Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Thursday January 14: Site-Specific Performance: an Introduction Continued

'''1.	Etchells, T. (2000). “Introduction: Site-specifics.” Site-specific Art: Performance, Place and Documentation. N. Kaye. London, Routledge: (pp. 1-12.)'''

To touch on some of the aspects of site specificity that are mentioned in this article, Serra explains that, “To move the work is to destroy the work” and “To move the work is to replace it, to make it something else”. This is most likely due to the fact that an object or performer in a certain location has a certain message and meaning, and to move it from its location could ruin the meaning and affect the reception of it.

The time period can also be part of location and define a person’s performance and the reception it will get. If the actions of the individual are crazy and particularly the individual is a she in the late 17 century, she would be seen as a witch. If the individual was down town in present time Calgary, they might be seen as deranged or drunk etc. If the same actions were done in a theatre, they might be deemed acceptable because they were only portraying a tragic character.

The culture of a place is also a big part of the location. A certain performance/ piece of art work in a certain location/place can start to revolutionize that culture and the people’s conceptions of what is acceptable, what is art etc. Moving certain modern art work and performances into a place in which it could be frowned upon can help open the eyes of the people and promote change.

A final point that I took away from this article is that a piece of art work can’t reach its full potential until it is in the right place, and all that that entails.

This reading confused the hell out of me, however, the first post helped a little. There was one part of the article that I did get something out of, but it still confuses me. “Defined by its internal stability, place, like the langue, is an exclusive and self-regulation system of rules”. I took this to mean that place determines things beyond one’s realization, and contributes to a performance immensely and in its entirety. The first post states that time period can alter a performance, in the way the audience reacts to it. I believe that this statement is alluding to that as well. According to what he said, if there are rules, and it is self regulating, I think that site specificity, in this case, relies entirely on place and location.

I found this article much easier to understand than the previous. But there was one quote that seems to have stuck out for myself. On page six, "The desire of representation exists only insofar as it can never be fulfilled, insofar as the original always is deferred. It is only in the absence of the original that representation can take place." I'm not sure what was trying to be said but I felt that if you want to be representational the best place to do it is away from the space it was originally in. Because as long as you are at the original site the original meaning will be represented not what you're representing. I am still on the fence whether or not a agree because it could be good or bad.

Ok, all I can think of is that I've had discussions with people prior to this on how weird it is that it's perfectly acceptable to wear a bikini if you are at a beach or a swimming pool or some similarly appropriate place, but if one were to walk down the street on any given day wearing nothing but a bikini one would definitely get more than a few dirty looks. If location dictates so much of what we wear which realistically is not that big a deal, than how much more does it dictate behaviour. The same thing in a different location could go from being hysterically funny to being extremely offensive or even bland depending on locale. This still astounds me though I know from experience that it is true.

This was by far the most confusing reading so far. I thought the first few pages were easy to understand; it was basically saying the same things in the last article and what we talked about in class. But as soon as they got into the definitions space, site and place I got completely lost. The article states “space is a practiced place. Thus the street geometrically defined by urban planning is transformed into space by its walkers”. This kind of makes sense to me. The city builds sidewalks, people know the space in which they are suppose to walk. The article goes on to define place: “a place is the order (of whatever kind) in accordance with which elements are distributed in relationship of coexistence. it thus excludes the possibility of two things being in the same location. the law of the proper rules in the place: the elements taken into consideration are beside one another, each situated in its own proper and distinct location, a location it defines.” What the F*#^!. This makes no sense to me – If anyone has a better understanding, PLEASE elaborate. --Jamiehobbs 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that finding a cultural or social space, along with a physical space would be more interesting to work with, and perhaps more meaningful too, than just searching for an interesting physical site. In the same way I think the quote above from Jamie's post is talking about each site, as we talked in class, having a story, a history and a personalized meaning. These meanings are original to the site and, just as you cannot move a performance without destroying it as said in the reading, you cannot change what position an event or object occupies. While you can personalize a site, I don't believe you can force a meaning onto the site or change what the site means to someone else. You articulate through your performance what the what the site defines in terms of architecture and history. That is my best attempt in explaing the quote above Jamie.

As we discussed last class the location of a place can really enhance and add meaning to the actual piece. It is so important to do the research to find out what the place means to the performance. But I think that is is incredibly important to find out who the audience is. It is due to the context. If you are trying to get the message out to the most people a small stairwell in craigie hall will be less effective but if the story is about the craigie hall stairwell then the artist will have to decide which is more important the size of the audience or the message of the piece. Courtney Keen

Well, I'm confused. And I still don't like site specific stuff. This article seems to talk a lot about culture according to space. Different locations require certain social actions, like someone's mention of a bikini at the beach. Is the point to challenge those social constraints? Or are we supposed to move that space into a theatre? Does that make it site specific or a cheap imitation? Does moving or replicating a location destroy the meaning or by replicating a scene in a theatre, becomes more effective in it's imitation?

I’m in the same boat as Jamie a little bit, though this may have more to do with the quality of the article and the fact that I had to stop to squint and figure out every 5th word. What I got from it for the most part was that the space (inclusive of time, place, history etc. ) effects the performance and if it is changed or the perception of it is changed, than the effect of the performance is altered as well. I know this is basicall just saying what the above posts did but really that’s all I got. I found Certeau’s ideas about the difference between place and space to be interesting, but I can’t really say I totally understood what he was getting at…. Something about how we understand that we are in a place but we do not properly know where we are??? Really I may have missed the mark here….

I think many prior posts may be missing the point of place vs. space and meaning within the context of a site. The site affects the meaning of the piece. For example, being at a pool gives meaning to wearing a bikini, where if they wore it downtown Calgary, the meaning would be lost, or would change drastically, and thereby be received differently by the spectators. Etchells says on the first page of the article it is the exchanges between the work of art and the places in which the meanings are defined. As for place and space, I found the idea interesting (sorry I don't have another word Eric) that you can have many spaces in one place based on the practice within the space. And how this destroys the place by replacing it with a space. To conclude, the space maces the place in the face at a disgraceful pace.--Cody.thompson 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)