The final stages

Throughout the past two weeks, the build up to the final performance has been very hectic and incredibly stressful. We have been trying, experimenting, developing, failing and creating.

The first hurdle we had to combat when experimenting  was the sheer amount of props/set/objects we have in our piece, and how to source and build them. A big problem we keep returning to is the structure of the placards – the change in weather means they keep blowing over. We have experimented with building the placards from different materials, initially using broom handles as the main ‘stem’ and planting them into a compost-filled plant pot. After this was unsuccessful, we moved on to using bamboo sticks in compost, but again, whilst these were slightly more stable than the broom handles, once the wind picked up they eventually fell over. Instead, for our next experiment we aim to use bamboo sticks in a plant pot filled with sand, weighing the structure down more.

(Frampton, 2016)
(Frampton, 2016)

We also found that the cardboard part of the placards blows about in the wind, yet we are unsure if this is a hindrance or a nice aesthetic choice if kept; it gives the placards more of the natural theme we are trying to infer, as though they are plants blowing in the wind. It creates more of a visual spectacle for passers by to view, and even acts as a distraction in their line of sight, inviting them to have a closer look.

We had lots of difficulty sourcing tables and chairs for our experiments, and had to conduct them without. By doing this, we realised how integral they are to our piece, as without them we cannot have an intimate connection with our audience-participants, nor can we make them feel comfortable and at ease. Without this sense of ease, we are less likely to get audience-participants that open up and write down the more personal answers we are hoping for. As a result of this, we haven’t yet been able to have any interaction with audience-participants. Instead, we have been conducting the piece without the audience element, creating the placards from answers we have previously received in earlier experiments. We hopefully be running the piece as it should be, with audience-participants, in a couple of days.

Over the past few weeks, we have done closer experiments with individual elements of the piece. An example of this is the shredding element. To recap: our idea is to shred the answers that people wish to destroy, and to turn these shreddings into compost by mixing it in with soil. A development we made through trying and testing was to allow the audience-participants to shred their own answers; this is to provide absolute confidence that their answers are destroyed as they are doing it themselves, as well as ensuring our role is more background, and the audience-participant is placed at the centre of the piece.

(Vickers, 2016)
(Vickers, 2016)
(Vickers, 2016)
(Vickers, 2016)

We also looked at ways to draw the roots from the plant pots – we used chalk to slowly and methodically make the roots ‘grow’ from the pots as the piece progressed, embedding the placards into the space. Once we had taken the placards and pots away, we noticed how the roots remained, and appeared almost alien to the space. The idea of the roots remaining with no context for passers-by is intriguing as it will make them question why and how they got there, allowing them to engage with and notice the space in a way that perhaps they never had before. Furthermore, the idea that the roots remain links in with our aim of planting something in the audience-participants’ (and even passers by) heads that will grow and develop into action. The roots in the space link up with the roots in the minds of those involved – they will always be connected to Speakers’ Corner in a way they never had been before.

(Vickers, 2016)
(Vickers, 2016)
(Frampton, 2016)
(Frampton, 2016)

Additionally,  we created a blog page giving information about Speakers’ Corner and the aims of our performance. This will be given in the exchange between audience-participant and artist in the form of a hand-written note. The audience-participant, it is hoped, will then follow that link after they have left the site, taking the performance with them into their every day lives in a more physical sense – it doesn’t simply leave them once they leave the space; another way we are rooting thought and action into their minds. To end our piece, we want to take photographs of each placard/post-it note and document them on that same blog site – this gives them a permanent place in the world, long after we have dismantled the placards, and even after the cardboard has been recycled into something new. We are doing this because we believe the thoughts people will be expressing are so important, and must remain alive by any means. As we cannot leave the placards in the space, we will ‘install’ them online in a more permanent way.

(Bickerdike, 2016)
(Bickerdike, 2016)

In his book, Site-Specific Performance, Mike Pearson asks the question: “How can site-specific performance play a role in an active engagement with place, helping make sense of the multiplicity of meanings that resonate from landscapes and memories?” (Pearson, 2010, 56). “Active engagement with place” (Pearson, 2010, 56) is what we want our audience-participants to achieve; discovering the intended purpose and history of the site, and being inspired to act upon this in the space. The “multiplicity of meanings” that resonate from our site are what we hope to metaphorically show in our piece through the placards, roots, watering, gagging and shredding. All of these elements emulate the ghosts of the Suffragette rally gone before, the emptiness and natural beginnings of the site as a field, and we hope that enough of these will shine through to an audience. This idea of layering histories comes from Cathy Turner’s notion of palimpsest, where “no space is truly empty, as left at site will be traces of what has happened there before” (Gleave, 2011), an idea that has shaped our piece from beginning to end, and will continue to inspire us as we develop further in the final stages.

