Framing Statement.
The main interest of our group was to create site specific performance art that was both political and historically relevant to our chosen space. Potted Protest took place in Cornhill, a public square space on Lincoln High Street, named in 2011 as Speaker’s Corner. It lasted over two hours, involving one-to-one interactions and also a visual representation of protest.
The start of our process as a group involved engaging with the environment of the city. With any environment there is sort of a context, whether it be historically or socially and in a sense it is the building blocks of a site. People without even necessarily knowing it have a tacit agreement within these sites, whereby they understand the rules of the space they are in. Things become more interesting when this agreement is disrupted and without even realising it a performance is made.
The environment of Speakers Corner for us seemed like an empty space that needed to be acknowledged in relation to its historical context. Its metaphorical meaning of freedom of speech and historical link to the Suffragette Rally in 1908 seemed to be overshadowed by the busyness of everyday life. The tacit agreement that had been created, for us needed to be disrupted in a way that used the site for its specific purpose of protest.
The aim for us was to reference a binary of this landmark space, into a place where people use it to express their voice. The combination of both Capitalism and feminism within the space made our research difficult to pin point theories and practitioners. That was until we were introduced to the creative, everyday workings of Situationists. These were people who suggested that revolution needs to be alive and real in response to capitalism and oppression’s in a way that ignore everyday life.
We wanted to create a protest of thought, not necessarily our thoughts, but our audiences. The situations that people create make them look at the space in a new way, ignoring the consumer culture of the everyday. This led our piece to be influenced from theories of live art and people like Adrian Howells and Deride Heddon, who take more of a back seat allowing their audiences to frame the work
‘Silence rings out loudly, offering another place to “be” or to become: to reflect, to imagine, to project, to re-connect- with self and others and other selves- through the unique relationship of a quiet, considered, one-to-one encounter.’ (Howells, 2011, 1)
These notions of silence, participation and one-to-one encounters framed our piece. Our silence demonstrates that it is not us that creates the art, it is the participants. We are merely layering history from the ghosts of the Suffragettes protest, going right back to when the site was a field. The one-to-one encounter involves a transaction where we thorough instructions ask the audience-participant to answer the question:
Through growth we nurture their voice in either form of placards in plant pots that fill the space or the destroying of post-it notes into soil for the plants.
Analysis process.
History in the making.
We started the development of our piece by looking at the site and what drew us to the space of Speakers Corner. When going into the space we noticed the amount of big branded businesses and banks that surrounded the area, with the odd empty shop that seemed so little in comparison and yet jumped out at us. This notion of Capitalism surround the space, bringing us to question whether much had changed in terms of equality since the Suffragette rally. This historical event became a recurring stimulus for our performance, considering the idea of maybe recreating what had once been. This would display it as a platform that gives people the power to voice their opinions . However I believed that perhaps it shouldn’t be us protesting, the audience themselves should be encouraged to, as it is them who need to be aware of the spaces purpose.
In keeping with the Suffragettes we thought of maybe using one of the empty shops to invite women in and offer them something in exchange for a free conversation about contemporary issues of women today .Then we would demonstrate these voices in the empty square. The relevance of this was the fact that the space itself still seemed to be quite male dominated, especially finding out that there was a lack of female managers.
Artwork.
Through research we came across the notion of live art and how it focuses on the here and now. It offers ‘a means to critique cultural norms, fixed perceptions and sediment values’ (Heddon and Klein, 2012, 176 ) which lead us to think of what sort of question we wanted to ask. The continuous presence of banks and businesses in the space brought us to this idea of power and exploring what power people feel they have as a person today. As our common aim was to provide opportunities for opinions to be heard and to inspire others to do so now and in the future, we felt in the end we shouldn’t have any particular type of gender answering the question.
When it came to displaying these thoughts we wanted to fill the empty outside square in some way that would demonstrate freedom of speech. We came up with the idea of the audience-participant writing the answer on a small post-it which we would then take and enlarge on placards. This would create a sort of live installation of thought where the audience act as the artist and performer, creating the piece themselves. This type of work engaged with Happenings were the viewer becomes more than an observer, they actively participate.
