Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Tuesday January 12: Site-Specific Performance: an Introduction ***

'''1.	Irwin, Kathleen. The Ambit of Performativity: How Site Makes Meaning in Site-Specific Performance. Vaajakoski, Finland: University of Art and Design Helsinki, 2007. [PAGES 17-49]'''

I’m not going to lie; I had a hard time with this reading. I wasn’t sure where to begin, so I decided to break things down a bit for myself, starting with what a site specific performance is. From what I gathered from the reading, a site specific performance is one that allows the performers ideas and body (or bodies) in interact with where ever they are performing. Some sites physical features can affect the performance, like a big open space compared to a space that is tiny. An example of this from the reading would be the mention of Richard Schechner’s work (pg. 24), whose focus was to use special relationships in his work.

This reading also introduced me to site having a specific history. I started noticing this while reading the “Parsing the city” section (pg. 29 – 32). Performance artists would use the history of a space to somewhat arrange their performances uniquely. Marc Augé (pg. 32) suggests this in his work Non-places, introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. In this piece, the audience is trusted to make their own performance for themselves by following coordinates throughout the city, leading them to monuments and centres. Kevin Lynch also follows this process in his work The Image of a City (pg. 31), where the audience is given pictures of the environment around them, such as buildings or parks. The spectator finds their own personal meaning and opinion towards what they see based on the history of what they are looking at.

Finally, I learned that sites can have different moods. An abandoned warehouse can say something completely different then a candy store can. Performance artists use these different moods to help the audience get into the right mindset for their work. This idea of a site and its mood is something I’d love to explore further in class.

Irwin mentions the site performance company Brith Gof later in her article. I went on their website and read a few things, finding it very interesting. If you’d like to read up on them, their website is http://humanitieslab.stanford.edu/BrithGof/Home. --Nicole B. Porter 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I found this article enlightening in many ways. Firstly, I really like the idea of the narrative of a performance creation coming out of interactions with the environment (both space and time count towards this notion of environment)itself, and how environments were created simply for spectators to enter and interact with. I also liked the point about using an environment "as a potent signifier of ideology" (Irwin, p.24). We have been encouraged to move our performances outside of the theater space, but I didn't see any reason why before other that 1)its something different in terms of what you can work with physically and 2) It moves away from performance perpetuating the male gaze. So for me its refreshing to have a new reason for moving performance into different spaces, that being to challenge classical ideologies on what a space should be used for, and also push the limits on the ideologies of an environment that are already in place.--Cody.thompson 03:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

as with the first post, i found this reading very difficult to get through. the material just sort of glazed over my eyes and i wasnt really getting anything from it. however when i came across page 24 and the idea of "street theatre" showed up, i found that i was able to get something from that section, if only that section. i found the idea of "taking the onus of the event off the representation of the text and distributing it among the other equivalent performance considerations-location, performer and spectator" very interesting. until this class, i had always left the "success" of the performance up to either the performers or the piece itself. it is interesting now to look at it from the perspective that all elements of the performance are as responsible as another. on the same page, and mentioned above, is the idea of using the location or site as a way of conveying ideology or mood. these are strange and exciting ways of looking at performance and space that i am not use to, but i hope i can explore further.

What i found interesting about this piece was the notion of how using lack of movement (or significant movement, ie choreography) would help to make viewers aware of the space. Artists, "found ways to embody space using strategies derived from sculpture, performance and so forth." so many of these minialist performances were analogous to that of a simple sculpture. Embodying the same feel and perceptions viewers would have to that piece. The lack of movement makes us aware of the space, yet it also gives us a stark recognization to the piece itself, the site (or space) becomes a performance in itself.

I would have to agree with the posts above me, on more than one occasion did my eyes glaze and I had to read the same passage over and over again so I didn't miss anything. But one point I found that actually sunk in was on page 31. Lynch said that, "more than the eye can see, more than the ear can hear, a setting and view waiting to be explored." This more so relates to the spectator, I think work done outside of the theatre would be much more entertaining. Like Lynch said, there is more to be experienced, "the observer has to select, organize and endows with meaning what he sees." Though being away from the precious black box, audiences would be afraid to attend but the experience would be ten fold from what they would get at a typical night of theatre. So I found that though Site-Specific may be difficult to work with for a performance but it would be better for the audience.

Throughout this year we have learned of "isms" that result as a rebellion to another form of theatre, why would site specific performances be any different? Although site specific performances are conducted based on the mood and meaning of the performance space, as mentioned above, I also like to think that the space does not need to be physical but can be a state of mind. Social relationships and norms can also be considered spaces with meaning that performance can derive from. Although wordy I believe the reading is telling us, in short, that site specific performance is dependant on chance, it is uncertain, not fixed or established and can be an act of isolating or fragmenting social norms and behaviors.