(Frampton, 2016)
(Frampton, 2016)

 

Works Cited

Gleave, J. (2011) The Reciprocal Process of the Site and the Subject in Devising Sitespecific Performance. MPhil(B). Univeristy of Birmingham.

Pearson, M. (2010) Site-Specific Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Going back to the roots

We decided to meet up and discuss the logistics and meaning of our piece, writing everything down in an attempt to be fully clear, as individuals, on our roles and the meanings behind them. We realised when doing this that we were over-complicating our piece; we needed to strip it back to our original idea. Whilst we were simplifying our overall piece, we found it hard to plot out what each person would be doing at what point, so we decided to focus exclusively on the idea of growth – growth of ideas, growth of confidence, growth of voice.

Whilst remaining with the idea of watering each placard to nurture the ideas and make them bloom, we decided it would be a good idea to show this growth in some way throughout the duration of the piece. One person at a time would be given this task and then would rotate when everyone’s task changed over. The person responsible would walk to a filled plant pot and begin to draw chalk roots on the floor. These roots would eventually fill the space around one plant pot, at which point whoever drawing them would move on to another plant pot. Each time the artists rotate, the roots would be drawn longer and around more plant pots as they were filled, creating and interweaving map of thought and growth. The lack of permanence around this idea echoes the entire piece; the roots will be washed away with the rain (if this is the case in the performance, the artist starts over), much like how the cardboard would wilt and the writing would run. This element of temporality emulates the life cycle of plants: they grow, they are nurtured, they wither, they die. However, the ideas on the placards remain. Once they are revealed to the world, they cannot be removed.

Continuing with this idea of growth and nurturing, we decided to incorporate the ‘destroyed’ answers into this natural cycle. Using a hand-powered shredder, we will shred the ‘destroy’ answers into strips of paper, and it will be one artists’ job to turn that paper into compost. They will travel around each filled plant pot and mix the paper in with the soil using their hands. This raw, ritualistic-style action adds another layer of nature to our piece, and shows that all ideas can fuel the desire for protest and change.

As a group, we also made a big decision regarding the audience of our piece. We decided to bring our work closer to that of our main influence, Adrian Howells, and make the piece a one-to-one experience. One at a time, an audience-participant would come up to the table, sit, and make eye contact. At which point, the artist sat at the table would produce a piece of paper with the first set of instructions on it; the audience-participant reads it; they make eye contact; they are handed the question and paper/pen; they write; they are given the last set of instructions; they are given a card; they put their answer into one of the two boxes; they leave; the next person sits down. And so on. This one-to-one experience gives the piece a much more personal feel, and delivers the idea we strived to achieve of making the audience feel connected to the piece in a deeper way, which allows them to give much more honest answers. By giving a one-t0-one experience, the audience-participant feels valued and are given time away from their lives for a couple of minutes to engage in collective catharsis, just as Adrian Howells does in many of his pieces. The idea of non-verbal conversations that Howells and Dee Heddon talk about is also present in our piece through the use of eye contact – not only does our lack of speech and purely aural communication tell the audience we are taking a step back (this is not about us, but about them), but allows them to search deeper into themselves via an intimate experience.

We went out into Speaker’s Corner to experiment with the placards and work out the logistics of them. We also wanted to find out, by using just one placard, whether people stopped to read it. We placed the placard in the centre of the square, and covertly sat on a bench on the other side.

(Bickerdike, 2016)
(Bickerdike, 2016)

We realised that the placards were rather unstable in the wind as it often fell over. We believe to counteract this, we need larger (deeper)  buckets with a brick in the bottom of each to keep them weighted.

In terms of a reaction, most people who walked by reacted to the placard in some way. Most simply glanced at it, but some did stop to read it. When people walked by us in groups, we realised we’d created a talking point; people were answering the question, whether they knew it or not. They were talking about it to each other and giving answers without even realising. Most of the conversations we over heard suggested people were confused by the placard, and mainly believed that they had very little power at all.

“Free Power”

I conducted some further research on the work of Adrian Howells as I wanted to know more about his performances and how he uses different types of transaction. Currently, the transaction in our piece takes place in the form of cake  being given to the audience-participants for helping us with our performance. However, I felt this type of transaction to be too impersonal and too forced rather than artistic and meaningful, yet the use of the cake as an incentive problematises this notion of meaningfulness, as it’s meaningful to us to get people to take part.

