What is a ‘site’? This was one of the questions dealt with in our first class to which, admittedly, I immediately thought ‘a place’ in reply. However, reflecting on this answer afterwards I realise that a site involves many variables and therefore defining it as ‘a place’ simply isn’t sufficient. This extremely brief definition deters away from the possibilities created from a site and all it entails.
Firstly, the place is occupied by something that defines the space itself; this could be anything from an object, to a person, to the light that creates a specific atmosphere – for example a dark room for photographic printing with infrared light.
The next aspect of a place that makes it a site is the purpose for its creation or existence. This includes both indoor spaces that are man-made for a specific reason (like a hospital, shop or house) and an outdoor, natural area that serves a purpose contributing to its environment e.g. woodland or the beach.
As well as the literal space having a purpose, the people within it either fulfil a purpose as well, or are obligated to act accordingly to the restrictions that the space requires. This is particularly interesting because, whilst a purpose defines the site itself, it indirectly creates a common or mutual identity that all occupants of the space must obey – like signing a societal contract only relevant within that specific space. The space creates similarities between people from separate backgrounds and creates an opportunity for encounter between those unlikely to meet in a different site. Therefore a site crosses the boundaries between class, gender, and ethnicity through restricting a person’s right for expression and difference.
Therefore I have been encouraged to ask these set of questions about a ‘site’:
- What is its purpose?
- How is the space constructed according to its purpose?
- What is my place within the site?
- How are my rights as a person considered within the space as opposed to other sites?
One of the key texts on Site Specific Performance is Mike Pearson’s book of the same name, of which I recently read the introduction. He attempts, through numerous references to other critics and performers, to define what the form and style actually is by comparing their definitions. He begins with the common misconception that it centres wholly on the space surrounding the performance, therefore saying that the art is defined by the place only. However, this is developed by Pearson when he suggests that Site Specific questions not only the meaning of the place by being situated within it, but also the meaning of the art and performance itself, and goes further to question why this art must be placed within the confines of a theatre in order to be taken seriously.
Pearson goes on to quote Tim Ingold’s statement that, ‘places do not have locations but histories’ (2000, p.219) so suggesting that a site is also defined by the history of that place. Therefore a performance within that space ‘engages intensively with the history and politics of that place, and with the resonance of these in the present’ (McAuley, 2007, p.9) which means that the performance is responding to the history, culture and politics that inhabit the space, or previously inhabited the space. Pearson is implying that Site Specific performance is a reinterpretation of the space and its meaning – it is defamiliarising what the audience may already know which makes this style of theatre self-conscious. By doing this the performance raises questions concerning spatiality and the meanings constructed by it.
Is Site Specific a means of deconstructing the meaning of space and its purpose then? And does this deconstruct the expectations formed by societal pressures and the way people act within the space? Pearson supports this argument by suggesting that Site Specific performance interrogates identities constructed in the site and by the site. The inhabitants of the space, as I previously mentioned, is a key element in the representation of that space because it is created by the people within it and how they act. Without the people the space would cease to exist.
I think this would be an interesting concept to consider in terms of my performance and I may feature interaction with the audience or perhaps even a lack of interaction with my audience in order to show their significance and meaning in defining the space itself.
Works Cited:
Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London, Routledge).
McAuley, G. (2007) ‘Local Acts: Site-Specific Performance Practice, Introduction’, About Performance, 7, 7-11.