(Gibson, 2014)
What is Site Specific performance and what are we doing?
Pearson states that “Although the search for a practical, encompassing definition of site-specific performance has long claimed scholarly attention, it remains slippery” (2010, p.7). Therefore, a struggle begins to find an exact definition of the subject. Pavis observes that “This term refers to a staging and performance conceived on the basis of a place in the real world. A large part of the work has to do with researching a place, often an usual one that is imbued with history or permeated with atmosphere” (1998, p.337-8). This statement has helped to decipher the subject broadly. That Site Specific is a type of performative theatre that takes place and is centred around a non-traditional theatrical location, absorbing the historical and contemporary devices that surround it, and that by discovering stories, secrets and memories of the site will supply the ‘actors’ with the abilities to create a performance about it: “Layers of the site are revealed through reference to: historical documentation; site usage (past and present); found text, objects, actions, sounds, etc.; anecdotal guidance; personal association; half-truths and lies; site morphology” (Wilkie,2002, p.150) permitting ‘the past to surge into the present’” (Pearson, 2010, p.10).
However, as Pearson observes “Rather than simply occupying an ‘unusual setting’, site-specific performance is adjudged to hold ‘possibilities for responding to and interrogating a range of current spatial concerns, and for investigating the spatial dimension of contemporary identities’” (2010, p. 8-9). The performers must use their knowledge of the ‘unusual setting’ to create a performance that can engage with an audience and provide them with new modes of perception and understanding, “It’s not just about a place, but the people who normally inhabit and use that place. For it wouldn’t exist without them” (Wilkie, 2002, p.145). Pearson extends this to emphasise that, “Places are about relationships, about the placing of peoples, materials, images and the systems of difference that they perform” (2010, p. 13). The site itself performs in its own way and the actors must use this in order to create a performance where the familiar becomes the unknown and the audience can question what they think to be truth. Pearson’s statement “Moving between places, wayfinding, more closely resembles story-telling than map-using, as one situates one’s position within the context of journeys previously made.” (2010, p. 15) provides links directly to my own performance and has highlighted how the simple act of ‘a walk’ through a familiar space can entice personal past memories into the present situation.
My group have created a performance The Mis-guide to the Usher Residence, which has been primary influenced by the work of Wrights and Sites, but also the work of Walks and Squawks, Carl Lavery and Blast Theory. The performance will take place at The Collection and Usher Galleries on the 8th and 10th May 2014. There will be ten performances over the period of the two days and these performances last approximately 25 minutes. The audience will be led around the gardens of the gallery and through the Usher by my group, where they will have the opportunity to engage and respond to tasks and stories about The Usher Gallery. The aim of our performance is to enable and encourage the audience to challenge their opinions of what art is, and to provide them with new ways to perceive it.
Initial ideas
For our first seminar we were given the opportunity to share our own collections with the rest of the class, and to discuss how these collections could relate to the domestic, the nation, a sense of belonging, an identifying concept or a marking of time/place/ownership. These ideas and discussions of our own collections helped when I viewed the galleries we will be performing in. The visit allowed me to think about what the artwork within the galleries are saying and what the stories are behind the pieces. Noticing the overwhelming amount of clocks and variations of paintings, drawings and objects, of and from different places and cultures, made me think of different stories and interactive work that could possibly take place within the rooms to make the stories of the pieces come to life. Wiles states that ‘the play-as-event belongs to the space, and makes the space perform as much as it makes actors perform’ (2003, p.1) this is something that I think will be interesting to explore and to learn from throughout the process.
“Fundamentally, much performance cannot be written down. It is unwritable and unsayable and has to be communicated in other registers. And that is its fascination so far as the study of everyday life in the city goes; it is a living demonstration of those skills we have but cannot firmly cultivate in the linguistic domain, and it can – in the best work – provide a sense of new styles of urban living which might simultaneously produce new sense of how the world is.” (Thrift 2003: 406-7, cited in Lavery, 2005, 231)
I believe that what Thrift is trying to express here is that performance can be more effective when you use other means of speaking to an audience without only using spoken words. By allowing an audience to experience a performance in a way where they are not just spoken at and a way that allows them to explore, gives them the opportunity to create their own interpretations and relationships to the performance. By allowing the audience to have a certain amount of control over a performance can provide new ways of thinking and personal outcomes which may have not been reached if restrictions had been used that allow the performance to rely solely on the ‘performers’ themselves. This type of performance technique I believe would be effective within the location we are creating a performance for and I think it would provide a more personal, reflective experience for both the ‘audience’ and ‘performers’.
