101 things to do with an apple
What can be done with apples? A question rooted in the heart of our performance as we endeavoured on a process to illustrate 101 of these things to an audience over a period of time. Originally going to be showcased in the disused shops of Grantham but was later moved to the Lincoln performing arts centre (Lpac) due to transport issues. This development process saw us researching site specific performances, science, theory and a hell of a lot about apples!
Our key principles of methodology were the festival, Grantham and the module itself. Using these we came up with a performance called ‘101 things to do with an apple.’ Taking inspiration from the location, where Isaac Newton is said to have lived and subsequently the place where Newton is thought to have discovered gravity after being hit by an apple. The Festival, where science and Newton’s theories undeniably play a key role. Lastly the module, where we learnt about what it means to put on a site specific performance and what key components are. Upon research we found out that the festival is “a festival creatively exploring the physical sciences and celebrating one of the world’s greatest thinkers, Sir Isaac Newton.” (Gravity Fields) From this it led us to create a performance inspired by Newton and Grantham but not entirely based around science. And so ‘101 things to do with an apple was born.’ This catchy name acted as the foundations to build and develop our work. When finished the performance took place on Saturday 10th of May, starting at 2:30pm and finishing around 7, with a break in the middle.
Our performance did exactly what it said on the tin and literally showcased ‘101 things to do with apples.’ It was set up so that the audience would collect a sheet displaying 101 things to do with an apple. Their objective was to see how many of those things on the list could be accounted for before they left. The aim for us being to try and showcase them all in the time and also keep the audience engaged. This meant our audience was able to play a role and participate within our performance, something we were keen to employ from the development process. The stage was cluttered with boxes, apples, chairs and a wide range of apple related products. There was a projection at the back of the set playing looped footage of numerous different ways apples could be destroyed. For example, a car running over an apple or an apple being shot. A whiteboard also sat on set that would act as a note to us and the audience. We used the whiteboard to show what we were doing with the apples at that moment in time. For example if I was inside the set juggling and everyone else was sitting, then the whiteboard would say “juggling (1)” The numbers representing the actors who would take part in that exercise. The sound of a small bell being tapped at the front of our set was our key to move into the next exercise. For example if I was juggling for 10 minutes it would be up to another member of the group to press the bell which would signal me to stop and move off the set. They would then write the next exercise up on the whiteboard, upon seeing that the required number of people are ready to take part they would press the bell again signalling the start of the next exercise. This was the way in which our performance was structured.
It all starts with apples:
Once we had come up with the name for our piece, we began our research process. Initially we started researching apples. The aim of this was to be able to fully understand what an apple is and does, in order to benefit the development of our performance. We conducted historical research about apples, for example the legend of William Tell, a skilled marksman who, legend has it, shot an apple off his own child’s head in order to secure his freedom. This comes from an illustrated Swiss chronicle created by the old Swiss confederation in the 15th century. Historical research within this task proved to be useful as we were setting it in Grantham, a place rooted within British history. Our research also contained scientific information about apples. Some of which accommodated a nutritional breakdown of an apple. Revealing its nutritional components, for example; Apples contain Protein (0.3g) Carbohydrate (10.2g) Sugar (10.2g) Pectin (0.5g.) (Online source 1) There was also research into the different types of apples and their popularity. We discovered that the most popular apples are; Pink ladies, Cox’s orange pippin and the Honey-crisp Apple. (Online source 2) This research helped us to gauge a better understanding of what we working with and initiated the development of our performance.
During the development our initial ideas were to create something that would play to our strengths as actors rather than be a site specific performance. We experimented with sketches about Isaac Newtown’s discovery and the legend of William Tell. Played with a circus themed performance, in which we would all be carnival like vendors with different games and things to show the audience. Then we thought about targeting it specifically for children. Giving us room to add educational facts and figures. After thinking about these, we concluded that our target audience would be universal. We liked the idea of having a performance that was going to be engaging and fun for everyone, regardless of their age. It was this decision that led us away from the circus or children’s entertainment theme. Instead we decided on incorporating parts of these into our performance.
Originally we planned to have a ‘museum’ like set, with instillations everywhere representing the different things you can do with apples. For example some of these could be apples rotting in different liquids inside jars, creations made from apples and apple related things. We as actors would then perform different things with apples. This is when we started compiling a ‘list’ of 101 things to do with apples, one of the key parts of our development. As the audience would travel through we would then ‘flash-mob’ this set with improvised performances containing the ‘apple circus,’ a sketch about Isaac Newtown an apple song and more. However in a rehearsal where we decided to show something as simple as cutting up apples in a line, we ended up getting positive feedback which lead us to rethink our performance. This is what got us thinking back to the initial 101 things to do with an apple and inspired us to simplify our work. It was then that we realised that by stripping the work down and keeping it simple we had the potential to create something really special.
