Public and Theatrical space

Our initial idea of our purely physical exposure, meant our setting was crucial. We formulated the idea to present our forms of varied nudity in a very public transparent corridor. Its crucial setting was that it was non-framed by the theatrical, safety, provided by the LPAC. We felt to get a fully honest reaction and to be able to push ourselves into revealing, as much physically as we could that we had to be presented to not explicitly drama students and staff. The corridors setting in the middle of a university campus meant the observers would be from varying ages and from different departments. The corridor was based in a position that incorporated art and creativity, as it was located between the art and articheture building, but we began to see its limitation in its potential to present and more verbal exposure.

We found the studio setting began to become crucial logistically to the technical elements we needed to give the piece a soul, the barrier the corridor presented, created distance ourselves from the observers, and even though the glass windows framed us it blocked a connection and human reliability as we felt when stood in the space like a doll in a box, due to the frame and transparent barrier. When in the studio we wanted to create a space that allowed no room for the audience to shy away from the piece, the idea that the space was unnerving due to its intensity meant the only way to shelter themselves from the video and the physical exposure presented was to leave. The space created was a third of the studio black boxed by flats. The door way was a frame, its durational nature was reinforced through this accessibility to seaminglessly entering and leaving. The projections of the video and countdown clock were shown on a black wall opposite the framed entrance. A sofa was in the furthest corner placed facing the film. This suggestion of comfort was placed in the corner so the audience would have to move amongst the reminants of makeup whipes, shoes and removed articles or clothing. This teamed with the performers around the space, meant the desicion to reach the sofa involved feeling they could travel through levels of discomfort and an allusive space In which the lines between audience and performer had been heavily blurred.

The space became instrumental in our execution of the performance, highlighted notably of the physical protection we created around one of the performers when she was visibly upset and her video. The space enabled us to shelter her and block her from the video, which created a powerful visual aspect that the audience due to lighting and space could witness. This unplanned moment was formed in front of a black flat which created a strong performative aesthetic, it was framed in the use of the singular panel directly in front of the video, which meant we were framed lighting aspect even more so, from the light from the film.The exposure of this sheltering formation was key to the audience getting a deeper insight to the moments of pain felt by us as a group for other performers during this experience. It could not be escaped.

Therapy in a performative process

When looking at exposure as a theme, originally we saw a purely physical revelation was the best way to explore this. We began to discover than a mental vunreliabilty was something as complex and uncomfortable to be presented with and to personally expose. Through asking members of the public, the thing you would least last to be asked, we gathered a hundred questions, with content varying from sexual experiences, to physical insecurities and matters of the heart, that we opened and answered. By documenting this process, we began to find subject matters and themes in the questions that forced us to reveal something inner, to the camera, something we found uncomfortable or unsettling to answer, as well as hearing. This concept we took further, but writing questions that delved deeper into the emotions and stories provoked by the publics written questions. Over a period of time the documented change became evident, our answers became more thorough and emotive.The process presented several unexpected revelations, in the sense of learning about the other participants as well as the stream of thoughts I presented.

Our process began to become a therapeutic experience, revealing dark thoughts and experiences for the first time. The documentation of these questions were so organic and genuine, that we did not want to replicate them through a live medium. The security and acceptance installed within the group throughout the various experiments conducted throughout our process, created an environment in which we felt comfortable to release information that we felt we could never fully explore or reveal, in front of an audience. When exploring a physiological perspective on creative setting used as self-exploration, Carl, R, Rogers emphasizes the explicit link for such therapeutic process to happen due to the setting created by the other participants.

‘The directional trend which is evident in all organic and human life – the urge to expand, extend, develop, mature – the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism, or the self. This tendency may become deeply buried under layer after layer of encrusted psychological defenses; it may be hidden under elaborate facades, which deny its existence; it is my belief however, based on my experience, that it exists in every individual and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed.’(Rogers, 1999, pg. 351) The core conditions that we had unknowingly created;

‘The core conditions are:

– Empathy

– Congruence or geniuses

– Unconditional Positive Regard or a Non-judgmental warmth or Acceptance.‘ (Rogers, 1991, pg.351)

We felt could not be replicated in the [performance by and unknown audience. These conditions, which through varying experiments, acts of acceptance and non-judgmental traits, enabled us all to push our own exposures out and be as honest as possible. Due to the environment we had created not being easily if at all replicated we found the medium of film was the best way of capturing the essence of our answers and truths that then could be in as a scopohilic form presented to and audience. Our honesty’s and reactions where them ‘subjected them to a controlling and curious gaze.’ (Mulvey,19765, pg.186)

We found when filming the answers the other group members observing and not speaking reactions were powerful in their own right. The sympathy or disgust or surprise provoked in itself, was a performative physicalization of our thoughts. It was the body language and facial reactions that we thought was important to incorporate into our performance. Theses reactions were not manufactured and varied dependent of the person witness to the answer. We decided due to authencity of emotion revealed from the speaker and the observer was something we needed to present in the space. The live per formative element in relation to the video of our answers, were no ‘acting’ but were the honest reactions of the audience and our own responses to what we were hearing and seeing. The idea of cringing or crying or turning away, presented us in the most broken down way. This was highlighted through the space in which the piece was presented in and the time it was held for.

