Author: Jason Mighty

The Seemingly Sacred Performance Space

Jason Mighty / / Early Research, Food For Thought, Idea 1: "The Man You Hate", Practitioners, Uncategorized

The Seemingly Sacred Performance Space

Within my last blog my conclusion was that I wanted to couple Realism with In-Yer-Face theatre. The dilemma is to now figure out how I can do this while retaining the overall meaning of the performance. While watching the collection of presentations put on by my fellow class mates, I drew ideas from the soloists that we discussed especially with deep consideration towards the means of creating a realistic performance style. The two soloists that caught my eye are Chris Goode and Rachel Rosenthal. Through using influences from these two soloists I want to ultimately explore ways in which I can change the dynamics of a traditional performance; creating a sense of realism that isn’t confined behind the imaginary 4th wall.

A Thought towards Chris Goode

During Lauren Watson’s presentation on Chris Goode’s Wound Man and Shirley, she pointed out that Goode used a doubled-ended frame narrative within his performance to tell a story. A doubled ended frame narrative is where the performer, Chris Goode introduces the story directly to the audience stating “Hello. Thanks for being here”, which breaks the 4th wall and ends it in much the same manner saying “that’s where we all are, me and all of you” (Goode, 2012, 1). Chris Goode is not a narrator but rather a character from within the story that is depicting the event through his perspective.

(The Camera Hire Company, 2012)

What is significant about this style is that it creates a sense of realism as it doesn’t hide the story behind any dramatics like a 4th wall, sound or music. I did feel that his stage layout which resembled some sort of study area with cluttered table tops, a lamp and a 1 seat couch took away from his performance (The Camera Hire Company, 2012). This is because the double-ended narrative created an environment that is open and direct with the audience while the set only created clutter that distracts and takes attention away from the story.

How I Wish To Incorporate a Double Ended Narrative

Part of me wants to question if there is ever even a 4th wall when you are doing a solo performance, as you are always one with the audience. Unlike performances with multiple actors, when you talk you are only heard by the audience and no other actor. Like it or not, however a solo performance is framed the soloist always talks with the audience. What is apparent is how easy it is to forget this; that whatever meaning that is created on stage is not created to influence fictitious characters but rather the audience, always.

No matter the case my objective it not to simply break the wall but rather to, as Jean Schiffman puts it, “manipulate the audience to feel those moments” (Schiffman, 2006, 10). However the word ‘manipulate’ is not used in a possessive manner but rather to describe elements of a performance that purposely shifts the audiences’ perspectives. I feel that the manner in which I engage my audience will lead to a greater perspective shift. To break the 4th wall by talking directly to my audience is not enough as Steve Nelson says that “the actors say their lines and go through their routines without being unduly affected by what the audience does or does not do” (Nelson, 1989, 93). Since direct speech can equally be as rigid as the imaginary 4th wall I plan to be intimate with my audience in the sense that it is only me and them without staging, lighting, sound or any dramatics apart from myself as an a performer. This is also why I am intrigued by Rachel Rosenthal as her style not only made me think about how I can be more realistic on stage but also how I can be more intimate with my audience.

A Thought towards Rachel Rosenthal

Rachel Rosenthal is described as “a bold woman with long, black gloves, wearing a fluttery fray-green tunic, raps, chants, sings, and screams to the sound of an amplified violin” during a 1987 performance at Central Park, New York (Lampe, 1988, 170). Her body is like a painters canvass where her performance becomes the paint, this is represented by her bold head and costume.

(Rachel Rosenthal Company, 2009)

When watching Rosenthal from an excerpt called Brain it becomes clear that Rosenthal’s look and performance allows her to create a different plain of reality where she can indirectly address the audience with a message about the world. This works well because the message isn’t direct or aggressive as this would make the audience feel bullied into their acceptance and understanding of the message. Rosenthal’s interdisciplinary improvised performances follow a “sacred” pattern where the actor should not be distracted by “chewing gum, giggling, or adjusting hair or T-shirts” (Rosenthal, 2010). Unlike Chris Goode who constantly talks facing his audience and wearing casual clothes like his audience members, Rosenthal is bald and during her performance she in constantly looking around as if she is trying to avoid looking directly at the audience for too long.

During my performance I do not want to create barriers between me and my audience, but if I were to follow Rosenthal’s sacred rules I would be demonstrating to my audience that I am an actor and that they are my audience. However to fidget and make mistakes is not the tradition of a performance, therefore I slowly break the illusion that I am an actor. The space only becomes a sacred performance space with I acknowledge that I have to present myself in a specific way but if I acknowledge that I am human with idiosyncrasies I better create a community with the audience by represent myself and the audience as equals.

 

Citations:

Goode, C. (2012) The Adventures of Wound Man and Shirley. London: Oberon Books.

Nelson, S. (1989) Redecorating the Fourth Wall. TDR: The Drama Review, 33(3), 72-94.