For the past two weeks we have been invited by our tutor to undertake a series of tasks outside of seminar and to carry out at our site. These tasks were taken from 25 instructions for performance in cities (Lavery, 2005, 233). One of the tasks that I chose was to list ten things I saw, heard and smelt on my way to class over the period of a week. With the short period of time I had to carry out the task, I decided to do this for one journey rather than for the weekly period as stated. Below are photographs that document my experience.
(Gibson, 2014)
These investigations allowed me to think more closely about questions that were raised in the previous seminars around truth claims, public engagement and public space. Using these methods has given me inspiration to explore deeper into the ideas of a task based performance, where the audience are the performers themselves “Visitors experience something fundamental to the context and are drawn into performing this themselves rather than watching others do it” (Davis, 1995, 16). I believe this will give the audience an opportunity to engage more with the site itself and to question the artefacts in the site as well as questioning what art is. This would include tasks that the audience receives at the performance, or prior to it that allows them to interact with the space and following the performance, a way to document this. “Through the physical relationship to the artefacts the installation is constructed in such a way that a performance about the underlying meaning of the place occurs” (Davis, 1995, p.15) using this information I believe that by producing a performance that allows the audience to ‘perform’ directly with the artwork both physically and emotionally is key to successful engagement.
Influences
In 2007 Blast Theory launched their newest performance Rider Spoke. It is described on their website as a performance where “Cyclists explore the city at night recording stories about their lives and listening to other people’s” (Blast Theory, 2007). The piece uses the technology of participant’s handheld computers to allow them to take part in the performance. Blast Theory say that they are fascinated “with how games and new communication technologies are creating new hybrid social spaces in which the private and the public are intertwined” (2007). This use of technology to explore social spaces is an appealing method to use as part of performance, and is something I believe will be useful to experiment with, in regards to communicating to our audience as they explore the venue in a new personal way.
To use a place that is familiar to the audience but asking them to view and explore the space in a new way can be a challenging but an exciting experience. “The streets may be familiar but you’ve given yourself up to the pleasure of being lost.” (Blast Theory, 2007). By producing unusual tasks for the audience to participate with, provides them with an opportunity to communicate with the familiar place in a way they never would. These people may have walked through The Collection and Usher galleries a thousand times, but once someone invites you to question something within the space, different stories and perceptions can be changed. Originally my group liked the idea of using technology to inform our audience, but after further investigation into the works of Wrights and Sights we realised that our aim could also be achieved through the means of audience guidance which would be carried out by ourselves. The aim of my group’s performance is to make the audience see the hidden secrets, truths and lies within the space and to explore it freely and in their own personal way with the guidance of performers.
The main inspiration my group have taken for our site specific performance is from Wrights and Sites as they are the pioneers for Mis-guides. To help us to understand what a Mis-guide is and to be able to construct our own we read their book A Sardine Street Box of Tricks which provides details into how to create your own guided tour. The influence for these type of performances stems from mythography “a series of approaches to space and place that attempts to reveal the multiple meanings in any site and to set the ideas, feelings, symbols and discourses of these places and their people in motion about each other” (2011, p.20). We want to allow our audience to experience new modes of interpreting our site and challenge the concepts of what art is.
Crab Man and Signpost recommend spending time at the site exploring to begin to create the beginning ideas for performance “We allowed ourselves to be pulled by its atmospheres. We explored it with an exaggerated intensity. We examined the cracks in its concrete and the mould in its walls” (2011, p.13). This type of initial research allows the elements of performance to come directly from feelings and experiences within the site itself. They say that by re-visiting the site on different occasions will help to build up the performance through exploration “Each time changing a little more from exploration to a hybrid of searching and rehearsing together” (2011, p.17). However, they also add emphasis for the need to research externally about the sites history “Find out all you can about the history, the geology and the architecture of the street. Much of that finding out may be fairly conventional: online, in libraries. But don’t scorn the naff sources: check out the local book of ghosts and legends. Then there’s just being on the street and chatting” (2011, p.30). After spending a lot of time exploring at our site my group researched more about the history of the Usher and James Usher by visiting local libraries and archives. We used information from the internet and also old newspapers to gather more information about the building and the artwork within it. The research we found helped us to develop ideas of informing the audience of the truths within the Usher but also to create our own stories about the space and the collections.