As a result of this, I read the article From Talking to Silence: A Confessional Journey by Dee Heddon and Adrian Howells, in the hope of finding out more about transaction. Heddon discusses how “the boundary between performer and spectator dissolves in the process of exchange, an exchange that asks for a very committed and at times vulnerable sort of spectatorship” (Heddon, 2011). Not only that, I found that in most of Howell’s work, exchange is “consistently dialogic […] performed within a wider cultural context of the mass-mediatization of the personal and private made public” (Howell, 2011). The use of dialogical exchange in Howell’s work is primarily used to help the audience-participants feel comfortable with sharing.

On Wednesday we wet out into Speaker’s Corner with signs advertising “FREE CAKE”. To our surprise (and contrary to similar experiments we have done in the past) a lot of people came over to talk to us. We generated more interest than ever before, simply by advertising something for free. I was delighted that we finally had participants, but somewhat disheartened with the lack of sustenance in our part of the transaction. Us giving out free cake lacks meaning and generosity,  whilst somewhat telling people we’re only doing this for us, not them – the opposite of our purpose. So, we decided to ask our classmates.

Back in the seminar room we talked our classmates through our performance and our ideas, and asked them specifically about our use of transaction – what do you think to it? What does it say to you? What could we do instead? Some suggested that the transaction from our side is giving them the means to protest, giving them “free power”. Could we give them something physical to symbolise this? Perhaps a slip of paper with something written on it. Another person suggested giving them “free advice” on what they’d written down, like an advice slip you get from a cash machine, which are so present in Speaker’s Corner (this too plays on the idea of ‘transaction’ as that is what a cash machine is built for). Other more general ideas around our performance were born through this discussion, such as the placing of the placards into plant pots and allowing the audience-participant to do that themselves if they so wished – they are letting their idea grow and are nourishing/nurturing it. This triggered the idea of someone – perhaps one of us – going round at certain intervals and watering the soil each placard is planted in. Furthermore, the idea arose about having smaller signs branching off the larger placards once we run out to create a physical representation of a tree.

Works Cited

Heddon, D. and Howells, A. (2011) From talking to silence: a confessional journey. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, 33 (1) 1-12.

 

A Change of Heart

Part of our investigatory work around developing our performance involved us returning to Speaker’s Corner and experimenting in the space. We did things such as eves-drop in the square and inside the shops, walk around the square picking out small details, and talk to each other from across the space; afterwards we sat on a bench and brainstormed ideas. We agreed that we still wanted to use the idea of transactions, given that the space we are in is so focused on money and exchange, yet we also agreed that rather than pinpointing our performance with the specific event of the Suffragette rally that happened there, we would look at how that event inspired the creation of Speaker’s Corner, and the intended purpose of it today.

Still taking elements of our inspiration from the Suffragettes, we decided that placards would remain a large part of our piece, but rather than intending them to emulate the Suffragette protests, we looked at the wider, more contemporary meaning. Placards have become the recognised symbol for protest as they say the message louder than the voice ever could, contrasting with the identities of the protests and women who once occupied that space, which are now silent.  This kind of ‘loud silence’ was very appealing to us and informed our creative decision to involve the audience in the performance.

Our idea is to invite the audience to write their answer to a question on a small piece of paper, the question being:

“What power do you feel as a person in the world today?”

We will then give them the option to transfer these (anonymous) quotes to a placard which will be placed around the square, or to post it through the letterbox of an empty shop unit – the anonymous space. Every person who answers our question will be given a free piece of food, perhaps cake, which will make them feel rewarded for helping other people, and feel good for expressing themselves where they otherwise wouldn’t. Throughout the afternoon as these answers are being collated, the piece becomes a live installation of thought, with the audience acting as artist and performer, whilst we remain silent, letting them create the piece. To visually demonstrate our silence, our aim is to wear pieces of material/tape covering our mouths; this symbolises that it is not our voices we are demonstrating in the piece, but the voices of the public, allowing them to use the space for its true purpose, exercising FREEDOM OF SPEECH (something not a lot of people know).

The purpose of this is to show the public that they have freedom of speech and whats more, a place designed to demonstrate it in. Through our performance we aim to allow people to use the space for its purpose, allowing them to turn their opinions into a voice where otherwise they’d remain silent – they do have power, so use it.

