment with ideas without fear of it going wrong. Sometimes the better ideas come from unsuccessful endeavours.

A huge range of ideas can appear through play and these often happen within the breaks in rehearsal when actors are simply being themselves. You can’t always predict where ideas will occur but it is imperative that you experiment with them to test if they could work. If they are successful, you can then choose to explore them further and develop a structure. It is inevitable that you will leave “behind a trail of failed attempts and nonsense” but “slowly, very slowly, you accumulate a store of scenes and fragments that you love.” (Etchells 2012, pp. 36)

As well as the company’s techniques inspiring us in our piece, one of their performances Filthy Words and Phrases really interested us. The performance is a 7 hour piece in which one woman writes words which are

“‘normally’ unsayable, unwriteable and illegitimate”

(www.forcedentertainment.com) on a chalkboard in an old school hall. We found this notion of the ‘unsayable’ interesting and within ten minutes we had already compiled a list of words which are considered taboo in society. However, they are just words. They are simply letters combined together like any other word. So, why is it that they are so frowned upon? This led us to the idea of presenting them in such a ridiculous way that they lose their current meaning.

http://forcedentertainment.com/page/3073/Filthy-Words-and-Phrases/91#-gallery

As they state on their website, Forced Entertainment are “interested in making performances that excite, frustrate, challenge, question and entertain.” (www.forcedentertainment.com) This sums up exactly what we want to achieve when creating our piece of contemporary work.

Works Cited:

Bailes, S (2011) Performance Theatre And The Poetics Of Failure: Forced Entertainment, Goat Island, Elevator Repair Service, London: Routledge.

Etchells, T (2012) ‘In the Silences: A text with very many digressions and forty-three footnotes concerning the process of making performance’, Performance Research, 17, 1, pp. 33-37.