As our initial ideas were to create a tasked based performance we constructed a series of tasks and experimented with these at our site to discover which were most effective. By using the advice given in A Sardine Street Box of Tricks we were able to turn these tasks into a way of constructing our Mis-guide and engaging our audience through participation “Our audiences were challenged to respond to and enjoy the street: through offers and instructions, maps and burdens, gifts and libations” (2011, p.26).
(Gibson, 2014) (Chamberlain, 2014)
Our time spent at the Usher exploring and experimenting in the space has allowed us to create an outlining ‘script’ of how we will present our performance. We have decided that by including sensory experiences for the audience such as touching, tasting, smelling, will create a clearer engagement and lean away from a typical guided tour which we are not trying to recreate “All the senses: challenge the dominance of looking and listening on your tour” (2011, p.53). A problem we encountered when considering creating a Mis-guide was how we would be represented as people. Crab Man and Signpost offer useful advice for this enquiry “Don’t try to create characters that operate as if they are in a naturalistic drama. If you use characters then they should be walking symbols or stereotypes. Use costume in ways that don’t simply ‘dress’ a character – if you’re in a busy road then dress as a car, dress in paper and be litter” (2011, p.36). Using this information we have decided to create our ‘costume’ based on a striped wall in gallery two, so that we will not be representing a ‘typical’ tour guide through appearance and in a way are part of the museum itself. Another challenge we faced was how to end our guide “Can you find an ending that is somewhere between the finality of a bow to applause and the conclusion of a conversation?” (2011, p.66). We have decided to inform the audience that the tour is over and then leave them to their own devices wherever they may be in the gallery. This may hopefully encourage the audience to stay in the gallery and carry out their own exploration.
The significance of place is vital when performing a Site Specific piece. The chapter Between Routes and Roots in Making a Performance highlights the importance of special relationships and their effects on actor-audience exchanges. Spending time in the location provides “starting point for devising a performance” (Cocke, 2004: 165- 173 cited in Govan, 2007, 137) my group have spent a lot of time exploring the space and considering the ways in which we can use it to engage the audience with the artwork in it. To create emotional attachments we are seeking to find ways for the audiences to re-envision familiar places, by re-telling stories that relate to the space that they can make personal to themselves.
This can be linked to an aspect of performance described by Pearson and Shanks as ‘the host and the ghost’ (2001:96 cited in Govan, 2007, 139). This is the theory that performance spaces are “haunted by the ghosts of those who have used them in the past” (Govan, 2007, p.139) by considering this, it is possible to link the historical to the contemporary. Presenting a performance as a walk or journey can be used to “cast new light on how places are perceived and understood” (Govan, 2007, p.140). This activity of walking is suggested by Michel de Certeau to have the potential to “disrupt the regulatory system of ‘place’ and transform it into a more optimistic and counter-cultural ‘space’” (Govan, 2007, p.141) that by using this method in performance can encourage the audience to find new meanings within the space.
Artists that have also taken this activity of walking to create a performance are Walk and Squawk. Their reasons for using this concept are “By examining how changing patterns of movement can alter attitudes and perceptions; how people make their own paths; and the influences of culture, geography, language, economics and love” (2014).
After the performance
The audience and their involvement – For our performance we had 21 audience members that came to participate. The majority were very involved in the piece and we received positive feedback from the participants. They said “it felt like I was tripping” and described it as like ‘something from Alice in Wonderland”. As our final performance was a series of performances we did alter things throughout the day that we felt worked better. Also the receptionist at the Usher gallery disclosed to us that gallery three was actually a fake room inside a much larger room and we thought if we would have known this information before our performance we would have liked to have experimented in this room if it would have been possible.
