In our feedback we were asked how we might develop the piece, for a tour, perhaps.
We knew that we needed to refine the piece, simplify it, perhaps concentrating on less statistics more boldly.
I suggested that perhaps we could create new pieces on different themes. This way, there could be a running motif throughout the entire piece.
This then prompted me to think about using the piece for a tour around the UK. Every time the piece moved to a different city it would use statistics about that particular place. This way the piece would change every time and also be relevant to its audience. Statistics could include:
Crime rates
Population/births/deaths
Sales in items in shops
I really like this idea; to create a new show in every city.
Thirty – Lincoln
Thirty – Manchester
Thirty – Ipswich
Thirty – Paris
The use of projection in our piece had the primary function of displaying the time, to both the audience and the performers. I took on the responsibility of editing the video and sound used in the piece, with the other members of the group helping to collect the recorded video material. By displaying the clock on the back wall of the ‘stage’ it gave the audience a means of feeling a sense of understanding about the piece; knowing that it was representing a period of time. the videos also acted as visual aids for us as performers, so we knew how long we had left to complete the tasks. The presence of the large read digital clock projection added an urgency to the piece. The clock start at 19.00 and the audience knew that the piece was called Thirty, they could assume that the piece would end at 19.30. As the clock reached closer and closer to 19.30, the piece became more frantic as mentioned in the blog post ‘Thirty-Performance’.
I really liked the red digital clock projection, as it maintained the clinical feel of the piece. If I could of, I would have spent more time on the second video; an analogue clock face; edited with video of an egg boiling, and the cast being cover in water (representing a statistic about lost umbrellas). In the feedback, Lee Sass expressed that she would have liked these videos to have been more obvious, less fleeting as she kept missing their short appearance. I agree with this sentiment and if I were to make the videos again, I would have played them on separate screens highlighting each one more closely.
Although I did like the video in our piece, I was also very aware of the fact that the piece was NOT reliant on the use of it, which is an important part of multimedia performance. In order to combat this, perhaps a live or online element could have been utilised in the piece to make multimedia an integral part of the piece.
For our advertising we designed a range of simple posters and stickers that we displayed around the LPAC. We wanted our show to be noticed but also wanted to use them as signals to the audience as to the nature of our piece. Each poster had a black background with large, centralised white text announcing:
THIRTY
Studio 2
17.05.12
7pm
The use of numbers rather than words for the date was a concious one, hinting to the clinical mathematical nature of the piece. On each poster also, the background was covered in small white text; each one stating a different statistic from the piece. Audience members had to seek out different poster around the building in order to learn all of the different statistics, something that we were told by audience members that they actually found quite interesting!!
As well as displaying the posters in conventional places around the LPAC, we also put them in ‘hidden’ or unexpected and unusual places. This was again to deepen the potential audience intrigue about the piece. It was also a nod to the fact that statistics surround us in our daily lives, whether we notice them or not. They do not control our live, because they ARE our lives. We are the statistics, whether acknowledge ourselves as part of them or not.
Last night we finally performed Thirty for the first time. I say the first time, as we had never rehearsed it at it’s full length. A decision which had both its pro’s and con’s. I feel that the piece strives on spontaneity and the performers being challenged for real. If we had rehearsed the eating of the pizza or the drinking of the water, we would of had time to prepare ourselves for the effects they had on us. Thus, I believe creating an unauthentic performance. I am fascinated by the concept of performers having to partake in some ‘for real’ in order to make the performance as realistic as possible. We never ‘acted’ the drinking of the water, we actually did it. The discomfort and panic on our faces, as we raced toward the end of the piece were real. This can be likened to the work of many contemporary and solo performers, such as Marina Abramovic. Abramovic endures real pain and exhaustion in her endurance pieces; she never ‘acts’; but performs a task to her audience. Sometimes the tasks that she undertakes are incredibly simple, such as eating an onion. As task that is much more difficult than it may seem!! Please see this video from 2.12 to see an example of this at work…
It was in the last 10 minutes of the performance that I felt the relationship between myself as a performer and the audience. For the first twenty minutes, the audience had sat and watched us perform our monotonous tasks. Twenty minutes into the performance, I became aware of just how much of the tasks we had left to complete. I felt a strong sensation of frustration with myself, for not having snapped enough cocktail sticks and began to share them between the other performers in order that we could attempt to get the task completed. Here, I felt a recognition from the audience that I was panicking, they suddenly realised that the point of the piece was for us to complete all of the tasks. As I forced my self to drink more and more water and beer, I could feel the audience willing me to continue. This was obviously completely a feeling that I felt in my own head, but I do believe that I made a connection with the audience. A reassuring laugh from them as I staggered with beer in one hand and pizza in the other, pushed me to continue.
To make a completely honest statement, I have to say that I am disappointed that we did not manage to complete all of the tasks, but this leads us to think of different ways in which we could refine and change the piece. Perhaps experimenting with one task at a time, would have been easier. To eat 18 slices of pizza each and for that to have been the whole performance, is something that I would like to try. My main concern about the piece once it has finished, was that I hoped the audience didn’t feel as if we had failed them. Of course, we did fail in completing all of the tasks; but in the feedback I have had from audience members they could see, feel and sense the amount of effort we were putting in and this compensated us not finishing.
Please read my further blog post, for notes on how I believe we could develop the piece.
We decided to hold a fifteen minute work-in-progress of our performance on the 19th April, in order to gage how an audience would respond to its different elements. Primarily we were looking for feedback on:
the layout and configuration of the space.
the way we should ‘reveal’ the statistics if, in fact, we do reveal them.
who they believed we were in relation to them, the piece and each other.
I felt that the work-in-progress was extremely useful in helping us develop the piece. Without the audience’s feedback, I fear that our final piece would not have been challenged and stretched to its full potential.
My biggest concern about our piece that came from the feedback is the use of technology in the piece. We were alerted to the fact that our piece is not truly a piece of ‘intermedia’ because the live performance could stand alone from the technology we used and would still make sense. In order to improve and validate our piece as ‘intermedia’ we have to ensure that our use of technology is integral to it. One of the suggestions we were given regarding this eas to magnify some of the more detailed tasks we undertake, such as snapping the cocktail sticks, by filming them and projected them live onto a large screen.
Expanding from this idea we came up with the notion of the ‘Hidden Statistic’. One of the tasks takes place behind a large screen, hidden from the audience. The live video image of it is projected onto the front of the screen so that the audience can see it. Perhaps this could be taboo statistic, one that is often kept quiet by Governments or glazed over.
Fellow group members: Any ideas on what this hidden statistic could be??