Conducted research into ‘site specific’ helped us adapt our performance to meet the requirements of a site specific piece. Becoming increasingly popular in the world of contemporary theatre there are many different terms have come from ‘site-specific’ performance; “’site-determined’, ‘site-referenced’, ‘site-conscious’, ‘site-responsive’ and ‘context-specific’ (Pearson, M) this showcases the wide variety of what site specific envelopes. Using your space well is essential as John Gleave comments “It is the relationship with the site that makes site specific performance so unique.”(Gleave, J) Our space was going to occupy the front of a shop window, on Grantham’s high street. However this was changed to the Lpac, allowing us to ‘transform’ our space and make it into a stage. Peter Brook said that he can “take any empty space and call it a stage” (Brook, P) understanding this statement is key in understanding site specific performance. While Brook does not mean literally the space becomes a stage, he is saying it’s about what is done within the space that makes it a stage. Brook is clearly concerned about perspective and challenging the normal outlook of things. Subsequently perspective was something that we were keen to utilise in our performance.
An understanding of perspective is an essential part to ant site specific performance. Our aim was to challenge the audience, finding out what they perceived about our performance and also employing a sense of perspective into them, making them think for themselves. Audience participation had been something we were all positive about doing from the start. This was because, when given the chance to compensate for audience participation it is usually beneficial for the performance. In our case we allowed the audience to move in and around our space and encouraged them to fill in the check lists they collected on arrival. This made the audience engage with our piece as they wanted to note the things on the list. We employed perspective into the audience using the space as a means to do so. Cluttering the set with boxes, apples and a range of apple products the audience were left to think for themselves about what they meant and why they were there, thus incorporating perspective.
Continuing with the development of our piece we stripped it down of all ‘acting’ and therefore used ourselves as ‘performing bodies’ rather than ‘actors.’ This meant that the focal point could remain on the apples, instead of us. What we were left with was basing a performance simply around the five members Kate, Claudia, Nathan, Phil and Connor showcasing a variety of things to do with apples, in a transformed space.
Now Were Getting Somewhere
Once we had decided against the idea of having performance based sketches and an audience involved circus we turned our heads back toward our initial ‘101 things’ list that had been growing over the process. We dissected the list, dropping activities that we had initially thought of, for example ‘shadow puppets’ using apples. It was then decided that along with the five of us showing these exercises we would compile a video containing a variety of different ways apple can be destroyed. This video was in place to support the performance, providing a visual aid for when little was happening but also to showcase more creative and destructive things that would have been impossible indoors. For example, running an apple over with a car. This video was edited to be in black and white, making it visually engaging. We also decided that it would be effective to occupy the space with several boxes and apple related products to transform the space we had. Alongside our black costume and paired with the removal of speech, this all added to the atmosphere of the piece.
A lot was taken into consideration when deciding what the exercises with apples would be. With ‘simple’ as the thought in mind and with feedback from lecturers, we decided on doing normal ‘everyday’ actions but im different ways. For example one of the exercises was the deconstruction of the apple. This is what we showed the lecturers when they gave us positive feedback about the simplicity of our work. When developing this process, thought was concerned with how an apple is deconstructed on a conveyer belt in a factory. As ‘performing bodies’ we attempted to recreate the conveyer belt, deconstructing our own apples by peeling, chopping, dicing and mashing the remains into juice. The thoughts were that by showing the physical ‘deconstruction’ of an apple, the audience would become engaged and interested in the performance, making them want to stay.
With the simplicity of this ‘deconstruction’ in mind we revised our list to contain a number of different things to do with apples. Some ordinary like ‘peeling’ and others more abstract like ‘painting an apple’ or ‘puncturing an apple.’ These exercises were all simple and did not require much ‘rehearsal’ from the group which worked as a bonus for us as it was difficult to rehearse without the apples with us.
Once a list was made we became worried that our piece would be underdeveloped if we did not practice or come up with some sort of structure for the day. Towards the end of this process, problems ensued as it was becoming increasingly difficult to have a meeting with all members present. This is when the performance was revised to compensate for a group member not turning up. A structure was implanted that would see only two performers on set at any one time. These performers would show their exercises, taken from the list, then swap again with another two performers. An example of this structure is as follows; All start on stage- ‘deconstruction of an apple’ then Connor and Claudia, Connor juggling, Claudia stacking apples. A time limit was not implanted on these exercises and so they would run on for as long as they had too. Something that did not impose a problem as we had the space for so long and were keen to adapt it. As Miwon Kwon agrees, when presenting a site piece “The project will likely be time-consuming and in the end will have engaged the ‘site’ in a multiple of ways” (Kwon, M) though this structure was not used in the ‘final piece’ it was one of the key stages of development. We fully understood what we wanted to do, now it was just a question as to how we would do it.
