Here is the video my colleague Brody made of my experiments during the Archiving Practice Workshops with Chris Clow.
Monday, 21 July 2008
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
Responses to Failure: playing the blame game
Another 'psychic' - James Hydrick, who claimed he could move objects with his mind, being debunked on live TV by the sceptic James Randi, who has asked Hydrick to perform his 'gift' under controlled conditions designed to prevent cheating.
Pay special attention to James' face at around 11 minutes 55 seconds. He is approaching his imminent failure, and he knows it - what do you think is going through his mind at this moment?
Pay special attention to James' face at around 11 minutes 55 seconds. He is approaching his imminent failure, and he knows it - what do you think is going through his mind at this moment?
Monday, 14 July 2008
Responses to Failure: denial
Sylvia Browne is a famous "psychic" and medium. She appears regularly on American TV, has published a number of books, hosts her own radio show on paranormal issues and gives psychic readings. She is a controversial figure and critics argue that she is a fraud, using 'cold reading' in order to give the ilusion of psychic ability.
This is a short video showing two of her more notorious failures in her premonitions whilst appearing on the Montel Williams show (excuse the weird comedy music and text the makers have added to the video):
I suppose one way of dealing with failure is to pretend the failure never occured...
This is a short video showing two of her more notorious failures in her premonitions whilst appearing on the Montel Williams show (excuse the weird comedy music and text the makers have added to the video):
I suppose one way of dealing with failure is to pretend the failure never occured...
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
The ******* Project
So…I’ve been thinking a lot about Failure at the moment (what else?!) Particularly, the word Failure. I’m starting to question my use of this word in reference to this project. When in doubt, I turn to the dictionary:
fail·ure
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.
2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
3. a subnormal quantity or quality; an insufficiency: the failure of crops.
4. deterioration or decay, esp. of vigor, strength, etc.: The failure of her health made retirement necessary.
5. a condition of being bankrupt by reason of insolvency.
6. a becoming insolvent or bankrupt: the failure of a bank.
7. a person or thing that proves unsuccessful: He is a failure in his career. The cake is a failure.
When looking at these definitions, I can see links between them and my own ideas, which feature various failures that can take place in the performing body (particularly in definitions 1-4). They are broad enough for failure to be what the subject makes of it. However, when thinking about the various responses to my project, perhaps the definition of failure is still an issue in my work. Perhaps it is too negative a word to use – when I use it, some people immediately prescribe value judgements to it, assuming that I am talking about ‘good’ or ’bad’ performance and ‘good’ or ‘bad’ performers. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
The Failure Project is NOT a negative one, it is not about telling performers there is something wrong with, that they are rubbish, it is not about judging the value of things. It is about honesty – being honest about one’s own physical limits, quirks and foibles, confronting them, and then utilising them in performance. I’m reminded of Jon Davison’s clown workshop, in which the performers were encouraged to confront the emotions they were really feeling, in the moment of performing, particularly if their improvisations were ‘failing’ (i.e. not funny), and to use these emotions in their performances. It was in recognising, confronting, and utilising this ‘truth’ that their scenes and improvisations came alive.
Maybe the whole enterprise should be renamed ‘The Honesty Project’?
fail·ure
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.
2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
3. a subnormal quantity or quality; an insufficiency: the failure of crops.
4. deterioration or decay, esp. of vigor, strength, etc.: The failure of her health made retirement necessary.
5. a condition of being bankrupt by reason of insolvency.
6. a becoming insolvent or bankrupt: the failure of a bank.
7. a person or thing that proves unsuccessful: He is a failure in his career. The cake is a failure.
When looking at these definitions, I can see links between them and my own ideas, which feature various failures that can take place in the performing body (particularly in definitions 1-4). They are broad enough for failure to be what the subject makes of it. However, when thinking about the various responses to my project, perhaps the definition of failure is still an issue in my work. Perhaps it is too negative a word to use – when I use it, some people immediately prescribe value judgements to it, assuming that I am talking about ‘good’ or ’bad’ performance and ‘good’ or ‘bad’ performers. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
The Failure Project is NOT a negative one, it is not about telling performers there is something wrong with, that they are rubbish, it is not about judging the value of things. It is about honesty – being honest about one’s own physical limits, quirks and foibles, confronting them, and then utilising them in performance. I’m reminded of Jon Davison’s clown workshop, in which the performers were encouraged to confront the emotions they were really feeling, in the moment of performing, particularly if their improvisations were ‘failing’ (i.e. not funny), and to use these emotions in their performances. It was in recognising, confronting, and utilising this ‘truth’ that their scenes and improvisations came alive.
