Monday, March 29, 2010

Lab Two Report. We all have a responsibility

Right...Not too sure what the layout of a proper lab report (that is not a physics or chemistry lab) should be like. So here is the feedback sheet I gave out to spectators after the performance. Those were the main questions discussed, although the talk was very open and different opinions regarding various aspects of the work were shared.




The primary question I was addressing was the audience space. All spectators had been facing a different direction, and I was happy with the result, as everyone had encountered some kind of difficulty in understanding where to look. Some had felt embarassed to move around in order not to make noise, others were in a place where the two main screens where an action took place were clearly visible at the same time, while somebody felt like 'being all over the place'. It was less than a 10 minute performance, and some complained of a neck pain... Well, tough, it's up to you how you treat your neck!
I must be honest, very few people gave constructive comments, provided that those labs were meant for constructive discussion, testing ideas and hopefully finding out what works and what doesn't. No doubt I had fun receiving silly  comments from people who were simply maybe too tired or not in the mood, and as much as I may be considerate of my fellow workers' opinions, I shall remain concentrated on the comments I found constructive and therefore useful for my work.


I felt it is necessary to stress this point exactly because my work starts with the audience and their role. I recognise the complexity of spectatorship and my research aims at reflecting the spectators' complexity in terms of vision, auditory interpretation, physical space. I have a responsibility for what I do and how it is interpreted, but in this case the audience had a responsibility of giving constructive comment and they did not.


Fair enough, the following can be deducted from the more active members of audience:


1.Sitting arrangement was interesting, even if it created limits. To make audience members freer to move chairs the use of chairs of stools (with no back) can be used. Also, why not stools with wheels?
Why was the audience seated? Technical problems (lights and video screen couldn't be fixed high enough, so everyone's shadow would have been cast on the screens)


2. Visuals in different places were interesting because it gave a choice. This is what it was meant to do, although some felt that they couldn't see everything. But in the way we interpret do we actually see everything? What is everything?
The piece dealt with a curious case of a visual interpretation disorder. Maybe I was actually able to transmit the notion of a visual disorder.


3. The dialogue sequence (possible thanks to a collaboration with Lauren and Jeanne) was for some very good, as it enriched the piece. Others felt it was confusing. Those are two very different statements. Not because the latter implies that the speech performance was not a very good idea, but because they are of different nature. One has to do with structure of the piece and the other interprets one aspect of it. Well the two voices were really one person that had two minds: a visual and an emotional one. It is impossible not to mix them up!
I think that technically Lauren and Jeanne did a very good job. Of course time was as usually a problem and they didn't have enough time to rehearse (and of course for an ongoing project I would feel obliged to pay them!). However, from experience, voice work develops over time, and especially when working with always the same people, a certain rhythm develops, where the beat and time of words flows according to unknown rules.


4. The domino sequence. Managed to get some interpretations, although a few people found it was not necessary to attribute any meaning to it, as visually and sound wise they created a good effect. For another they marked the beginning and the end of the piece, which they accidentally did! They did mark two different interpretations of vision. To another they carried the weights of trauma, fate and reflection. I guess it was a chain reaction I wanted to include for its marking sound, that has to do with a rhythm in time. Visually a chain reaction shows how one thing leads to another and another again, which does have to do with the complex neurological system of vision and emotions.


5. Light stripes. Somebody recalled a similar effect from my first piece (What you see is what you get?). Am I developing a style here? The overhead projector was the best option for this, as darks are stark dark and lights are shining. A video may be endlessly versatile in the sequences of lines, but the darks are still projected black light, which does reveal what is in front of it. 
However, I would like to do some further video testing. 
The sequence appeared to be interesting in the beginning, when my body was not yet fully visible. Once I was fully visible, although the dark stripes hid some parts, one could make up even what was not seen. This was a very good comment. It is really difficult to know what actually people see when I am performing. I did film myself to see the effect and asked somebody to do a few movements with the light sequence, but it is different live and when you are in it! Since the whole point of this part had to do with seeing parts of a whole and never the whole thing, a more interesting light sequence will be tested soon despite the fact that a projection sends out more light. I will look into it, portakabin here I come!


6.Would people come to see my next work? Not many answered this, so I guess they didn't get time, didn't feel comfortable with it or just didn't want to say 'no'. A funny one was 'not unless it's free'! This was hilarious, honesty appreciated. But then again...I must remain faithful to analysing and responding. If I work towards encouraging an active audience, I must be an active performer and an active receiver of feedback. We all go to concerts, exhibitions and events that are free. It's a way of seeing more without spending much, and especially for students this is a big advantage. However, if I saw singer X for free a couple of months ago and found him utterly boring and unoriginal, I would definitely not go to see him again, even if it's for free. Why would I waste my time? I think this answer has to do more with the relation that the spectator has with money, and had nothing to do with the way my performance was presented and its structure.


Well, there goes a performance lab report. If it may not be of any use to anyone, it certainly has been good for me to gather a few reflections.


Some pictures from the show, kindly offered by Dun Yu:





No comments:

Post a Comment