Classroom Discussions – Solo Performance, J. Mighty's Blog

Group Work, Meta Physical Reality and First Poetry Reading

Jason Mighty / April 13, 2014May 26, 2014 / Classroom Discussions, Early Research, Food For Thought, Idea 2: "Under My Hair" [Poems], Internal Discussions, Miscellaneous

Group Work

The task was simple enough – as a group of 3 we each had to select a short 1-3 sentence extract for our form of literature and put them together to make a performance with appropriate lighting and sound. As a group we decided to randomly select our short extract because the task itself was seemingly random. We assembled the sentences to create a form of dialog with some element of a plot/emotion/effect.

(Mighty, 2014) Group work script.*

It seemed like we were hoping to create or find meaning out of this random amalgamation of words, so we experiment. We said the line together, we said the lines separately, we overlapped different lines, and we changed our tempo, rhythm and inflections in the hope that we could create meaning.

(Mighty, 2014) Experimenting with how I say “visited a foward post”.*

During our tech set-up we used lighting and sound as a way of creating meaning. For example we created a playful underwater atmosphere by using blue strip-lighting and the song “Under the Sea” from the movies The Little Mermaid. As the song played we all said the one line that held any reference to the sea and that was “Casson building aquarium”.

(Angela Chan, 2009).

What I find interesting about this experience is that we were constantly looking for and creating meaning where there was none to begin with. I think documentarian Ken Burns puts it best when he says “we superimpose meaning over the chaos, we tell jokes, we tell stories, we put a frame around things and that’s a way of trying to create a narrative about stuff that has no narrative.” This understanding of reality is equally relevant to our group work as we felt that if our performance didn’t have a narrative of some kind it would lack substance.

First Poetry Reading

I tested out the foundations of my new performance Under My Hair as I read 5 poems to the class. There wasn’t any imagery, lighting, sound or narrative, I simply stood at the front of the class reading poetry and believing I had a performance. What was pointed out was that the poems alone held no substance as a performance. Within a stage all forms of reality are heightened, acting becomes louder, personalities become bigger and men and women become heroes and scoundrels. Whereas poetry alone is captivating at an open mic, it is not as captivating when used as a staged performance because the realm of a performance is a heightened reality where meaning and narrative has to be slightly exaggerated. My responsibility as an actor is to find the meaning within the poems by framing them with light, sound and imagery and making them relevant to the audience.

Citations:

Angela Chan (2009). Under The Sea – The Little Mermaid with Lyrics. [online video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpqdexBnNkM [Accessed 13 April 2014].

Team Coco (2014) Documentarian Ken Burns— Serious Jibber-Jabber with Conan O’Brien. [online video] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCxbCYHVZ7k&list=PLVL8S3lUHf0TIbLusugli-_6OhbvqgMvD&index=2 [Accessed 13 April 2014].

Is It In-Yer-Face?

Jason Mighty / February 26, 2014March 3, 2014 / 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.

What is art?

Jason Mighty / February 10, 2014May 23, 2014 / 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)

(Overgaard, 2011, cited in leica.overgaard.dk, 2011)

Ralph Waldo Emerson a 19^th 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].