Maybe the whole enterprise should be renamed ‘The Honesty Project’?
Monday, 7 July 2008
A Stage of Transition...Part Two
And so, with these considerations in mind (among others), I took part in the Archiving Practice Workshop led by Chris Clow. I had no idea what these workshops would entail, and was completely unprepared when I turned up on the Tuesday, to be told I would need to have some practice ready to show and to be filmed the next day! This year I'm having to get used to working in ways which don't seem natural to me - it felt strange prescribing everything I was going to do and explore next term in my Research Proposal - I would usually let my process develop more organically - and it felt strange here, rushing into practice when I didn't feel ready to. Sometimes, though, using different working methods can bring illuminating results, and it did here with the Archiving Workshops.
On Wednesday I spent most of my 'practice time' explaining to Chris my interests - I then followed this with a silly exercise between me, Elpida and Hayley, almost like a version of Follow The Leader, where Hayley and I had to follow Elpida through a series of difficult dance moves (at which I was embarrasingly terrible). It was all thought up on the spot - I hadn't given any consideration beforehand to it - and as a result it wasn't very engaging or illuminating.
I knew I had to have something more interesting and engaging the next day, and one which had more relevance to my project. I decided to set myself a task, in the same way I planned to set my performers tasks in the process leading up to my Festival piece - a task which was relevant and unique to me.
I arrived the next day with a text I was going to read to my audience (admitedly, the only part of the task I did not put too much thought into - originally, the content of text itself wasn't important, I just needed it to have something to read, but of course, every text brings it's own added meaning to the situation, which I realised quickly). The text was 'Molloy' by Samuel Beckett, which I was currently reading in my spare time. I brought with me a Grapefruit and a knife. I slowly ate the entire Grapefruit, cramming as much of it into my mouth as I could, whilst reading my text.
There were a few questions I wanted to address with this task?
On Wednesday I spent most of my 'practice time' explaining to Chris my interests - I then followed this with a silly exercise between me, Elpida and Hayley, almost like a version of Follow The Leader, where Hayley and I had to follow Elpida through a series of difficult dance moves (at which I was embarrasingly terrible). It was all thought up on the spot - I hadn't given any consideration beforehand to it - and as a result it wasn't very engaging or illuminating.
I knew I had to have something more interesting and engaging the next day, and one which had more relevance to my project. I decided to set myself a task, in the same way I planned to set my performers tasks in the process leading up to my Festival piece - a task which was relevant and unique to me.
I arrived the next day with a text I was going to read to my audience (admitedly, the only part of the task I did not put too much thought into - originally, the content of text itself wasn't important, I just needed it to have something to read, but of course, every text brings it's own added meaning to the situation, which I realised quickly). The text was 'Molloy' by Samuel Beckett, which I was currently reading in my spare time. I brought with me a Grapefruit and a knife. I slowly ate the entire Grapefruit, cramming as much of it into my mouth as I could, whilst reading my text.
There were a few questions I wanted to address with this task?
- Could I manage both tasks together (to eat and to read) and could I succeed at both of them?
- I hate grapefruit - how would I deal with eating an entire one? What issues does it bring up in terms of the body, disgust, and violation?
I didn't know how the task would go - to my surprise, it became in engaging, fascinating, difficult, even distressing moment. The spectators who witnessed it (Chris and Elpida) told me how they couldn't take their eyes away from the scene, how they were moved from laughter to ............., how it was difficult and uncomfortable to watch me in obvious discomfort but how at the same time they willed me to continue and finish. There were also issues of voyeurism at play - I was locked in my own private world during the task, never once acknowledging my 'audience', and at times they wondered if they should be watching me at all.