One part of this article that struck me was when she explained that site specific performances are influenced by the very direct implication of the physical body. When you take out a stage or performance area that is expected, you can focus solely on the happenings in front, above, behind, or beside you. Another thing I found interesting was that you can push boundaries inexplicably, because of the freedom to move and go wherever. It’s kind of cool, but kind of scary at the same time, because artists stake their own lives for their art. Also, she states that fear, danger, chance, and immediacy enhanced these events because they insured “realness” value. Knowing that you may be hit by a car and be killed at any moment is pretty real, and anyone willing to sacrifice themselves for their art is pretty serious and passionate about what they’re doing. I think that passion is also a big thing with site specificity, because anyone can sit in their bedroom and create a piece of art, but to actually go out into the world and share it publicly, requires a real risk.

As people we can become incredibly attached to certain places and those particular places can leave us with specific connotations and reactions. As Nicole stated a warehouse leaves us with a different emotional and intellectual thoughts and responses then a candyshop would. Therefore I really agree that a specific location where the art is performed can change the performance and the intent of the performance. I completely agree with Cody and personally found the idea of using environment as so intuitive. When talking about traditional theater with the audience watching an elevated stage where the actors perform it is so basic. We create the set to give the idea of a specific place. But to actually perform in that specific place it can bring the audience to a different level and bring the performance to a different place and level. It would help the performers becoming attached and feel a connection to the place they are performing as well. Courtney Keen

One part of this article that I found interesting was the note that the site of a performance can be just a reference to the body, in addition to the normal conclusion of it being the physical atmosphere that surrounds the performer. Another part of the article that I found interesting, and to be true, was Kaye's statement that, "The material location of a work of art, in relation to political, aesthetic, geographical, or institutional discourses, all inform the purpose, function, production and reception of that work." A performance would not have the same effect or meaning when changing from site to site (where site also includes the people that are in it).

We’ve heard him before and I’m sure this is not the last of him: T Etchells. This time i fell in love with one of the performances performed by the Forced Entertainment Theatre co-operative.I am, of corse referring to Nights in the city. The idea of giving a guided tour of a city baised on your own experience within is is simply riotous. (in a brilliantly hilarious way) I wish I had thought of it. I imagine things like “over there is where i met Susan, She gave me a BJ and some genetal herpes but she will be in my heart always” being the sort of stories told. (at least that’s what I want to think) it sounds “sublime”. Etchells and Houston discuss the interplay between reality and subjectivity I find that, while interesting, there is no NEED to distinguish between the two. After all in most cases, especially ones like Nights in the City, they are one in the same.

On page four of the document, they talk about altering the spectator’s perception and how that is so important. They need to think that something “just happened to happen” as stated in the article. I think this part of the article jumped out at me because that is exactly what we found out first hand while performing our final project last semester. We could have done anything - no matter how crazy; and I always thought we were still going to be tagged as students doing a project on campus. For a performance to truly be unique and receive the kind of reaction you are looking for I think it’s important that you bring the performance somewhere where people aren’t expecting anything to happen. They can’t logically be able to figure out in the first ten seconds that what they are seeing is a performance. When we moved our project to the super market, I still think we were pegged as students by some people because of our close proximity to the university. I think the ultimate goal in this type of work would be when someone who saw your performance goes home and says to their friends or family “You’ll never guess what happened to me today”.--Jamiehobbs 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article was a little difficult to get through but certainly some things had caught my attention. When discussed that some practitioners from Europe as well as the US as they experimented with gesturality. I think that is it extremely important to experiment with the environment around a performance. I can really understand why it would change what the performers were trying to achieve depending on the environment. A certain atmosphere can definitely change your emotions and alter the way you act while you’re within it. When trying to create art we need to consider all of aspects which come with it. If there is a dark and gloomy environment for a creative space and you are attempting to create more of an enthusiastic art, it might juxtapose which could be a positive outcome. It can also influence the performance poorly because the performer would be feeding off the environment which they are given and possibly changing the initial vision.

While I understand that it is important to explore new locations and ways to present a performance, especially when it comes to performance creation, I am, personally, am very partial to the black box. Because that's all it is. A blank black room. The only thing limiting you Is your imagination. I'm sure that if you wanted to suspend the "audience" you could. If you wanted to make a maze, you could. It is the very element of creation that a black box encourages. And, it also provides people with interest the knowledge of where you perform. Yes, it limits shock tatics and exposure but I find that, as an artist, I am concerned with who exerperiances my work. I guess what I'm trying to say I'd that I don't really agree with out of theatre ideas but I do understand and acknowledge the appeal of it.