Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Thursday September 24: One and the Same: image-object-action-idea

'''1.	Etchells, Tim. Certain Fragments: Contemporary Performance and Forced Entertainment. London: Routledge, 1999. [Pages 48 – 70) --- '''

In Tim Etchells’ writing he discusses various situations where art can be found at its very finest. He begins talking about investment, I interpreted this as commitment and possibility. “ Investment is the line of connection between performer and their text or their task” If an artist puts everything into their work and invests their time and allows themselves to connect, its no longer is acting, instead your conveying real emotion. Also in the segment of “ A Warning” was a beautiful example of how passion can go so much farther then lines and a script, passion will follow you to the very end. This is all authentic. Etchells also discuss in “Process (1)” one how these artists would come about with creations by starting with very little (ex. Very little text, a few ideas or an object). I find these the finest and most inspired ways to come up with a performance of any sort. Your mind is forced to think innovatively, therefore that art will be completely unique and most likely remarkable. There is nothing more real then working in the moment and simply allowing your thoughts run through yourself and into your performance. I also agree completely with his outlook on teasing, of course metaphorically with the audience. “A game of drawing them in and pushing them away.” This I believe entirely makes or breaks a performance. Who would want to sit down and watch a production that is completely predictable? I quite enjoyed the examples Etchells provides from different settings and of diverse situations. It reminded me that when performing sometimes you can’t put everything in perspective, but as an alternative you have to learn from it, and work from it.

In Tim Etchells’ article he talked about investment, when someone is fully immersed and committed to their work that they take the time to study the play, understand the play on some level, develop a background story to their character, and know what has happened to their character to make them act the way they do. Etchells talks about an experience he had in which he overheard an audience member ask a performer after the show what was going on in a certain part of the piece the performer was in and the performer said, “I don’t know about that, ask the writer...”, to which Etchells states, “That answer simply shouldn’t be allowed.” I agree with this statement. I feel that it is the duty of the performer to be fully invested in their work and to know about the piece they are performing in. With this knowledge and investment you get a more powerful performance and your message in that piece becomes clearer. Had that certain performer in Etchells’ article known more about the piece he was performing in, the audience member may not have needed to ask what was going on in the certain section of the piece.

i definitely agree with both Etchells and the statements above that say an actor should fully become the character they are portraying. if an actor fully believes in what they are doing, saying and feeling on stage then not only will the performance come easier to the actors themselves, but the audience will be able to let themselves be totally consumed by the performance. i believe it was Cody below that brought up the notion of vulnerability. i agree that the actor should allow themselves to be vulnerable on stage. audience members will be able to connect with this vulnerability and the character will become all that more real. i think one of the main points to take from Etchells' article is that if you want the audience or any one to believe what they see, you as an actor must believe it first and believe it the most.

Etchells' article he says two things that really caught my eye, "investment happens[...]when we don't quite know" and "investment wants us naked, with slips and weakness." I was so intrigued by these lines because it makes me think that maybe it is not days and days of preparation which makes us invest, it is spontaneity and being open for anything, even accidents. Sometimes I feel that even when a performer is not afraid and willing to try anything, they can be the most invested and best understanding of their character. This spontaneity is also committed with risk like Cody says below. I feel that he is saying that there can't be an investment without risk, and there is no risk without investment.

What I appreciated most about Tim Etchells article was the notion of playing, even in the face of death. To experience life and to 'do' until the very end is a challenge but I believe will largely enhance not only our creative process but also our life. When working in class with the lights it was hard to find inspiration and act upon it; it took a while for the whole class to get into the moment. Once we started playing we understood the capacities of ourselves and our space better. As a result of playing beautiful and crazy images and sounds were created. Tim Etchell also mentioned analyzing your playing, locking away ideas and alwasy finding new creations. Questioning, analyzing and understanding by asking, as mentioned above, is important for yourself and for your audience to understand the full effect of what you are doing.Investment into your performance creates something memorable and of meaning that changes yourself or those around you.

I found the topics of play and collaboration, and how that ties into taking risks and investment very intriguing. Playing, or improvising, without asking any questions and fully engrossing oneself in the experience can be captivating. This was evident by the class we had on Tuesday using the clip lamps. I felt when someone tried to “perform”, it didn’t appeal to me as much as if someone was completely engrossed into the exercise, interested by what they themselves were doing and coming to certain conclusions. This is the basis of what Etchells' talks about in the last bit of his article. For me, seeing things like I stated above are more raw, more truthful, and much more powerful.

I love Etchells' reference to Pina Bausch. I have never watched one of her performances live, but have seen many videos. Dance is usually never as good on video as it is in real life, because the audience generally doesn't get a chance to become as engrossed in the piece as they would if it were live. However Bausch and her dancers are always so committed to every aspect of their work, that it is hard not to be entranced by them. As Etchell mentions, they are still in their "image-world" even for their bow. They completely immerse themselves into their movements and characters and stay there long after because that world's "psychic residue [is] too strong."

This piece spoke a lot about being real whether on stage, on film, or whatever. We are expected to be real. This is how I interpreted his talk about investment and subsequent speeches about performance. To find a way to really connect to the piece we are doing. This is true whether we speak of stagework, painting, dance, writing, architecture, anything that we do should come from us, from who we are. If others look at it they should be able to see a piece of us there, even if they don't realize that is what it is.

