In response to our performance on Wednesday 11th December, I feel  that the experience as a whole went alright. However, it was difficult for me to personally judge how the experience went as I didn’t get to see the reaction from the participants or feel what kind of atmosphere had been created in the room as journeys were made. It wouldn’t be right of me to discuss the performance as a whole because I would just be making assumptions so I can only really discuss how my own station went and the feedback we received afterwards. The setting up of the performance was pretty easy and simple, I feel as though I achieved my goal of making it a comfortable atmosphere to walk into and one where you can relax.

Throughout the process I had been debating whether to make a set list of questions that I could have asked the audience member however I decided against this because no two participants would respond in the same way. ‘The actors are likely to improvise large portions of the performance based on their individual impulses or audience response’ (LaFrance, M (2013) p.514). I found that to be true with my own performance as I created a list of basic questions which could lead to other topics of conversation. It was then up to me to improvise and think on the spot as to which direction I wanted the conversation to move next. I could have easily had a set list of questions and followed these through without straying from them. I gained some interesting responses to my questions. One participant in particular became very annoyed that he didn’t know who it was that they were talking to. Time and time again they kept saying ‘Who am I talking to?’ to which I couldn’t give them my name as this would have changed the whole dynamic of the station and could have easily become a personal chat if the participant or I revealed who we were. I had to think of a response on the spot as this is something I hadn’t predicted might happen. I ended up saying I am just a person who wishes to get to know you a little better. This seemed to work for a few lines to which the participant then asked who I was again. This time I replied I am somebody, who is nobody important but who wishes to become your friend. They seemed to accept this and the conversation began moving, they still seemed reluctant to give any information at all away so I took it back a step and shared more about myself to which they seemed to start to relax. During feedback in our little group at the end this one participant was discussed because every time they moved to a new station they would ask the actor whether it was them that they had been talking to. This was a really interesting response because it felt as if they had to know who it was, they couldn’t accept that they wouldn’t find out.

This station was only 10 minutes long, which was great for the conversations where the participants didn’t seem to want to give anything away no matter how slow I took it. It was also a negative thing because there were times when I felt like the conversation was just getting somewhere and I would be looking at the clock and thinking Is this the end? I really wasn’t ready for the conversation to end. At some points when they had said goodbye I was even tempted to write ‘No please don’t go just yet’ but I knew we had to stick to the 10 minutes otherwise our system wouldn’t work. I wasn’t ready for that conversation to end I wanted to keep getting to know the person more. I personally felt sad that they had to move on to another station. I feel like at time I should have pushed harder to get information from them however I didn’t want to push too quickly and scare them back to giving me no information.

I feel like this was a good experience for me as well as the participant because it really made me think about myself. I learnt a lot about myself through the performance and I hope that the participant learnt about themselves too. I am not sure how the mix was between me trying to get information out of them but at the same time giving them information at the same time. I went away with a lot of questions going through my head, some created by the responses that they participant had given me. It made me question things I hadn’t really thought about before.

I feel that if we were to do this again it would be a lot different. I think the stations would be kept the same however it would be nice to turn it into five separate one on one performances without time limits. That the performance should last as long as the participant feels it should last.

Another thing that I really liked with our performance was that fact that our last station was a live stream, we had been able to make this work on the TV that was situated in the café downstairs as well as a link on our blog. The response of some of the passers by was interesting as they tried to figure out what was happening. There was some people who walked y and second glanced at the screen and them came back a few minutes later to see if anything ad changed.

Overall I feel like this was an exciting project and we did well to work around the challenges that we had faced and as a group this made us even stronger and even more determined to make this successful, which I think it was.

 
Works Cited:
LaFrance, M 2013, ‘The Disappearing Fourth Wall: Law, Ethics, and Experiential Theatre’, Vanderbilt Journal Of Entertainment And Technology Law, 15, p. 507

Throughout this process it seems that Adrian Howells has been a key influence to our development and has directed the path that our performance has taken. Researching into Howells’ own work I can see clear connections between his own work and our work. Howells has been a big influence on our piece ever since we explored him in one of the Contemporary workshops. The next group meeting we looked further into his work which then inspired our ‘hug’ station and this idea of intimacy throughout our performance.

