Some References

I have been thinking recently about other types of work that I really like apart from performance. Appearing in the list were things such as, documentaries like 'Tribal Wives' , films like 'Priscilla Queen of the Desert', and books by Dave Gorman and Danny Wallis, which has made me consider how these interests are affecting my work. 

The main thing that I think attracts me to certain works is when they are about journeys. There is something about watching, reading, or hearing about someone's journey that I find really fascinating. Looking specifically at Dave Gorman and Danny Wallis (who I know aren't everyone's taste); I really like reading their books because they appear so pointless! They set themselves the stupidest set of rules, with no real point to them; they are not aiming to discover some hidden truth or make a comment on anything overtly political, but the set of self-imposed rules then sets in motion an unforeseen chain of events.

More than anything, the most interesting thing about these journeys and unforeseen events, is the people that they meet along the way; the different ways of living, the different stories that every person has to tell. What is it about this that is so interesting? 

Writing my dissertation I spent a lot of time excavating why the notions behind 'liveness' are so important. I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of presuppositions underpinning this notion; notions of authenticity, community, and presence, based on the fact that it is happening in the 'now', that don't hold that much water any more in the wake of Auslander's writing. Writing my dissertation has made me realise why I create performance. It isn't so much the fact that it is happening in the 'now' that gives performance a sense of authority and worth over other mediaitised forms and this is why I choose to create it, but that I personally like communicating to a group of people in this manner. I think that I like performing and telling a narrative to people who are in front of me, seeing their reaction and perhaps having a discussion with them. This isn't to say that there aren't other ways of achieving this - just performance is my preferred method.

Looking back to my work and Organic Theatre, I am realising that it is once again the process that is prevailing in my interest here. I like being told a story, especially if it includes the journey of how the creator got there. I like knowing motivation, imposed rules, people that were met, things that were discovered - most of the time without any grand statement behind the work. I think that removing the 'dominant message' or 'lesson' that the audience must take away with them from a performance allows the work to be left open to interpretation without having to fragment the narrative so much.  

The journey of my tea stories is important to me and I am considering how develop it in the next couple of weeks. I'm not sure that I am happy with just having tea with people in a park anymore but am struggling with the development. 

I am going to be doing a performance in college next Thursday if anyone is around - would be great to have your opinions. I am going to focus this section on purely tea rather then the process and the tea participants and see what comes out of it.

Any ideas and suggestions as always appreciated

Something worth thinking about..

Whilst researching on the internet I came across this article on the Guardian Arts Blog

I think that it is something worth thinking about both in terms of my practice and research. Why is it that people increasingly want to engage with their audience on such a personal level? There seems to be a surge of practitioners trying to create 'real' intimacy where the audience is having more and more of a realised input into the actual work. Whether this is in the form of confessional pieces, or in the case of Caroline Smith's new work providing information to actually make the show. 

Considering this has been interesting in terms of what I am practically trying to achieve at the moment. My work is very much situated in between the conceptual nature of the confessional, and the gathering of material that Caroline is doing (although in a different manner as I am leaving the organic nature of the encounters to dictate the show which leaves the themes much more open ended at this point). 

As Lyn Gardner states though, it is an enforced intimacy, an illusion of intimacy in a lonely world. So what does this say about the practitioners making the work and the audience willing to partake in it? What does the work say about the culture we live in?

For my essay I am shifting focus a little (AGAIN! haha). I am considering the intimacy produced in organic theatre (and indeed some one on one performances). I want to try and look at the culture we live in through the lens of these performances. hmmm

I believe that the organic nature of the work and the way that the audience are incorporated into the work produces an almost cult following. You feel intimate with the practitioner, you feel as though they are letting you in on a secret. Like you know them, their inner workings, both personally and as an artist working as they are letting you in on the process.  You are really part of somehthing. But how is this effect produced and why?

In terms of a live event there is often an authority attached to it. A belief that you are having an authentic experience due to the visceral and temporal nature of the exchange. However, I believe that the mechanisms used to produce this effect and to draw in an audience are the same as the ones that are at work in media and celebrity culture. The intimacy is no more real than feeling that you know Ant and Dec. 

Our culture is one where knowledge about a person or 'persona' is ubiquitous. We have easy, instant access to personal lives, the career development of 'personas', and the inner workings of the films or television programmes that these 'celebrities' are working on (behind the scenes). I would like to argue that the livesness and intimacy inherent in Organic Theatre has no more authority or authenticity than that of celebrity, media culture. 

A continuation of Auslander's argument where the ontological nature of liveness and mediatisation is blurred but with a focus on intimacy and authenticity. 

I love that I argue with myself constantly and my own ideals! God Dam! :o)