I wanted to add something to our discussion about the meaning of the word performance:
My most immediate take on the term is related to how I perceive it to be replacing the word 'Theatre' in contemporary practice (at least in the UK and to some extent North America).
In April this year, I organised a panel called "On Theatrical Behaviour." The panel was in part about one venue's shift away from using the word 'theatre', opting to re-brand/re-imagine its annual 'Theatre Festival' calling it simply: Behaviour instead... In preparation for the panel, I asked Deborah Richardson-Webb, now head of performance pedagogy at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, if she could tell me a bit about why a course that she developed at the Academy, formerly called Contemporary Theatre Practice, had been renamed Contemporary Performance Practice. She shared with me a document she had written called: Troublesome Horses: Radical Performance Pedagogy in the Conservatoire. I thought I would share a paragraph from this document that addresses this semantic shift:
In the title of the Programme we chose to use the word ‘Performance’ not ‘Theatre’ in order to clarify its position in relation to the education of its students within the broadest field of performance practices. By ‘Performance’, it is understood that whilst drawing upon the tradition of British and European Theatre, the Programme seeks to address the wider phenomenon of performance in human cultures from ritual practices, through performance in everyday life to art-making processes. The Programme draws upon and synthesises a wide variety of disciplines and discourses including, improvisation, physical performance, writing for performance, voice, movement, visual art, feminist studies, gender studies, queer theory, semiotics, ethology, pedagogy, media and popular culture theory and cultural studies.
This seems relevant to the title of our course as well.
Performance for me, in part, means a shift in thinking about/experiencing/making contemporary 'theatre'--it is in some respect a way of distinguishing the old from the new.
Sorry we got cut off, it would have been nice to toast the end of the course together. Thank you for all your contributions and responses, and happy week-end and beginning of course for some of you, lets keep this conversation going...
The notions of medium, image and body and the possibilities of theatre (as a site of transformation) .
Images happen or are negotiated between bodies and media. - Belting
So the three parameters in reception and circulation which are at stake (according to Belting) are:
1. Image(s) --> do not exist by themselves; they happen/ take place via transmission. Therefore image is framed by the terms:
2. Medium the agent by which images are transmitted and
3. Body meaning the performing or perceiving body on which images depend.
How is this important for theatrical performance? Well when brought together in the theatrical space, these parameters can “swap places” meaning when the triangle is physically put together it appears as a non-static exploration in the splitting up of both reception and circulation process, it exposes the mechanisms of medial distribution, of power and violence in our highly mediated society. It is a way of overcoming the complicated relation between the what and how of an image. (The what of an image being what the image serves as an image or to what it relates as an image is steered by the how, shaped by the visual medium in which an image resides). As we all saw with the GGP performance the “device”/”medium” became an ACTOR/(the IMAGE itself)
What striked me this week, during the reflection upon Kati’s lecture, was that this insight in visualization of circulation and perception processes/mechanisms, in theatre as a sight of transformation can not only be explored on a metatheatrical and scholarly level (analysis), it is as much a usable concept in the creative modality as a tool/strategy. There is action. Theatre being part of and present in the world, transformation and reflection.
1 : a device or system consisting usually of a synchronized radio transmitter and receiver that emits radio waves and processes their reflections for display and is used especially for detecting and locating objects (as aircraft) or surface features (as of a planet)
We thought it was interesting to think of research in term of a radar because a radar is a sound that you send off, and then you get back a message that you have to interpret. It's a process that you do blindly, you can't see what you're looking for or fuly comprehend it, but only get a sense of it through the feedback of this signal. As well as hearing radio waves you can feel them so it involves a process of feeling with your body. This helps us imagine what it means to do embodieid research or practice. It is a more sophisiticated and nuanced sense of research than a conceptualization of it as re-search, looking through a body of established knowledge and trying to create something "new". It destabalizes the Western idea of sight as the dominant and most trustworthy sense in gaining knowledge and truth about the world, as in "seeing is believing" or "I saw it with my own eyes."