We researched the work of Suzanne Lacy, a feminist performance artist who’s work mainly revolves around women’s rights – in particular, destroying rape culture. Lacy’s Auto on the Edge of Time (1993-1994) was:

“A series of installations and projects that explored the effects of domestic violence as experienced by women, children and families throughout the United States. The centerpiece [sic] of the project was a collection of wrecked cars transformed by Lacy and her collaborators into sculptural testimonials on themes of escape, abuse, control, support, healing, memorializing and more.”

(Lacy, 2015)

Lacy’s use of testimonials added an element of catharsis to her work, giving an emotional outlet and escape to victims, whilst also displaying a powerful message to others. This is similar to the aim of our work; to provide opportunities for people to let their opinions be heard and to inspire them, and others, to do this more in the future.

Works Cited:

Lacy, S. (2015) Suzanne Lacy. [online] Available from: http://www.suzannelacy.com/early-works/#/auto-on-the-edge-of-time/ [Accessed 4 March 2016].

A Revelation

This week we had an epiphany. We already knew we were interested in creating art that was political as well as historical, and we knew that we wanted to combine the topics of Feminism and Capitalism, but we were unsure of theorists and practitioners to inspire us and to ground the research we’d already done; this was until we were introduced to the Situationists.

Situationists were interested in creating every day situations in order to make daily life a creative, individual, spontaneous experience. They do this in an attempt to counteract the alienation in society caused by mass media and consumerism (essentially, Capitalism). Hopefully, through these situations people will see the city in a new way, ignoring the consumer culture being fed to them. An interesting quote we found from Situationist Raoul Vaneigem reads:

“People who talk about revolutions and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth”. (Vaneigem, 1967)

Essentially, what Vaneigem is saying is that people who protest against Capitalism and oppression in a way that ignores the every day (real people and real situations) have nothing of meaning to say – their ideas are dead. For revolution to work it needs to be alive, it needs to be REAL.

We linked this form of protest with our historical research on the Suffragette Rally in the area Speaker’s Corner now stands. These were also real women campaigning for political and social change, trying to establish a revolution and overthrow the laws of society that held them back. Many Suffragettes, after being arrested and imprisoned, went on hunger strikes as it was one of the only forms of protest available to them in a restricted environment. Hunger-striking Suffragettes were force-fed though tubes (either down the nose or throat); a horrific, traumatising experience for those who experienced it. This idea of force-feeding and using force/restraint to make people conform reminded us of the idea Situationists discussed about consumer culture and how it is everywhere in modern day society – it is force fed to us, whether we like it or not. This link with the Suffragettes creates a powerful metaphor for people being overpowered and silenced by authority; “the man” (like the political posters in the Parisian riots), in both senses of the word.

One way that we as a group observed this force-feeding of consumer culture in Speaker’s Corner is the use of neon lighting. We found neon lights on the signs for banks, on the euro exchange and on the cash machines, all of which are used as a form of advertising – you can’t look away as you can see them out of the corner of your eyes. We also discussed how neon lights are typically used on the outside of places like takeaways and even brothels/strip clubs; all of these things, both in Speaker’s Corner and elsewhere, relate to the idea of immediate gratification. A simple transaction can give you what you want instantly, an idea that is promoted through Capitalism.

All of these places of immediate gratification, the corporate chains, and the dancing neon patterns that make up the buildings around Speaker’s Corner violently contrast with the sparse, un-kept square in the middle. This stage-like space in the centre is a recognised area for people to practice freedom of speech and political expression (a title inspired by the Suffragette rally of the past) and when coupled with almost the embodiment of Capitalism surrounding it, an interesting picture is created.

We collated all these ideas together and came up with an idea for a performance:

  • A durational piece spanning an afternoon (the time when most people will be out).
  • Rent out the small empty unit opposite Halifax – red neon lights in window and sign advertising “Girls”. This has connotations of a brothel-type building – what is the difference between this kind of immediate gratification and the immediate gratification from the bank/cash machine opposite?
  • Use the idea of exchange and transaction (prevalent theme in Speaker’s Corner with big businesses and banks) – offer women FREE services such as nail painting, hand massages, etc. and the only thing they give you in exchange is story: what it is t0 be a woman/experiences of women/personal anecdotes/modern femininity.(reminiscent of Salon Adrienne).
  • Use quotes (anonymous, but with permission) from women from throughout the day – write on Suffragette-esque placards.
  • End of day create a forest-like installation in the square of these placards – free-standing as though being held but nobody there: emulates ghosts of who was there before = palimpsest.

 

Works Cited:

Vaneigem, R. (1967) The Revolution of Everyday. Paris: Editions Gallimard.

Howells, A. (2005) Salon Adrienne. [performance] London: Battersea Arts Centre and Glasgow: Glasgay! Festival.