Lampe, E. (1988). Rachel Rosenthal Creating Her Selves. TDR: The Drama Review, 32(1), 170-190.

Rachel Rosenthal Company (2009) Rachel’s Brain excerpt. [online video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y51bJLBHEDQ [Accessed 25/05/2014].

Rosenthal, R. (2010) Sacred Time, Sacred Space. [online] Backstage. Available from http://www.backstage.com/advice-for-actors/editorial/sacred-time-sacred-space/ [accessed 25/05/2014].

The Camera Hire Company (2012) Chris Goode & Company – The Adventures of Wound Man and Shirley [HD TRAILER]. [online video] Available from http://vimeo.com/37559590 [Accessed 4 March 2014].

Schiffman, J. (2006). Beyond the Fourth Wall. Back Stage West, 13(5), 10.

 

 

Is It In-Yer-Face?

Jason Mighty / / Classroom Discussions, Early Research, Idea 1: "The Man You Hate"

Is it In-Yer-Face?

When simply discussing my idea (The Man You Hate) in class, it was pointed out that areas of my idea may have origins in in-yer-face theatre. Aleks Sierz’s definition of in-yer-face theatre is “a theatre of sensation: it jolts both actors and spectators out of conventional responses” (Sierz, 2001, 4). As stated in my previous blog this is exactly the outcome I am looking for. I do not want my audience to become docile; having conventional responses like silence or worse, agreeance.

[Please look to my second blog titled The Man You Hate, published 21 February, 2014.]

I Hate In-Yer-Face Theatre

I have become dispassionate towards in-yer-face theatre, not because of the range of un-delightful emotions I am forced to feel but rather because of the frequency of performances that claim to be in-yer-face. During all of my A-level drama and some GCSE drama, I half expected all pieces performed to include some horrific depiction of rape or violence. I know I am not the only one that got fed up with vulgarity being present for no other reason than vulgarity itself.

It is often believed that by exploiting elements of in-yer-face theatre, any performance can be made good by adding violence/gore/aggression to them. As if by some magically means, elements of violence/gore/aggression will always excite strong emotions and thus discussions. This is half true especially for a 21th century British audience. Violence/gore/aggression is quite foreign to this particular audience as we don’t frequent it in society. Most of the time we experience such depictions behind the pages of a newspaper, or a TV screen or a proscenium arch. On the other hand you could argue that all this violence/gore/aggression that is mediatised has desensitised us to these depictions on media, and possible even within our society.

However even if these elements do excite the audience emotionally, they will rarely excite the audience so much as to make them talk and debate about the violence/gore/aggression. What is needed is some sort of meaning which is important enough to make the violence/gore/aggression necessary in the deliverance of said performance.

Another problem with in-yer-face theatre is that it is carefully crafted so that it does not provoke humour, compassion or delight. It exists solely in one heightened emotional state of disgust, within the audience. Unlike a play like The History Boys, in-yer-face theatre cannot excite humour yet at the same time grief. To fall out of this heightened state of disgust, an in-yer-face performance risks being misunderstood or risks losing its effectiveness in affecting the audience.

It Is Not Completely In-Yer-Face

I would agree and say that the idea of The Man You Hate is a type of in-yer-face performance however Sierz adds to his description of in-yer-face theatre by saying “it affronts the ruling ideas of what can or should be shown onstage”. To avoid presenting violence for the sake of violence, my idea tries to stay away from this description. This is because this description focuses too much of the visuals of the performance. Rather than focusing on what should or shouldn’t be shown I instead focus on what can and can’t be discussed on stage; the key word being discussed instead of shown. I feel that if I change the dynamics of the performance to instead present it as a sort of meeting/conference/lecture where I don’t perform but rather present directly to the audience I will better affect the audience. Almost like an insufferable narcissist, presenting a Ted Talk on their love of sadomasochism.

Since in-yer-face theatre often exists in an abstract reality, this paradox prompts me to ask – how can the audience feel that the performance is truly in their faces if the performance doesn’t exist on some plain of reality? To be honest, in-yer-face theatre as it stands does affect the audience however I feel that the style can be improved on. My hope is that I can successfully couple a sense of realism with the outlandish material which will truly send uncomfortable icy chills down the backs of the audience members.

Sierz, A. (2001) In-Yer-Face Theatre; British Drama Today. London: Faber and Faber.

 

 

The Man You Hate.

Jason Mighty / / Early Research, Idea 1: "The Man You Hate"

The Man You Hate.

 

hide-and-seek-wwii-soldiers-nazi-german-women-rape-demotivational-poster-1246372387

(Unknown, 2008, cited inDemotivational Posters.)

If I remember correctly, years ago I was watching a performance where an actor accidently said “he was a good man” instead of “he wasn’t a good man”. The context of the text was a description of one of those genocidal dictators, which one it was I cannot remember.