In some sense the idea of radar differentiates performance scholarship from scientific inquiry because the latter refers to something that is quantitative, where you can "see" the results. But in another sense, the concept of radar points to performance research as scientific inquiry because it is a method of exploration in unknown territory that yields unpredictable results.
The performance of a book
"One must want to experience the great problems with one's body and one's soul. I have at all times written my writings with my whole heart and soul; I do not know what purely intellectual problems are." (Nietzsche 12)
Another part of Hanna´s lecture that we picked up on was how passionate she was about the modality of curation, we especially liked her diagram of over-lapping circles in marine hues that denoted how the modalities of scholarly research and practice are centrally mediated by curation.
We got to thinking about one ostensibly scholarly medium - the academic book - and how (especially in performance studies) it is creatively curated and performed. In the following excerpts from the introductions to books by Diana Taylor, Rustom Barucha and James Clifford, the authors express their curatorial strategies, or the ways that they have have chosen to perform their authorial role.
In the paragraphs below, you will see some different approaches: Bharucha describes his book as enacting a linear "theatrical journey" while Clifford envisions his book as a series of criss-crossing paths, or "collage."Taylor talks about her book as being a series of conflicting voices and perspectives.These are all approaches to performing research and problematising the fact that in favour of the "objective", "academic" voice, scholarly writing is often not transparent about the curatorial modality that mediates their work.
"Some readers may be somewhat dismayed by the diverse 'styles' of these essays, which include autobiographical interventions, fictions, excerpts from a dramaturg's log, invocations, switches between the first and third person, polemics and even a letter.All I can say is that these 'styles' were necessary for what I had to say.They enabled me to find my voice as a writer where more academic essays with all their constraints and seeming 'objectivity' would have prevented me from representing myself...I would be perfectly happy if my book could be read as a theatrical journey, beginning with 'Points of Departure', leading to 'Transition' and finally proceeding to a state of 'Returning', that continues." (Bharucha 9)
"The essays gathered here are paths, not a map.As such,they follow the contours of a specific intellectual and institutional landscape, the terrain I tried to evoke by juxtaposing texts addressed to different ocassions and by not unifying the form and style of my writing.The book contains extended scholarly articles, supported and argued in conventional ways. It aslo includes a lecture, a book review, and several essays that respond to specific contexts of cultural display - museums and heritage sites - in immediate, sometimes frankly subjective ways. Experiments in travel writing and poetic collage are interspersed with formal essays. By combining genres I register, and begin to historicize, the book's composition - it's different audience and occasions."
Clifford 11-12)
"Because it is impossible for me to separate my scholarly and political conundrums from who I am, the essays in this book reflect a range of tone and personal interventions in the discussions. The first three chapters, particularly map out the theoretical questions that inform the chapters that follow; How does expressive behaviour (performance) transmit cultural memory and identity? Would a Hemispheric perspective expand the resitrictive scenarios and paradigms set in motion by centuries of colonialism? Although the theoretical implications are no less pressing, the tone in the reminaing chapters becomes increasingly personal. As my reflections come out of my own role as participant in, or witness to the events I describe, I feel compelled to acknowledge my involvement and sense of urgency. And, as I argue throughout, we learn and transmit knowledge through embodied action, through cultural agency, and by making choices. Performance, for me, functions as an episteme, a way of knowing, not simply as an object of analysis. By situating myself as one more social actor in the scenarios I analyse, I hope to position my personal and theoretical investment in the arguments. I chose no to snmooth out the differences in tone, but rather let them speak to the tensions between who I am and what I do."
(Taylor xvi)
Bharucha, Rustom. Theatre and the World. Routledge, 1990.
Clifford, James. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Harvard University Press, 1997.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus spoke Zarathustra: a book for everyone and no one. London:Penguin Books, 1969.
Taylor, Diana. The Arcvhive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Duke University Press, 2003.
Tampere’s response to Hanna’s lecture (Johanna, Naresh, Nese)
Looking back on the keyword lecture by Hanna our discussion began reflecting on the curatorial work (in performance context). The following thoughts came up. We could think of the curatorial task in terms of mapping and framing.