Our silence for us would play a key factor in the piece as it creates a sort of contrast with the suffragettes. The placards that we plan to place around the square are recognised from the time of the suffragettes to now as a symbol for protest. These are the focal points of the piece, as they say the political message louder than we can.
The artist Suzanne Lacy claims that ‘what exists in the space between the words public and art is an unknown relationship between artist and audience, a relationship that may itself be artwork.” (Kwon, 2004, 105) The space of Speaker’s corner is a place for the community of Lincoln to be vocal, we as performers are aware of this and feel it is necessary for us to acknowledge the spaces purpose for the people. This is the relationship we want to achieve, where we provide the knowledge and our audience create the ‘artwork’. Similar to Lacy’s work Auto on the Edge of Time creating a series of installations that project the communities thoughts, developing their own political art.
Experimenting.
We began to look at the more silent methods of protest in terms of the Suffragettes hunger strikes. This led us to look at food, especially in relation to the businesses around the space and there use of bright neon lights to lure people in . We decided to experiment, we bought some cakes and masking tape and then proceeded to force feed each other, similar to the outcome of the suffragettes hunger strikes. This we felt may also link to society forcing views on people, representing the force feeding of money and consumerist culture.
We also went into town with a sign that had the question we plan to ask ‘What power do you feel you have in today’s society?’ This we found was not enough to engage participants due to the fact we only had one sign. Going back to our idea of food we thought perhaps it would be better to offer the public cake in return for their thoughts, instead of force feeding each other. This would create a more specific aspect to the site and its key relationship of being a place for political activism. It also brings the focus back to them as artists and forming a new connection with ‘place and the purpose for being there’ (Pearson, 2010, 7).
The Question.
In wanting to explore how our piece could be ‘context-specific, debate-specific, community specific’ (Kwon, 2004, 2) we went into Speaker’s Corner again and made multiple signs to bring people over to talk about the question. Through discussion we found that we did have more people come up to us this time because there was an offer of free cake. The question itself confused people as to what power we were referring to due to it not containing the word ‘society’ to start with. This reveled to us the importance of making it easy for people to recognise what we are asking and how vital the word ‘society’ in the question is.
We brought the experience back to class talking though our performance and ideas, focusing particularly on the concept of transactions. Through the feedback we found that to keep the piece relevant to the space we needed to offer the audience-participant something more physical. This would leave a constant reminder in their head of the space and it being a place of ‘free power’ for the whole community.
Transaction and One-to-one.
We were conscious of the ATM machines in the area that ‘now perform tasks that once represented so many opportunities for exchanges’ (Bishop, 2006, 162 ). Machines take your card and in return give you money, but this transaction is not offering you any one-to-one interaction. The artist Adrian Howells creates intimate performances that actively invite the audience’s physical and emotional participation. One-to-one encounters became key to our performance as we wanted the space to be a shared act, with us almost taking the cue from the audience. In doing so Emily Bickerdike would sit in the middle of the space, make eye contact with the person and hand them the first paper of instructions, allowing the participant to read it; then hand them another piece of paper with the question on as well as a post-it note, maintaining eye contact, they write down their answer. Their answer could either be destroyed or displayed, what we would give them in return is a link to a blog containing information about the piece and Speaker’s corner.
www.speakerscorner.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/about-speakers-corner
Growth in Appearance.
Identifying our individual roles within the piece and what they meant was our next challenge. We realized that there was an over-complication in our thinking and it needed to focus more on growth through thoughts and in voice. Research into the piece The Garden of Adrian showed how nature creates ‘a sense of time slowing down, an escape from the hustle and bustle of daily life’ (Heddon, 2011, 10). This began us thinking of what sort of natural environment we three could make in this busy space of the city. We came up with the idea of placing the placards into pots which I would water and nurture the thoughts it contained. This would form a tree like image, which I looked in to further, finding that the expansion of trees can be seen through roots. I suggested the role of nurturing could also be shown by drawing roots on the floor, which would fill the space, creating a sort of intertwining map of thought and growth. The roots therefore represent an embedding of that person’s voice that slowly expands in the site.
The destroying of the answers was our next task, suggesting that perhaps it could be done with a shredder. To further develop this image we decided on a hand-shredder as the destroying can be seen to be done by the person physically. Emily Vickers individual role would then be to take the shredding and turn that paper into compost of the ‘plants’ mixing it with her own hands. This emphasises the idea of a natural cycle with any thought being able to fuel protest and change.