 

However the accidental removal of the two letters ‘n’ & ‘t’ within his script, prompted me as an audience member, making me want to boldly stand up and say “no he wasn’t” in reply to this accidental comment. Since I as an audience member I didn’t know that this was a mistake, I felt that the writer and the actor were wrong and offensive.

 

After the performance I realised that it was a mistake, however I still thought about the situation. I thought about how one statement which was commonly accepted as immoral, offend me so much that I wanted to voice my opinion openly at that exact instance. Why didn’t I ever get excited when watching a political/social performance that I agreed with? Even though these types of performances entertained me, I never felt it was necessary to show/voice my exuberance in the same manner that I wanted to show/voice my disagreeance.

 

I believe this was because I agreed with these politically correct plays and thus they effectively voiced my own opinion which left me with no intellectual part to play. Because I didn’t need to process and make decisions based on the plays subject matter, I became docile.

 

Thus this is why I came up with the idea The Man You Hate which is a presentation of a, for lack of a better word, negative character. I do not want my audience to become somewhat docile because their views where compliant with my own. I personally feel that a great performance is one that gets a large and visual response from the audience, be it positive or negative.

 

I wish to play around with the presentation of horrific material in the same way the above image does as it conbines the lovable kids game of hide and seek with mortifying inevitable deaths.  This initial idea of The Man You Hate is, on the surface is a character who is homophobic, sexist and racist but is gleeful about his discussions and his vulgarity. While under this exterior, the performance hopes to negatively excite the audience and make them think deeper into these subjects. From this hopefully these social matters become discussed and thought about considerably more than what is being discussed at the moment.

 

Unknown. (2008) Hide and Seek WWII Soldiers Nazi. [online] Demotivational Posters. Available from http://www.demotivationalposters.org/facebookview.php?id=62406 [Accessed 23rd May 2014]

What is art?

Jason Mighty / / Classroom Discussions, Early Research, Food For Thought

What is art?

Today I was asked the question, “what is art?” (Pulford, 2014). Of course this question was asked to encourage useful thought about the artistic relevance of our solo performances. Of course you could pick up a dictionary and site the meaning of art however it seems like there is more to art than a simple dictionary found definition. If anything looking in a dictionary feels like the wrong place to be looking for the meaning of art; quite paradoxical.

In the case of Chewiwie

(Matt Chewiwie, 2008).

In the case of Chewiwie, is he an artist? Matt Chewiwie is supposedly an artist; he claims. However when watching a few of his YouTube videos I am not filled with awe, or become excited or inspired. Due to the many meanings of art found in the dictionary, his videos simultaneously can and cannot be considered art. On one hand they do not function as art as they are not what the dictionary definition describes as “beautiful” or “appealing”. While on the other hand another dictionary definition describes art as something that falls under “a field, genre, or category” which Chewiwie’s work does fall under (yeah, the dictionary is not helpful). (Dictionary.com, 2014).


(TED, 2014)

Luke Syson, a museum art collector might call Chewiwie’s work “useless” art, art so profound that it becomes fantastic, “like a car crash” where you “can’t stop looking”. Even though he may produce “useless” art, in any case by this definition he is an artist – or is he? (TED, 2014)

L1142773_CROP_GIFT-every-artist-was-first-an-amateur-725w
(Overgaard, 2011, cited in leica.overgaard.dk, 2011)

Ralph Waldo Emerson a 19th century poet says “every artist was first an amateur”, so in the case of Chewiwie maybe he is yet to graduate as an artist because he is still an amateur.

Art is art is art

With so many contradicting and overlapping descriptions of art or an artist, it becomes extremely difficult to come up with a definitive answer to previous questions.  Art itself is a description and a form; the description used to describe the form. Art (the description) describes art (the form).  This is why effectively art is art is art. So to ask “what is art?” is almost like asking for the description of the description of the description.

What is “good” art?

The purpose of this question was to make me and the class think about what artistic merit our solo performances might hold. To better help this purpose I have decided to rephrase the question, as you can tell the original question was giving me nightmares trying to logically think about an answer.

So what is good art I ask you say? Good art is that, that achieves in aesthetically expressing the artists emotions or ideals in a manner that transposes reality.

 

Reference list:

Dictionary.com (2014) Art. [Online] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art [Accessed 10 February].

Matt Chewiwie (2008) Matt Chewiwie’s Artist Statement. [online video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yJPZfFOrsc [Accessed 23 May 2014].

Overgaard, T. (2011) Untitled. [online] Denmark: leica.overgaard.dk. Available from http://www.overgaard.dk/the-story-behind-that-picture-0052_gb.html [accessed 23/05/2014

Pulford, D. (2014) Solo Performance. [Lecture] Solo Performance – 1314 (DRA3043M-1314), University of Lincoln, 30 January.

TED (2014) Luke Syson: How I learned to stop worrying and love “useless” art. [Online Video] Available from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Uvy6pvLA4 [Accessed 31 January 2014].