Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Tuesday January 19: Site-Specific Performance: The City as Site

1. Quick, A. (2004). “Taking Place.” Art and Performance: Live. A. Heathfield. London, Tate Publishing: (pp. 92-99)."

In this article, Andrew Quick discusses this concept of the “live” he argues that this is anti-site specific, because the “live” is a moment-to-moment idea that is not planned and is thus chaotic. In site-specific art, the site, location or place is thought about before the performance creation. It is there fore necessary for the location to be calculated, so that the inspirations of the performance can be brought out through the location. He argues in the article that theatre is a calculated site. The performance and performers know what they are doing and they know exactly what their site is. The article discusses the fact that it is not just theatre that maybe looked at as live, but when we turn on the television to watch the news, or a reality game show. In the following quotation, Quick talks about when we observe the news on the latest war or political scandal, we are given the promise of immediacy through the live broadcast. It is as though we might make contact with the truth as it happens. “Saturated by the attempts to be in the moment-by-moment happening of violence and/or political turmoil, the live gives the appearance of being flattened out in the temporal frameworks that construct news narratives. As a result of this transformation, the live threatens to become little more than a baroque adornment accompanying a highly organized and disciplined attempt to make me conform to prescribe value systems.” Quick argues that the space and boundaries between the actors and audiences should always be placed, if we are not calculated, then we are disorder. - AZiZ

I’m still waiting for the article that doesn’t melt my brain when I try to read it. And, as a result, I’m not entirely sure what I’m attempting to translate from Quick’s article to my own thoughts is entirely accurate. Quick is arguing for the elements of ‘live’ performance that exists within the theatre space itself. A theatre is already a defined space, it is site-specific in it’s own way. And within this site, live art is created. It is that element of the unknown, the spontaneous, that is what draws spectators to it. There is potential for a massive number of things to go wrong, but also for things unexpected to happen, to enhance or further explore the live performance. It’s “in the moment” quality is a variable that could change in an instant, lending an air of excitement and tension to the medium of theatre.

I agree with the post above. maybe i am approaching these readings the wrong way, but every time i go to read them i seem to get little to nothing from them. it seemed that at some points the article was favouring the spontaneity and possibility of error in "live" theatre, and then at another it seemed to criticizes it. i understand both the positive and negative aspects to this, and perhaps this is a theme of the article? or perhaps its a bad day to read this article. hopefully a discussion will help.

He argues that while the notion of “the live” (Which, while is an awkward phrase to read, it turns a description and an idea into a noun.) can exist between everyday moments, they aren’t being represented clearly. A news cast, while being able to cover each moment of an event, flattens and represents ‘the live’ in it’s own style. You know, media. How it removes the ‘human element?’ Shows things from one point of view. He argues this flattens an event. He mentions how artists, even those who work in site-specific presentations to contest the theatre, will find themselves back in that space, exploring and playing with it’s “liveness.” Theatre fits a social and cultural constraint that draws and places the artist back in the theatre. It is where people will go to view the element of “liveness” they have interest in. Why would one so quickly shun an audience of spectators waiting the artist’s use of a theatre? People will identify a space by their connection to it, be it what society defines it as (eg a theatre; go here to see live show) or by their own personal connections to it (this isn’t just a house in which to seek shelter, it is my home.) This, is what is called “place.” And that human recognition is what will create a place. If there is an alienation, (eg. if there is no recognition,) there can be no place. It is the human mind, the imagination, that takes a flat abstract ideal and transforms it.

And here is where I think we’re missing a page, between 6 and 7 because he is discussing a theatrical scene that I was very interested in, but it jumps to speaking of childhood memories. I believe the missing chuck was describing the unorthodox use of the theatre and how better to utilize space and challenge conventions. But this is just me guessing.

There is another jump, with a blank page 8, into a description of someone named Helen X and a scared ensemble who cannot seem to please her. I giggled a bit to imagined the performers huddled off to one side of ‘playing area’ covered in dust and sweat and hanging bits of costume, while the set crew frantically hauled a couch and various bits of set back and forth, the whole time this woman screaming and pulling her hair out and essentially everyone is tired and frustrated. (Sounds like some rehearsals I’ve been in.)

Quick says this is because she had failed to understand the ‘liveness’ of a performance, of theatre. And how liveness brings chaos and disorder to a place that is known for it’s ‘placing.’ (As in putting an object down where it belongs). But that's all I got before it cut out again.

I’m left with a lot of questions and feeling really confused after all of this. I think it might be better if I wasn’t missing every second page and if Quick defined the term “the live” the FIRST time he uses it. In any case, if he IS talking about how a theatre can be used with and against conventions, I'm all for it. If not, well, then my opinions just coloured what I was reading. Either that, or I'm doing it wrong.

The great thing I took away from this article was the constant battle between theater and the idea of 'live,' where theater perpetuates the idea of 'home' and 'place' in this article, and live the idea of movement and disorder. I like how he spoke of place as taking over or as he puts it, the limits that place establishes require a certain use of force. It then settles as 'place.' But for Quick, movement itself is disorder; that the unruly nature of movement always dis-places. I know I am taking a lot from the text, but it gave me insight into an idea for a performance. I want to make a performance where the performers, lights, music, etc. are all being cleared from the stage to reestablish place. It would be violent and chaotic.--Cody.thompson 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I love the place where he says, "It would appear, then that there is something seditious about movement; that movement itself is disorder; that the unruly nature of movement always displaces."

Dictionary.com defines sedition as:

noun 1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. 2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion. 3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

So movement, according to Quick, is immediately incitment to rebellion, or promotes rebellion or discontent. You move in a space and it promotes rebellion in others. What an interesting idea.