What went well – We felt that we made a good decision by taking inspiration from Wrights and Sights and beginning the performance with a picnic. I think this relaxed the audience before we showed them around the gallery as we had time to talk to them and get to know them a little bit. We also thought that our costume choice worked well as the reaction from the audience showed their enlightenment when they realised how and why we were dressed as we were, and also connected us to the gallery. The secret party story in our performance worked the most as the audience tended to be quite responsive to this. One member said “I was scared. I thought someone was going to come through the door”. Also our task of encouraging the audience to write on tags and tie them to the staircase proofed engaging for the audience as it got them to think, but also kept them engaged afterwards as many were intrigued to read what other people had written. A few audience members also noted our playfulness as they thought that it made the exploration more fun and relaxed, however this was debatable as one audience member said that he felt we were a little too enthusiastic that it could get annoying.
(Chamberlain, 2014)
What could have been improved? – We needed to think about how we would still keep the audience engaged if they did not want to participate in a particular task and also feedback showed that some parts felt rushed so we could have given the audience more time to think and respond. Also on the second day of performance when we received no sign up for a particular slot, myself and Yasmin decided to wait for people to enter rooms in the gallery and began ‘acting out’ part of our performance so that we were making our own audience. I felt this would have been just as effective if we had also done this on the first performance day.
(Chamberlain, 2014)
What alterations could be made to the performance? – We would definitely look at gaining access to the rest of gallery three to see if we could incorporate it into our secret party story, and we would act on the feedback given in terms slowing things down to give the audience more time to think. We would also perhaps start the tours at a later time as we discovered the earliest and latest tours were the most difficult to entice and audience to, and perhaps run performances every half hour rather than every hour during the busier periods. I think it would be interesting to incorporate more of The Collection into the tour too, as many people were reluctant to enter The Usher, and this may have been a way to guide them in.
How has the module advanced your understanding of performance in a non-traditional venue? – Having studied a Site Specific module before, I discovered that this module was completely different and found it difficult to adjust and abandon what I had been previously taught. I have found it interesting to create a piece of work that is completely different to anything I have ever done before that is based entirely on the sites history and present. I think in ways it makes the performance more original to devise and perform at a non-traditional venue and can be a new, exciting experience for the audience. Also it is more of a challenge for the performers to work on a production that is so closely dependent upon the venue itself.
(Walsh, 2014)
Bibliography
Blast Theory (2007) Rider Spoke. [Online] Available from: http://www.blasttheory.co.uk/projects/rider-spoke/# [Accessed: 11 March 2014].
Chamberlain, Y. (2014) Abandoned Objects [Taken] 13 March.
Chamberlain, Y. (2014) Kimberleys Statue [Taken] 13 March.
Chamberlain, Y. (2014) Stripes [Taken] 8 May.
Chamberlain, Y. (2014) Tag it [Taken] 10 May.
Davis, T.C. (1995) Performing and the real thing in the Postmodern Museum. TDR, 39 (Autumn) 15-40.
Gibson, K. (2014) Ale at Narnia. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K. (2014) Bacon ribs. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K. (2014) Graffiti wall. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson. K. (2014) Interacting objects [Taken] 13 March.
Gibson, K. (2014) Mis-guided feet [Taken] 9 April.
Gibson, K. (2014) Seagull wings. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K. (2014) Through the traffic lights. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K. (2014) The Face. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K (2014) Trains from a bridge. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K. (2014) Traffic Traffic. [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K. (2014) Yazmins Statue [Taken] 13 March.
Gibson, K. (2014) What will you discover? [Taken] 13 February.
Gibson, K. (2014) Which ways that way? [Taken] 13 February.
Govan, E. (2007) Between Routes and Roots. Performance, Place and Diaspora. In: H. Nicholson and Katie Normington Making a Performance: Devising Histories and Contemporary Practices. (p.136-143) Oxon:Routledge.
Lavery, C. (2005) Teaching Performance Studies: 25 instructions for performance in cities. Studies in Theatre and Performance, 25 (3) 229-238.
Pavis, P. (1998) Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Pearson, M (2010) Site Specific Performance. Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.
Walks and Squawks (2014) Walk and Squawk: The Walking Project. [online] Available from http://www.walksquawk.org. [Accessed: 7 April 2014].
Walsh, A (2014) Misguide 2 [Taken] 10 May.
Wiles, D (2003) A Short History of Western Performance Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkie, F. (2002) ‘Mapping a Terrain: a Survey of Site-specific Performance in Britain’. New Theatre Quarterly, 18 (2) 140-60.
Wrights and Sights (2011) A Sardine Street Box of Tricks. Exeter: Blurb.