We noticed how in our respective countries of origin there were differences in curatorial tradition and practice. The lecture brought to our attention the ethical responsibility of curatorial task but also the problematics of taking part in the global economy (of projects). Curatorial work involves “radaring”, tutkiminen of the terms/people/projects it functions with.
This is actually a difficulty we face since the beginning of the week. The hardest part of the keyword/lecture responses was not the within group discussions or coming up with ideas, but to put them in a written format that would be presentable/consumable in the international/cosmopolitan/transnational/multicultural blogspot that we share with our “hybrid” MAIPR colleagues. Similar to the curator’s work, there is this layer between the execution and the presentation of the project/discussion. Moreover, there is the multiplicity of propositions. Dealing with that multiplicity includes negotiation and compromises to say the least. To account for all the forms and ideas that are proposed in a group work, so much is lost in transmission to written form/expression. While reading the blogs, nobody hears the tears or sweat we shed on each other.
This brings us to another discussion that came up in Hanna’s lecture: What/How is the methodology of performance research scholar?
Remember the blank sheet in Hanna’s lecture? It had the title ‘What about performance research?’ We talked about the impression that maybe a week ago, or earlier for some of us, the blankness of the sheet could have been scary AND/OR caused long walks in the forests of Tampere looking for berries that have been already picked by others, AND/OR chain smoking in the freezing backyard of the non-smoking student housing with the company of hedgehogs AND/OR could have interfered with the loving conversations you could have over Skype with your wife …”My God”…
But rather that blank sheet was welcoming and welcomed. We thought it was leaving us the flexibility and responsibility about what we choose as long as we are ethical and able to justify it. Accountability and responsibility to your object of study, we thought, was at the heart of scholarly research, distinguishing it also from a scientific approach as mentioned by Hanna. We want to listen to our objects of study, to each other but also to ourselves and hopefully come up with a framework of what we have experienced. Challenge remains in keeping a reflexive attitude towards the relational space between the doer/done/how/about of the research.
We found Hanna's lecture very interesting and engaging on a number of levels. Like Jess, we found great pleasure in her address of disciplinarity. How convinient that Finnish has such an all encompassing term :) !
For the purposes of this entry, we've chosen to focus on two points. Both relate to Hanna's reference to the wording of the Prospero project's proposal, and her problematizing of the 'political rhetoric' therein.
The first concerns the sentence, "To encourage the work and circulation of artists" and Hanna's question: "Who are these artists and who gets this possibility?"
Rania commented about how she wonders how much grant writing and the current art economy (based on grants) informs art works themselves these days. In her work as a art critic, she saw a good deal of projects for example using the concepts of Michel Foucault or those which included a social service aspect as part of a (forced) "community interest" agenda. This, she added, works in both positive and negative ways.
She wondered however, how common it is for artists to feel constrained, i.e. not free to pursue their own aesthetic interests because everything has to be so officially justified. How is "art" itself, and more specificallly funded art, compromised under current socio-economic conditions?
We then moved on to the section of the lecture where Hanna refers to a second written agenda of the project. "To contribute to the emergence of European citizenship". Hanna at this point had questioned, 'Why? What kind of citizenship? Who is European?'
Rui Rui commented that while Europeans are currently crossing their own national boundaries to create a centralized power, she believes that the selection of the artist for this sort of funding depends on the sort of state (in this case 'Europe') that those in power would like to build. Where, in these cases does the artist change their interests to fit the taste of the authority?
Tampere’s lecture today touched on a few very interesting points. It seemed to direct problematization toward a few terms. It did not expand on why or what ‘provoked’ concern. For instance the idea of a “European citizen” as mentioned seems to be a quite vague concept. Why in the first place is this ‘label’ or ‘identity’ something desirable enough to receive funding? What are the economic and/or cultural benefits of homogenizing ‘European performance’?