I agree with Andrew Quick’s response to “eventhood”: “it’s being there before, with and around us, in a particular space at a particular time” (pg.2). As a spectator, I critically examine the environment of which a performance is taking place. Andrew also mentions that site-specific art is “...a practise that is presented as challenging those institutionalised conceptualisations of place that prescribe how the spectator watches, interacts and interprets” (pg.2). During the fall semester I have adapted a new outlook on how a performance may be created. I don’t think it is entirely necessary for a performance to have a direct concept, nor meaning. I do believe, and agree, that the environment chosen by a performing artist will affect the spectator’s response to the action. Both spectator and artist will interpret the art in a different manner, with or without intentions from the artist.

Quick mentions in this article with Augé’s definition that “non-places exist when the person does not recognize they are in it, or cease to recognize themselves in it, or have not yet recognized themselves in it”. From this, I wonder if theatre can become a non-place or is already one because of the illusion it presents of not being an entirely different location than a theatre. Can it become a non-place when the audience forgets they are in a theatre even if it is for a brief moment when they become enraptured in the story being told? Perhaps site specific performance, works to eliminate those falsehoods and non-places to bring the audience truth.

I am so confused about this article. There are so many messages it is trying t o convey, that my eyes glazed over a little bit. One part that was really confusing was when Quick spoke of movement creating non-places within the very co-ordinates of place itself. I don’t really understand how moving troubles conventional forms in which creative practice is commodified. In order for a piece to be raw, original, and artistic in a site-specific place, are we just supposed to stand there and be still, otherwise it’s commercial? Live performances are ephemeral in nature, obviously, but without movement, that would change significantly. It would still always be different, but it would lack the variability and unpredictability if there was no movement.

I am not sure if I understand this piece is the idea still that the place where art is performed should never be rehearsed. For example if I were to put on a site-specific performing art piece I should never rehearse where I am going to perform because that takes away from the chaotic moment-to-moment action. Do I understand this correctly? And why does performance have to be rebellion. Why does movement have to be rebellious to someone? I mean I get that the person is the political and some movements, yes, can promote rebellious or perverse responses however walking in a room, to me, does not promote rebellion and I don’t understand how it could. Courtney Keen

So, what goal does site-specific performance try to achieve? If there even is a goal. Perhaps to communicate a sites history? Perhaps to illuminate minds by making "the invisible visible". Essentially we try to make people see something we see... Is this not selfish? Maybe just a little bit pretentious? I can understand movement being rebellion. But is rebellion good? What are we rebelling against? Gravity? Lethargy? Other people? And as for "the live" being chaotic. This is true indeed, there can be no certainty in the present. Life is forever chaos in this respect. Chaos therefor cannot be a bad thing, lest life be bad... Is bad bad? Is good good? Who defines these things? Why is ANYTHING important?!?! If I keep asking questions will the answer present itself? -Noah

I don't think Noah you will ever find an answer. But, after all the readings I keep asking the same questions, and getting the same answers..."Yes, but"...It is another one of those open ended questions of 360 that we will NEVER find the answer to. But, my answer to my never ending string of questions is that from the spectators point of view things will always be confusing. As for Noah's question on the Site Specific, the answer is yes. As long as it is important to the artist it is important. Even after telling myself the answer is yes, I already question myself, what makes it important? Even my own questions confuse me!

I got a little muddled in all this as many others have. But I did find that the idea of “place” being something we are tied to from birth, to be understandable. Argue writes that “the infant emerges to establish itself as a subject, as a being of the world…. “to be born…. Is to be born into a place” the article (rather section which I drew this quote from) goes on to explain that place relies on the ability to control and organize movements, actions and positions of yourself and your surroundings…… This confuses me but it also interests me and I would like to be able to explore this further (or at least understand it just a little better)

I found by Andrew Quick this reading very fascinating. I really enjoyed when he began to talk about abstract space of the map. “Here the dreamers Fantasy evens out”. The abstract space gives you the option to mould and create a space all in for yourself, for a performer or artist this may be very important. When given very little to world with we are able to adjust the space into our own comfort zone, almost as if it’s your own home. A location can transform to you or to the actor. This can even occur without effort. We decorate our rooms in a way that makes us secure, its conscious effort but at the same time unconscious because we are doing it for our own comfort. This can all be compared to the theatre live or not, theatre can be everywhere. I’m not too sure if this combines with what Quick was trying to say but it is what I had gotten from the piece.

I would agree that I would have liked the definition of 'live' and 'taking place' when it was first mentioned but I understood the notion of Live Culture and Live Art as a process that happened in a particular space at a particular time. Live makes it's place in space and time while removing any preconcieved notions that we, performer and spectator, have about life that would predict the outcome of an 'encounter.' The term 'encounter' can mean many things I'm sure, the context in which he uses it does confuse me to a point. The most prevalent piece of information that I took from this article, that for some reason had escaped me before and can apply to many occurances outside of taking place, is the attitude of being open to a moment, absorbing everying, before immediately attempting to understand.

I enjoyed Andrew Quick's observations upon the importance and/or relevance of live performance to the effect it has on space, and the ending effect it has on the performance itself. He says that our recognition of moment by moment happenings (live performances) is disrupted because we cannot place ourselves properly. The performers are the objects, or sujbects, of the space, and objects cannot be recognized (or perhaps enjoyed properly) without first having a space to be associated with. "Movement and mis or non-nonrecognition, it is implied, would render becoming a sujbect a problematic, if not an impossible, possition to attain and maintain."