Adrian’s work is based on Autobiographical performance which ‘engages in complex negotiations with reality and fiction’ (Govan, E 2007 p. 71). This is because as a person you choose what information it is that you wish to share with the individual or individuals that you are with. I can relate this to my station because it is up to the participant what information they are willing to share with me, there isn’t anything to clarify what they are saying is true. The issue with not being able to see the participant means that I have to rely on what they are saying to be the truth, I can’t see their reactions or thought process.
Another thing that I can relate to our piece when looking into Adrian’s work is the fact that he was ‘interested in giving the people the opportunity to alleviate shame and guilt, release it and to lift it from themselves.’ (Howells A, (2010)) I can again link this to my station in which I am going to offer the participant the chance to confess if they feel the need to. This is interesting to me because it is going to allow them the chance to have a chat with a complete stranger; it is offering them the chance to share whatever they feel comfortable sharing.

Adrian Howell’s practices can be linked to other stations. His notion of ‘learning through touch’ (Howells, A (2010)) is similar to that of our ‘hug’ station in which the participant is held for an excess amount of time. It is designed for them to possibly learn something about themselves through this process such as the participants in Howell’s Foot washing for the sole would have learnt about themselves through Howells touching their feet.  We have also taken his idea of the audience having agency and showing this through our ‘greet’ station in which we tell them that they have the right to say no at any moment if they feel uncomfortable in a situation.

Works Cited:
Govan, E., Nicholas, H. and Normington, K. (2007) Making a performance: Devising Histories and Contemporary Practices. London: Routledge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLwD3APw2F8 Interview with Adrian Howells part two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7btf8Tdg_s Interview with Adrian Howells

Being slightly technical minded I wanted it too not only be practical but also to look good. I have to say I was initially panicking because I thought that we wouldn’t have enough flats to be able to make the spaces that we wanted. However I am pleased with how quickly we managed to figure out our preferred configuration. We worked pretty well as a group, making the decisions between us, and with a little help from the tech guys we put these ideas into practice.

Our technical aspects are pretty simple as we didn’t feel the need to overcomplicate because we felt it would have taken away from the performance rather than adding to it. The space being divided by the flats was necessary to create all of these intimate stations that we wanted. They allow us to create different sized spaces for different effects. The chatting station is pretty enclosed whereas the greeting station is in the open space in the centre of the space.

Lighting is key to making some of our stations feel more intimate and allows us to create a nice atmosphere for each scene and helps which area of the station the action should take place. We need to adapt the lighting for station one Greeting but this will be easily sorted. It is a case of adding couple more lights to brighten up the space and a couple of pink or red gels to make it feel happier and a cosy place to be. We need to figure out some different lighting also for the Body station because at the moment something is missing.

The technical rehearsal allowed us to see how some stations are reliant on media. This could be a possible issue on performance day and we will need to keep an eye on these and check that they are working properly. The technical rehearsal was really helpful for us as a group because it allowed us to get a feel for the piece and now it is just about adding the finishing touches and tidying up the greetings to each station. Overall I feel really positive about the way that it looks and that each scene will create the necessary atmosphere when we add in the finishing touches. I am really pleased with how we worked as a group and this shall continue until after the performance day because we will be there to support each other throughout the rest of the process.

This morning we experimented two of our stations, to be honest, I wasn’t really sure how it was going to go. It was interesting to hear some of the feedback we got from members of our class who participated in our two little experiments.

Hugging

Hugging is one of our stations because we wanted to explore this idea of intimacy through touch. This idea of being hugged is normal to most people because it is normal to hug friends, family and partners as a friendly gesture. Exploring this idea of hugging is relating back to our idea of a ‘safety blanket’. Our initial idea was to hug for 10 minutes in a position of which was comfortable. So today we explored this experiment with 3 actors and 3 participants at a time for 5 minutes. In the actual performance it will just be a one on one performance in a station in which noone else can see.
When discussing the position of which the hug should take place, it was agreed by the people who took part that it should possibly be standing up. The reason behind this is that it is less sexual and there is no undercurrent as to where to hug could possibly go. As a group we always thought that we would do the hugging section under a blanket as it created a greater sense of intimacy however after receiving this feedback it might be reasonable to evaluate our thinking and maybe explore this idea of standing up instead.