After an invaluable meeting with lectures we revised this ‘structure’ and decided to replace it with a blackboard. This decision was made because initially we thought about memorising the structure, to add flow to the piece. However once talked through with Dominic, it was clear that using a ‘blackboard’ as a signal to the audience and to ourselves as to what we were doing, would be unique and simple. Memorising a ‘set’ order of things would also bring our piece back towards an ‘acted’ piece, something that by this point we were ardent not let happen. As Dennis Oppenheim suggests site specific is about “creating a system that allows the artist to become the material, to consider himself the sole vehicle of the art.” (Sharp) We would use the blackboard as a way of ‘communicating’ to each other as to what exercise we were doing next. This worked by having one member of the group writing an exercise and a number on the blackboard. The number correlated with the amount of participants from the entire group that were needed. Once viewed the number of members needed would then stand up and prepare to enter the space, having just read what they were doing. This way we were not to be implementing too much ‘performance’ into our work and let the naturalistic atmosphere take hold. There was only one thing missing. A signal, a key, something to let us know exactly when to enter the space and when to exit, needed so the piece did not look messy. A ‘hotel’ style bell was used as it was an effective way of signalling everyone. This bell was placed at the front of the set as this was the easiest place for everyone to reach it when required.
When thinking about what products would be used on set, we discussed what would be useful and what would not work. Creating the ‘smell’ of apples was a keen aspect when discussing the products, as the fragrant scent would give our performance more roots within its space by transforming the space further. Candles were thought about but ended up being a risky process we didn’t want to get involved in and so apple potpourri was used in the final piece. Anything with apples on, or apple related was considered to be useful as it all envelopes what can be done with apples. This was the main reason for the ‘installation’ of all these products, making the audience think about a wider range of uses for apples. Something we undoubtabley achieved.
On the Night (during the day)
Once the space had been set up, we were ready to begin. We began our piece with a homage to our development process and started off with the synchronised eating of an apple, something that received positive feedback in development. Then continued on using the bell and blackboard as signals to start and stop exercises. Audience members were interesting to observe whilst in the space. The reactions displayed were varied. Some members would walk right in examining the set and taking a good look at the video, to the extremes of one member actually sitting on a chair inside the set. While others would simply come inside and stand right by the corner until they left again. Thinking about the way the different ways in which the audience reacted proved interesting. I believe that audience members who are ‘hands on’ enjoyed the fact they could walk round and examine parts of the set without feeling uncomfortable. Also having the opportunity to involve themselves, as one member did when they rang the bell signalling us to stop. Whilst more ‘retracted’ people wanted to employee a sense of normality, in the way that they were the audience and we were performers. Nonetheless it is interesting to comment upon how the different members reacted contrastingly. I believe that overall the performance went well, the strongest parts being the ‘group participated’ exercises e.g. Newton’s cradle, deconstructing the apple. And the video showcasing numerous ways apples can be used. The performance was let down in its set and it’s something that if performed again I would consider revising. The problems were not with the products or facts that were in place. Rather some of the boxes used were broken, having to be taped shut giving it a messy ‘unprofessional’ look. However if the set was revised I would consider changing the cardboard boxes and trying to source some wooden ‘grocers’ type box. Linking it in with the theme of apples. This development process leading up to and including the performance has been challenging but fun. Questions were raised after the performance about what happens if someone enters the performance, something that we had not questioned, and happened. We then had more ideas about how to use the space we were occupying proving there is no limit to any ‘site specific’ performance.
Bibliography
Works cited
Books
Brook, Peter (1996) The Empty Space. New York: Touchstone.
Kwon, Miwon (2002). One place after another Site specific art and locational identity. London: The MIT press. 42.
Pearson, Mike (2010). Site specific performance London : Macmillan. p.8
Articles
‘Dennis Oppenheim Interviewed by Willoughby Sharp’, (1971) 183, 938: 186–93.
Gleave,J. (2011). “SITE-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE EXISTS WITHIN A PLETHORA OF PHENOMENA, ALL COMPETING FOR ATTENTION, ALL POTENTIALLY MEANINGFUL: A CONCATENATION OF THAT AT SITE AND THAT BROUGHT TO THE SITE”. THE RECIPROCAL PROCESS OF THE SITE AND THE SUBJECT IN DIVISIG SITE-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE . 1 (1), p1
Online Sources
1. (2014). Top Varieties. Available: http://www.orangepippin.com/topvarieties.aspx. Last accessed 16 May 2014
2. (2012). Nutritional Composition Available: http://www.englishapplesandpears.co.uk/apples_nutritional_composition.php. Last accessed 16 May 2014.