Observation.
To experiment with this plant notion we decided to go into the space with a pot, soil, broomstick and tape to make a placard sign out of cardboard. This time we decided to not stand with the sign, but simply see how the public would react and interact with the question. Through observation we saw that most people who were not in groups tended to just examine the sign. In contrast the groups of people, noticed the sign and disgusted the question. Both of these results were beneficial to the piece, as those who didn’t speak represented the shredded thoughts and those that did, the placards.
Performance Evaluation
The outcome of our performance in Speakers Corner was displayed with multiple meanings drawn from placards, roots, watering, gagging and shredding. The combination of all these things helped to show the growth of thought through the voices of our audience.
Nature and Nurture.
Our plan to create a live installation of thought in the space worked in the creation of the plant pots on the day. Through trial and error beforehand we were able to recognize that the structure of the plant pots needed to be weighed down by sand so they stand up. In wanting to maintain the idea of growth we still mixed it with soil throughout to create the tree like idea. This allowed things to run more smoothly as they stayed up and didn’t distract people from the thoughts they contained.
The nurturing of the plant pots was strong in the elements of watering and the expansion of roots. I was able to show the growth of thought by the intriguing image that was created with the roots filling the whole space. This enabled us to show connection of thought through the overlapping and development of voice.
Further strength came from the constant mixing of the shredded answers with the turning of soil into compost every ten minutes. In allowing the audience to shred their own answers it provided full confidence that the answer they had given would be destroyed. This in return made us more background and the audience-participant center to the piece. The nurturing of their voice was then down to us, which was created with mixing the shredded paper into the bigger placards.
The Power.
The gagging of our mouths in the piece helped add a silence aspect to us, and focus the power on the audience-participants. We had a variety of audience-participants, which helped demonstrate the spaces intention of anyone being able to have freedom of speech. The instructions and eye contact that was given to the audience-participant was successful in creating a space full of empowered voices.
Reflection.
Hearing the outside discussions from those people who just watched the piece indicated to us that our piece was thought provoking and yet allowed people to engage with the space in many different ways.
When looking back at our work there are areas that could be improved if we were to do it again. The use of inviting signs would be made more obvious by Emily Bikerdike holding it up to the audience-participants to take a seat when the chair had a long period of emptiness.In relation to the observing audience we would add more placards to the space and perhaps place them in different directions so everyone can engage with the space, as not all did.
‘ The most complete change an individual can effect in his environment, short of destroying it, is to change his attitude to it.’ (Heddon and Klein, 2012, 182)
I learn’t when creating performance in a non-traditional environment you need to recognize it in ways you usually wouldn’t. The attitude of a site can be enhanced by digging into its history and effecting it. The changing of an audience’s attitude can be done by acknowledging the specific purpose of the site. This form of theater showed me that any place can become a performance space once you engage with its surroundings and context, in our case the power of voice.
Word count: 2,694
Work Cited:
- Bishop, C. (2006) Participation. London: The MIT Press.
- Heddon, D. and Klein, J.(2012) Histories and Practices of Live Art. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Heddon, D. and Howells, A. (2011) From talking to silence: a confessional journey. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, 33 (1) 1-12.
- Kwon, M. (2004) One place after another: site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge, Mass, London: MIT
- Lacy, S. (2015) Suzanne Lacy. [online] Available from: http://www.suzannelacy.com/early-works/#/auto-on-the-edge-of-time/ [Accessed 10 May 2016].
- Pearson, M. (2010) Site Specific Performance. London: Palgrave Macmillan
- Speaker’s Corner Trust (undated) Roadtesting the Speaker’s Corner Site at Lincoln’s Cornhill [online] Available from http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/library/videos/roadtesting-the-speakers-corner-site-at-lincolns-cornhill/[Accessed 11 May 2016].
- Tahssein, S. (2016) Potted Protest [Online] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_-78WHuvBs [Accessed 12 May 2016]
- Vickers, E (2016) Force Feeding: Suffragettes [Online] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdrH87YaXoQ [Accessed 12 May 2016]