Personally, I think standing up could have a greater effect if we are prepared to be the dominant hugger. There was a comment that was said throughout the discussion afterwards which has really stuck with me. “You can hold me back or just be held”. This has really stuck with me because it highlights our concept so much and if we can get it to the point where the audience feels comfortable enough just to be held then I personally think we have succeeded. Another thing that was suggested was the use of smell and touch. These are said to be able to heighten the participants experience.

Chatting

We are experimenting with use of chatting over the internet. We are placing a laptop in the station and they won’t be able to see the person they are speaking to (one of our group). We are seeing how much more intimate people are willing to go when they are seen as being anonymous.

Only a few of the class got to try this experiment so the feedback wasn’t as detailed as the hugging however, it seemed to generate a positive response. In discussion it was seen as a positive thing that the participant didn’t know who the typist was. I think this led us to thinking about where the typist would be positioned in the room, initially it was thought that we would just put up a partition between the two laptops. However, we felt that this would no longer work because it wouldn’t feel as intimate if it felt like there was a chance you could figure out who you were speaking to. This is how we came up with the idea to make the typist in a remote location that is unknown to any of the participants.

There was a lot of positive feedback with this experiment. The questions asked from the typist were said to be thoughtful and smart, they were questions which were general but made the participant feel like they were wanting to speak to them. The typist was congratulated on making the participant feel like what they were saying was interesting, for instance, there was one occasion when the participant made a comment in the experiment such as,  ‘gosh that sounds boring’ to which the typist turned this around and made them sound like what they were saying was really interesting and they would like to hear more. I think the key to this experiment is to get the participant to feel wanted so that they are more willing to answer the kind of questions we really want to ask. It is about getting the participant comfortable enough to share intimate details with you and for us as typists to be willing to push the participant as far as we feel necessary.

Overall the work in progress was a positive experience and now it is about developing the connections between the stations and making sure each actor knows each station well enough even if it is not considered their main station. I think focus needs to be on exploring the depth which the stations could possibly go, any issues that could arise throughout performance and how we are going to set the piece up as a whole, what is it going to look like?

Today we had a group meeting to discuss the finalisation of each station, what they were going to be and who would be on what station. I think commitment is going to be the key to success. Each station will last roughly 10 minutes, if it finishes sooner then the participant is required to stay at that station until the 10 minutes is up. At any time it will be just the performance and the participant, no more than one person in a station at a time.

Station One – Greet – Beth

Station Two – Chat – Shellie

Station Three – Body – Gabriel

Station Four – Hug – Jordan

Station Five – Stream – Unmanned

Station One – Greet – Beth

‘My station is a welcome point for the participant, with a chance to have a cup of tea or a cold drink and cake before moving on. The inspiration for this station cane from Marina Abramovic’s one on one performance where she stared at a participant for a period of time. The idea behind it is to have a conversation with the participant about their day and what they are looking forward to. I am going to give them the option of a ‘get out clause’ so if at any point they feel uncomfortable they had the opportunity to say no. I will then take them to the next station where they will carry on their journey. (Canham, B 2013)

Station Two – Chat – Shellie

‘My station is designed to be the opposite of station one. It is explore the idea of anonymity because the participant who I am speaking to will not know it is me. They will be chatting through a laptop. It is this idea of a person being anonymous that interests me. Will they be willing to share more with a stranger?

Station Three – Body – Gabriel

“My station comes from a personal place and my image of my own body, I wanted not only an audience but myself to know that yes we can hate and love different parts of our bodies but it means nothing, and another person isn’t judging you on your body as we often think they do as a society.”      (Davis, G 2013)

Station Four – Hug – Jordan

“My station seeks to explore the depths of intimacy we stop ourselves experiencing in our day to day lives. Through participating in my station, both performer and spectator will travel safely together into the depths of intimacy.” (Holland, J 2013)