The fact that a performance research program named Prospero (prospero-caliban à post-colonial notion) gets funding by attaching a “European citizen” label to it is actually shedding a light on the fact that “Euro-citizenship” can be seen “AS” performance. Grouping the countries together in a psudo-allience in order to create a more prosperous (powerful?) political institution appropriates the continental allegiance and ignores national and regional differences. The problemitization of the concept of a ‘European Citizen’ occurs as it establishes and suggests an essentialist view of what it means to belong to a transnational organization.
These are image results for the term 'European citizen' according to google.
In this entry we are going to talk about Warwick's and Tampere's provocation exercises and Hanna's presentation today.
Warwick's exercise was clearly about the miscommunication that has been prevalent throughout the week between the students and the staff of the three universities. We really couldn't find a coherent narrative in what was presented. Extensive use was made of technology in the form of images and text but there was a gap that couldn't be mediated between what was articulated and what was perceived or perhaps the mediation itself became a barrier in communication. The fragmentation of the 'message' achieved the purpose of being provocative. There was this dire need of finding a 'meaning' in the presentation, to build a narrative whether or not it existed. This led to multiple stories being created in everybody's mind which might not exactly correspond to what the Warwick group had in mind. The multiplicity of images, stories, narratives, ideas is what we have been experiencing during the entire week.\
Tampere's exercise on the other hand, was a theatrical/performative comment on Desmund Tutu's TRC in South Africa. Basing our comment strictly on the footage shown, which focused on the rehearsal process, we can say that we found it to be a very interesting path to explore collective memory. The access to this shared memory, was attempted through the 'musical' recollections of the participants. Maybe it's not the songs itself, but the memories (both intellectual & emotional) that flow through the actor's bodies, what makes it terribly interesting. An example (maybe) of what Walter Benjamin considered a 'true experience': the coming together of collective and individual past within the locus of memory in a process of redemption of the past.
At another level, we found a conflict between the form and the content. The form was beautiful, but the memories that were engaged were traumatic. Is that a conscious meta-comment on the TRC?
Hanna's lecture. We thought it was useful to go through the different modalities of research that are being adopted in our programme. However, we felt it probably fell a bit short. It might have been productive to stop and dwell upon the idea of the 'radar'. The idea of the 'radar' (which by the way Guillermo Gomez Pena uses too) is very descriptive of an embodied approach to the object of inquiry. However, it would have been interesting to go deeper into the idea and explore the possibilities of playing with it. Are there any rules around it? Does this 'animal' have a certain character? What are it's strengths? What it's weakness?
Hi all, It is a shame that our conversation was cut short today. Before we wrap it up tomorrow, Martin, Sarah, Jasmine, Jo and I wanted to clarify the structure of our provocation.
Here is a layout of the room where we were:
So essentially, at Warwick the 'audience' could hear everything and see the faces and Jasmine and Jo who were provoking me. They could also see the two people (Martin and Sarah) typing and see my body in the chair from behind.
In Amsterdam and Tampere, (we think!) the 'spectators' could see my face and see/read the typed words of Martin (objective recording of the live act) and Sarah (subjective recording of the live act) in the chat box.
I couldn't see what was typed or my own image on screen. Martin and Sarah couldn't see the faces or expressions of the provoker but could see my face on screen. Jasmine and Jo didn't have the opportunity to read anything that was 'recorded'
We can talk about what we hoped to convey/provoke discussion about tomorrow, but just wanted to clarify the logistics for everyone.
We here at Amsterdam were extremely pleased to see such an active and in depth lecture upon the modalities of the program. Recently we have been discussing our concerns and confusion regarding the removal from the MAIPR website of the modality structures as delineated geographically per university. Many of us felt that the requests we initially made upon our admissions process for allocations were strongly influenced by the notion of each university specializing in a certain modality. Thereby we were concerned by the modalities removal according to location. However, we found this lecture to be quite reassuring as it reinforced, and explicated upon the meaning and mechanisms of, the central functions of the modalities within the over arching pedagogy of the program. Thank you for this!