As the 'performer' in the task it was a strnagely intense experience - extremely physcial and psychological, constantly battling opposing emotions; one willing me to stop before I was sick, the other willing me to continue to the end, the other telling me not to think about any of it, just read the text and eat the fruit.
The next day I recreated the task with another food and another text, but it had lost it's 'magic' from the previous day. We all knew what we were in for this time, and the change in text (this time I chose a deliberately light-hearted one, in response to a request from Chris) and food (celery - les messy than Grapefruit) didn't add anything interesting.
But I think I'm onto something here. I can't quite quite theorise or explain it right now - for the moment, it only exists in the moment, in practice- but I'm excited.
A Stage of Transition
Once again, it has been ages since my last post...if I fail at anything it'll be this blog, that's for sure. Since our performances at CGP, it's been a period of reflection and analysis, culminating in a Lecture-Presentation we gave a couple of weeks ago and a Research Proposal we handed in last week for the summer term. All of which has served as a bridge between CGP and the start (or continuation) or our process for the Festival in September.
So what has arisen from this process? It would be too long (and possibly too boring) to go into it in massive detail, so let's have it in bullet points:
My work this year has been:
So what has arisen from this process? It would be too long (and possibly too boring) to go into it in massive detail, so let's have it in bullet points:
My work this year has been:
- Self-reflexive
- Concerned with manifestations of authority in art (or the institution, of the performer, etc.) and what happens when these authorities are questionned or played with
- Task-based and improvisational
Where I need to take my investigations into Failure:
- Needs narrowing down - too broad, even if it is just focused on the performing body
- Needs awareness of the thin line between failure and success - how are these concepts judges, at what point does one become the other, and where do my investigations stand in relation to this?
- How can I bring in considerations of the audience into my investigations?
...and more...
Friday, 6 June 2008
More clowns, less failure?
It's been longer than I intended since my last post...I'm not very good at this bloggin malarkey, am I? Well, since then, lots and lots (and lots) of things have happened - most notably, our performances at the Centre George Pompidou on 29th May.
Yes. It finally happened. After months of preparation, countless revisions, rehearsals, tearing out of hair and minor mental breakdowns, fires in train stations, national strikes, postponements and possible cancellations, it actually happened.
The extra time that we have had to devote to the CGP Project has had one unfortunate consequence, which is that we have mostly had to ignore, or perhaps even for some people, abandon entirely, our personal projects for the Developing Your Disciplines Project (hence the terrible lack of posts on this blog). So where does that leave the Failure Project now? Well, it will play a part in the Viva Voce I have to prepare and present as assessment for this course, albeit in a slightly different way and less visible form than I had first imagined. The main task now is to look at it in the context of the work I have done at the Pompidou Centre, discovering, interpreting and analysing the links and divergences between them. Hopefully, I will be able to devote more time to this Project in the summer.
Anyway...another day, another clown workshop, this time by Jon Davison, and a very different atmosphere and direction to the workshops I observed from John Wright. I sensed a shift in focus in the act of clowning, which semms to lead to a shift in the performer-audience dynamic.
Jon Davison placed great emphasis on honesty of emotion in performance: about each performer being honest about the emotions they were experiencing at that very moment, in real life, as it were, which would then be used in the performance. For example, when an exercise performed by two of the participants in the workshop seemed to be failing, with the scene becoming uninspired and boring, Jon encouraged the performers to use the real feelings of frustration and discomfort that they were experiencing when continuing with the scene. As a result, the scene almost immediately picked up, becoming more interesting, more engaging, and more funny. As Jon himself said at the time "when you don't like where you are...that's a good place to stay". It was all about committing yourself as a performer to the emotion present, whatever it may be, whether positive or negative, whether reasonable or completely weird, without fighting it or trying to change it or lie about it. In this way, the clown character was more of an extension of their real selves and personalities, rather than an outside character added on quite artificially (as I sometimes sensed in the John Wright workshop).
Because of this, I feel the focus of this workshop was more performer-centered, rather than the more heavily audience-centered workshop from John Wright. I felt that during the exercises, the performers were encouraged to focus primarily on what was NOW - what they knew to be present at that very moment, i.e. their own emotions, rather than what they anticipated in the audience later (such as laughter).