1. Rogers, C (1991) Becoming A Person. London, Constable & Company Ltd.

2. Mulvey, L (1957) Visual Pleasure and Cinema. Screen 16/3 (Autum)

We explored the groups inner self

The piece began at 6pm on the dot on Wednesday 11^th December 2013. We all started fully clothed, dressed in all black wearing high heels and with a full face of make up. This is us in our most comfortable state. We decided that we would not stand in any order or have set positions, and we were free to move around the space freely. As the clock began to countdown, members of the group began to break themselves down, stripping themselves of whatever they felt comfortable with, piece by piece. As ‘audience’ members started to enter the space, we could either strip ourselves of more, or put items of clothing back on.

We had hoped that the people viewing the piece would feel in a state where they could explore the space as we did, but in actuality, they decided to stick to the edges of the space, with only a few choosing to take advantage of the sofa. They did, however, interact with the group members through speech and touch, often whispering words of support, or embracing us throughout the piece.

I have never been more proud to be part of a creative process, and I feel we worked well as a group to achieve our aims set out at the beginning of the semester. If we were to re-do the piece, I would choose to make the piece more durational, so we could evaluate how the audience and performers reacted differently over time. I would also like to see how the piece, and the idea of vulnerability in general, would change had we been part of a mixed sex group.

I feel our use of experiments as part of the process has led to us having a better understanding of the concept of vulnerability in general, and the fact that the piece changed so dramatically over time shows that we put a great deal of thought into the most effective way of portraying our initial ideas

Nuditate: The Final Performance

Nuditate [ Latin translation: Vulnerability]

Final Performance: Wednesday 11th December 2013

Duration: 4pm till 6pm

Where: Studio 1, Lincoln Performing Arts Center

Aim: Expose our own personal mental and physical vulnerabilities to a public audience.

Countdown Clock

I never thought I’d be happy for the countdown clock to read ‘0:00:00’. The performance was one of the hardest things, I have ever had to do as a performer. I did no think it would be as challenging as it was to have an audience listen to your thoughts. It is by far easier to be someone else, than to be yourself. To expose everything you are to a room full of people you know and strangers and for them to see your most inner insecurities.

My Thoughts and Feelings on what happened in the final piece.

We all started the performance dressed up. Hair done, black dresses, heels and makeup: at our most comfortable. Throughout the performance, we all took items of clothing off and dropped them where ever we were stood or sat at the time. At the beginning of the piece we were all darted around the middle of the room, by the end we had all retreated around the edge of the space, with no one even stepping anywhere near the middle. It was interesting to see that everyone in our group did this. I felt that if I was to move into the middle of the space I would draw even more attention to myself. But looking back I was too vulnerable at the time to do the simple task. Throughout the piece, I pushed all of my own personal goals and boundaries. I was my most vulnerable at the point when a question about my mental vulnerability came on. The exposure on the video a times got too much for me, at one point I could not take it so I shut my eyes and turned to face the back wall. Much to my surprise that when I opened my eyes, my group had formed a spontaneous wall around me.To protect me.

At various climaxes, you could feel the emotion charge the atmosphere in the space. It was an emotional rollercoaster: nervous, excitement, anxiety, scared, sad, happy, nervous, emotional, You’d then get an adrenaline rush after you took a piece of clothing off only to go back to feeling of nervousness. A lot like the fragmented video playing in the background, i felt throguh out the piece my thoughts were fragmented together. One minute I was laughing the next reduced to tears. This in reflection is what the audience must have felt too. The video was tailored in away to take you on your own personal jouney. To proke thought into the audiences minds. Showing we are more simular than at first we think.

What would I have done differently?

Reflecting back onto our whole process, I would have liked to focus more on mental vulnerability. Taking the time to really, think about ways to display the information. I would have also liked to have seen how the atmosphere would have been different if the performance was a one and one intimate piece.
There was a bit of speculation in saying our piece was a feminist piece. It never set out to be one, it was just how the group fell. If we were to do it again, I would love to and a male to the group. It would have changed the whole dynamic atmosphere. What I did find interesting was that , even though there were no male performers in our group. As soon as a male walked into the space, the atmosphere did change. I personally felt like inorder to take another piece of clothing off, I had too look away or forget they were even there.
Personally, I do not think I could have pushed myself even more. However if we were doing it for a longer amount of time, I feel I would have somehow done something completely radical and unlike myself. With more time I would have worked myself up to maybe even stare into the eyes of an audience member. There were times when I felt like I could not even look at them, when I wish I did.

Finally, I am very happy with our final product. It has grown so much from the first time we ever set eyes on the themes of vulnerability and exposure. I feel we have most definitely covered and approached these two key words with all our energu and mind. My personal aim at the beginning of the process was to see how far I could push myself and to not hold back. I feel like I achieved this, the more uncomfortable I felt, the more vulnerable and exposed I made myself by taking off another iteam of clothing or delving deeper into my emotional memories. I really wish the audience could have been in my shoes, for at least a moment during the whole piece. What we have created is something rather interesting and different. It almost makes me want to recreate it, but on a larger scale sometime in the future.

