After our feedback from our final performance, we were told to really strip our concept back and play with light and how light works on the body; creating different shadows.

This is one of our group members and we were interested in how we could manipulate the light to make it create different shadows on the face. We experimented with different parts of the body to see how the light reacts to the contours in particular we looked at eyes and faces as it was interesting to see the reflection of the light into the eye itself.

This light here is a light whereby it reacts to sound. So if someone was to clap and make noise it would change colour accordingly. We experimented with this and used clapping, stamping, our voices and a piano and we hope to incorporate this into our final performance. It would also encourage audience interaction and participation as they could clap and it would change colour.

We then began to experiment with direct spotlights onto people and how this would change the direction of shadows. A possible idea suggested was to have text being read out under a spotlight. However simple this may be it could be very effective and captivating to the audience as they truly listen to what is being said.

Over the past three weeks, we have been asked to show back our work, adding five minutes each time we shared our ideas with the rest of the class. Most of our ideas were inspired by Physical Theatre especially work by PUSH Physical Theatre. We also looked at John Bohannon, a biologist and science journalist. He delivered a talk called ‘modest proposal’ with help from a physical theatre company, Black Label Movement, to help explain his points in a more engaging way for the audience. This exciting explanation of science inspired us to explore and explain light through our bodies.

Keeping with a similar style, we then looked at performances of  ‘STOMP’. This performance is essentially movement and percussion merging together to create physical theatre. We felt that this worked well with our ideas behind the science of sound. From the beginning of our devising process, we knew we wanted to use projection to show the waves of either light or sound. In the end, we mashed these two ideas together and decided to create a soundscape and play with rhythms whilst projecting interactive sound waves on the wall. These would change to show the difference between high and low frequency sounds.

For the third week, we devised a short piece which was to be performed in the shop window. This was to capture the attention of the general public who will be passing the shop. This was based on the idea of capturing light. Again, the piece was physical and set to music.

As well as adding material every week, the reason we were showing back work was to get feedback. During these sessions our peers and tutor explained to us what they thought worked well and what they felt could be improved. Comments we got were usually based on committing to the performance and changing some of our movements which were not as clear. This feedback really helped us with the development of the piece. As these performances are intended to include the audience, it has been helpful to have an audience to rehearse with.

After much reconsideration and deliberation, the original idea of a ‘mirror room’, has been replaced with a more practical and economic thought. In order to both engage an audience, and keep a scientific relevance, the group decided on a glow in the dark piece. Inspired by the America’s Got Talent group, ‘Fighting Gravity’, the performance be held in an entirely blacked out room, with glow in the dark paint, and a sheet of perspex through the center, separating performer from audience. Not only will this be visually stimulating, but it challenges the proxemics of the performance. Standard site performances are usually ‘thrown  together in sociopetal arenas, sites where the audience is thrown into proximity.’ (Pearson, 2010, 175).  The audience will feel close to the performers, however there will still be a barrier. Although, as only two out of the four performers shall be behind the perspex at any time, the others shall integrate into the audience, becoming both a performer and observer. Performing behind the perspex adds another layer as an’ auditorium often locates a performance as ‘over there’, necessitating  projection and a particular economy of physical and vocal rhetoric, site-specific performers may be ‘just here’, ‘up close’.’ (Pearson, 2010, 176). This ‘behind the glass’ effect also conjours thoughts of mannequins behind a shop window, relating directly to the retail aspect of the site.

The use of different space for performance appears as a daunting task to some. Even taking away the performance aspect, people can be very particular about spaces that they feel comfortable in. In fact it’s almost impossible to find a space that everyone can feel at ease in, because everyone has different levels of comfort and in a performance setting one can’t accommodate these feelings especially if they don’t know their audience intimately. This I believe can be a pitfall of performance; substantial issues or important questions may be addressed but some people wont get to see these because we as performers can be so focused on devising a piece and catering to those who are comfortable in our chosen performance space, that we unintentionally deny that smaller group of people the opportunity to see our work that we deem so important.

“All of time and space; everywhere and anywhere; every star that ever was. Where do you want to start?” (Matt Smith, BBC, 2010)

The idea that Site specific performance relies primarily on that which is around us is what makes it important. Take a chair, for example, alone in an empty room. The site specific performance will come from the emptiness of the room and the solidarity of the chair. Perhaps a monologue told from someone sat in the chair about their life, they sit on their own in the centre as their words and memories fill the space around them. On another side of the coin, a performance taking place in the a food court of a popular shopping centre will have a busy, crowded and food related feeling.
You can take “Everywhere and anywhere” and turn it into a performance space and that’s what is fascinating. What’s even more fascinating is time, and how that comes into play on what the outcome of the performance would be. Take the room with the chair, for example, give it a few years that room might become something completely different. But you may still choose to do the play about the empty room, jarring the audience as it’s a clash of what is there now and what once was. I think the most interesting performance would be in a building’s ruins about what it used to be.

I find site performances about the places they are actually in most fascinating.
And that’s why I don’t like doing Grantham.

The Grantham task started out being ‘have some empty shops, but think about science too’ which was fascinating, and relevant, and I could understand, but slowly it’s become just about the science. I don’t get how it’s site specific any more. Our group has tried our best to stay on the shop idea with the science, as this is what site specific is about. I get that the ‘site’ is the whole of Grantham and it’s history, but I feel ignoring the rich setting of empty shops is a bit of a let down, as there was so much potential and I’m assuming these shops will not be available for next year’s students.
There were talk of shop mannequins, and mirrors with vanity, and performances watched through shop windows and these seemed fantastic. Where did they go?
It’s just a shame, but I hope our group’s Human.Inc will at least be able to attempt to encompass both shop and science successfully.

Matt Smith, BBC (actor) (2010) Doctor Who Season 5 [trailer] Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpbmMhNe6aA [Accessed 22 March 2014]