The most provocative thing that I found in this article was when Tim Etchell's began talking about risk. Risk is everything in performance. It shows the audience that one is willing to put everything on the line. Only when one takes risks will theatre and performance move forward. If everyone was safe all the time, where would we be today? Risk taking and following impulses are so evident in so many performances these days. No matter how many times someone goes to see the same show, every time it will be different. This is due to taking a risk and following an impulse when the moment arises. It may not be anything extreme, only something subtle, but it still contributes to performance. It is sometimes very challenging to want to take a risk, but in theatre it is something that actors should do often.

I think the idea of risk is more than simply "following an impulse when the moment arises." Risk moves way beyond this, and into what Etchells says about "allowing ourselves to be exposed." If we simply tried to be spontaneous, there may not be much risk involved, as we may still make spontaneous choices within a safe framework. Risk, for Etchells, is very much rooted in investment, in that we push ourselves so far to find something that we end somewhere completely foreign and vulnerable, and placing yourself 'out there.' So its more than spontaneity, its being sincere within the most vulnerable or foreign state.--Cody.thompson 23:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Cody in saying that taking a risk involves exposing oneself. Whether that be complete disclosure, or just showing a bit of what is truly real. Not everyone is going to agree with the choices one makes as a performer, or even understand what one is trying to accomplish, or the message he is attempting to convey; hence, risk. Etchells states that “these are sites for many embarrassments”, and being susceptible to the criticisms and disapprovals of others is what investment is all about, despite there being that risk.

It is a combination of risk and vulnerability that I believe Etchells wants people to explore. Letting ourselves be open to vulnerability and not fearing the exposure of yourself also opens us up to embrace a new role. When we are the defenceless, with no walls and bearers up we become open to all the possibilities of what may happen around us. In this open stare we can begin to let go of the supremacy complexes and pretentious aspects of ourselves and accept another character. Because we are no longer consumed in ourselves we can begin to be engrossed in another character. That is when the acting becomes genuine.

I think that risk, put simply, is allowing yourself to be completely open to whatever should present itself to you and allowing whatever is opening up inside you to be presented. It should stir something in you. But I think that risk is more than just doing something new. I think it's experiencing everything and anything that life seems to throw your way. We mentioned earlier in our extremely tedious "Why performance creation? class" that our ideas and opinions are influenced by our environment. Though this may be true I refuse to believe that our ideas and opinions are nothing more than the chewed up and vomited versions of what we take in. Life is too complicated for that simple an answer. I believe that regardless of our environment, there is still that mysterious something inside all of us as humans that enables our "contributions" to life to differ greatly from that of anything else on earth: plants, animals, rocks, whatever. That is why I believe when taking a true risk, we are incorporating that something deep and mysterious within us to this unknown to which we are being presented, rather than just adapting to our environment and recycling what it gives us. Taking a risk tears down those defenses of what living in society have forced us to build up, and takes us back as if we first encountered the world and ourselves as part of it.

In the article Certain Fragments: Contemporary Performance and Forced Entertainment by Tim Etchelle, The author discusses what “investment” should be from a performer. He argues that these days there is not enough investment from the performer. He argues that the performer doesn’t dig deep enough to truly be attached to their character. “…it seems to matter to them, it seems to touch them in some quiet and terrible way.” I agree with his comment that investment from a performer is more than just memorizing the script, it’s about getting intact emotionally and physically with the character so that when asked what were you feeling you should not answer oh ask the writer/director, because if you were truly invested in your performance and role, you would know. - AZIZ

I highly agree with many of the article's (Certain Fragments) points and ideals. One quote which i can relate to, "I ask each performance: will I carry this event with me tomorrow? Will it haunt me? Will it change you, will it change me, will it change things? If not it was a waste of time" I believe this can relate to our very first class discussion, "Why performance creation?" and still after almost two hours of debate, I still cannot verbally answer that question. I can only feel the reason why i choose to perform. That feeling of fulfillment afterwards, without that feeling there would be no point whatsoever in my work. There would be no worth or any point to any efforts and i had put in beforehand, if i did not get something out of each performance, and i believe that is what the author is trying to say. Without some sort of reward, what was the point of the investment?

The words that really struck a chord with me when reading the piece and the comments made about it were: vulnerability, investment, staying true and staying in the moment. All of these encompass all forms of performing but they also speak of how to be as a person as well. If you invest yourself in everything as a person you will gain everything back most likely two fold. In other words what you put into something you will most likely get back in return. This is so true in rehearsal, in the final production and in life. When you invest in yourself as an artist you will most likely gain so much especially if you invest that into your character. You will learn who your character is and they will become another being not just a 2D person on paper. The other words that really jumped out at me were those of staying true and staying in the moment which also ties into vulnerability. When you do not have a plan B or when you feel nervous alone and emotional when performing chances are it is a remarkable performance because you are putting yourself out there so the emotions are real. And because the emotions are real the audience can really connect. –Courtney Keen September 23 2009

At one point Etchells states that all a show has is investment. I am curious to see, in particular, a typical rehearsed play in which everything goes wrong technically; lighting cues missed, broken props, costumes tearing, BUT the actors remain as dedicated and as invested as they could ever be. I wonder how a audience would react to that? I also really appreciate what he had to say about collaboration, that people would come to these workshop like get togethers without fully formed ideas so as to allow everyone to fill in the blanks. I find that a process becomes much more intriguing and the people involved far more attached to their work when everyone has something to contribute in the creation of the piece.