My experience.

On the performance day, i had no idea how to feel about what was going to happen. Our performance couldn’t be rehearsed so what happened on the day was completely spontaneous. We had no idea how the audience where going to react, where they where going to sit and what was going to happen.

The performance space

we closed off the space in studio 1 to make the space quite intimate and small, at the opposite end of the entrance we put a sofa in the corner so the audience can sit and watch. Similarly, if the audience wanted to sit on the sofa they would have to cross the space, therefore travelling through the uncomfortable setting to get to the sofa. It was interesting to see who would cross that barrier and go sit on the sofa, and surprisingly only a few people crossed the space to sit on, two being the lecturers that assessed us. There were no rules to where the audience could be nothing was said to them and surprisingly the audience all gathered in a bunch near the entrance, could this be for safety?

The Performance

When the performance had started, the projection was going and we was all spread around the room, as we got further into the performance and items of clothing had been taken off i stayed clear of the middle of the room where the light and attention was going. I thought if i was to go in the middle of the space while the projection was going on all the attention would’ve been on me, and i didn’t like that and i thought i was exposed enough. It was interesting to see that all the girls in the performance and retreated to the side once the performance got more intense. It gave off the impression that the more the issues where brought to light to somehow get over, the more myself and the other performers wanted to get back to the edges merging into the audience to become safe. Additionally, this says something about vulnerability and exposure of the mind and body, it gives off the impression that sometimes people don’t get over there insecurities or get over the problems and issues that make yourself vulnerable.

During the performance i thought we have achieved what we wanted to achieve by showing the audience the mental and physical vulnerable state, by the use of media and live performance. Revealing what we revealed in the performance explored issues that are not really talked about in person and are normally hidden away for no one to hear. We wanted to create a performance where the audience couldn’t escape the exposure unless they left the performance space complexly, engaging the audience that way. There where no rules for the audience, they could sit wherever they wanted, react how they wanted and to show emotion however they wanted. During the performance, a hard issue was raised for one of the performers and one of the audience reacted and gave the performer a hug, the space was open for them to do what they want.

Photo Taken: 11/12/13 Credit: Livvie Milne.

During the performance i thought there was a quite voyeuristic feel to the performance as the audience was sitting in on us sharing some private personal memories and also taking close off and being exposed which is normally a private event. Getting undressed is something you do normally do in private, but to be undressing and to be looked upon can be voyeuristic but not necessarily in a sexual manor. We wanted to de-sexualise the body and the performance of taking clothes off when getting undressed. However this depends on what the audience thinks about the performers undressing, some audience members could take it as sexual.

I feel that the performance did go well, and we achieved what we wanted to achieve. It was a hard performance and i had no intention of going as far as i did with the whole nakedness i surprised myself a lot. During the performance i was the first person to take my dress off revealing my underwear, i felt exposed and quite overwhelmed with the experience parts of the performance when the projection was showing my experience about loss and how i lost my sister and Nan made me feel too exposed and made me want to put my clothes back on at least for a while. However, with the ongoing support of my friends and performers, i built up the courage to go to just pants and that was a big thing to do as i hate my body so much.

This performance could of passed as a feminist performance and it may of come across as feminist, but it wasn’t done intentionally. It was fortunate that we did have an all female cast, and the questions raised where about the body, sex and relationships but at the age we are these questions could of been relevant to the opposite sex as well.

Influences

One of the influences that aided our performance was Marina Abramović when she did the performance ‘The Artist is Present’. Sitting in a gallery for seven hours for three months inviting the audience to sit with her, while she looks at them. You could say this made Marina Abramović and/or the audience vulnerable, i feel that staring into someones eyes can reveal a lot about a person and the lives they leave. In, relation to our performance we was watching and observing the video and how the audience reacted towards this and how they reacted towards us. Another influence is Vanessa Beecroft, she is an artist that explores “women, often dressed in nothing but high heels, stand silent and still. Like passive witnesses to an era dominated by images of the female body” (Rumma Lia, Galleria, 2010) in relation to our performance she is exploring something that can be quite self indulgent, posing questions and making people think about society and body, which can make some people vulnerable.

What would i change about the performance?

If we where to do the performance again, i would love to have a male actor in, i feel it would give the performance a different dynamic. Also, i would like to get a more wide range of questions from people that aren’t our age and people that weren’t students as i feel that would also change the piece and more people would be able to relate to it. Overall, i am very happy with the piece presented on 11th December and i am very proud of my group.

Photo Taken: 11/12/13. Credit: Dan Hunt.

Rumma Lia, Galleria (2010) Vannessa Beecroft, Online: http://www.vogue.it/en/people-are-talking-about/focus-on/2010/02/vanessa-beecroft#ad-image1242 (accessed: 15th December 2013).