Now, in all honestly, the performances and improvisations in the Jon Davison were a lot less funny than the John Wright workshop, and so if you were to judge clowning on terms of its comedic value and of how funny it actually is, John Wright wins (although it may just be that the performers in his workshops were funnier, rather than the method having an influence on how funny it was). However, I found Jon Davison's methods to be more interesting in relation to my own practice, and particularly, the links I feel are present with my interests in the Failure Project. I found his focus on the use of the performer's real experiences in the moment to generate material for performance pertinent to my own ideas of the Failure Project, in which I have asked:
"Failure can often point to the individuality and uniqueness of the performer (each person has their own unique physical limits and traits) – could a performance be created that fully utilises these aspects? In what ways can a performer make him/herself visible when performing and what does this add to or detract from a performance?"
(My Scheme of Work)
I intend to try and get in contact with Jon Davison so I can discuss these issues with him...watch this space.
Yes. It finally happened. After months of preparation, countless revisions, rehearsals, tearing out of hair and minor mental breakdowns, fires in train stations, national strikes, postponements and possible cancellations, it actually happened.
The extra time that we have had to devote to the CGP Project has had one unfortunate consequence, which is that we have mostly had to ignore, or perhaps even for some people, abandon entirely, our personal projects for the Developing Your Disciplines Project (hence the terrible lack of posts on this blog). So where does that leave the Failure Project now? Well, it will play a part in the Viva Voce I have to prepare and present as assessment for this course, albeit in a slightly different way and less visible form than I had first imagined. The main task now is to look at it in the context of the work I have done at the Pompidou Centre, discovering, interpreting and analysing the links and divergences between them. Hopefully, I will be able to devote more time to this Project in the summer.
Anyway...another day, another clown workshop, this time by Jon Davison, and a very different atmosphere and direction to the workshops I observed from John Wright. I sensed a shift in focus in the act of clowning, which semms to lead to a shift in the performer-audience dynamic.
Jon Davison placed great emphasis on honesty of emotion in performance: about each performer being honest about the emotions they were experiencing at that very moment, in real life, as it were, which would then be used in the performance. For example, when an exercise performed by two of the participants in the workshop seemed to be failing, with the scene becoming uninspired and boring, Jon encouraged the performers to use the real feelings of frustration and discomfort that they were experiencing when continuing with the scene. As a result, the scene almost immediately picked up, becoming more interesting, more engaging, and more funny. As Jon himself said at the time "when you don't like where you are...that's a good place to stay". It was all about committing yourself as a performer to the emotion present, whatever it may be, whether positive or negative, whether reasonable or completely weird, without fighting it or trying to change it or lie about it. In this way, the clown character was more of an extension of their real selves and personalities, rather than an outside character added on quite artificially (as I sometimes sensed in the John Wright workshop).
Because of this, I feel the focus of this workshop was more performer-centered, rather than the more heavily audience-centered workshop from John Wright. I felt that during the exercises, the performers were encouraged to focus primarily on what was NOW - what they knew to be present at that very moment, i.e. their own emotions, rather than what they anticipated in the audience later (such as laughter).
Now, in all honestly, the performances and improvisations in the Jon Davison were a lot less funny than the John Wright workshop, and so if you were to judge clowning on terms of its comedic value and of how funny it actually is, John Wright wins (although it may just be that the performers in his workshops were funnier, rather than the method having an influence on how funny it was). However, I found Jon Davison's methods to be more interesting in relation to my own practice, and particularly, the links I feel are present with my interests in the Failure Project. I found his focus on the use of the performer's real experiences in the moment to generate material for performance pertinent to my own ideas of the Failure Project, in which I have asked:
"Failure can often point to the individuality and uniqueness of the performer (each person has their own unique physical limits and traits) – could a performance be created that fully utilises these aspects? In what ways can a performer make him/herself visible when performing and what does this add to or detract from a performance?"
(My Scheme of Work)
I intend to try and get in contact with Jon Davison so I can discuss these issues with him...watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
