Lab at CPT Tuesday 27th November 2007
We spent this lab as we usually do after a showing, discussing the previous performance.
One of the biggest impacts on the performance was the fact that the usual divide between audience and performers was non-existent. Most of our previous performances have occurred at paying venues where the audience is seated. As we were in a gallery where the audience stood throughout the show, everything became or could be seen as a performance as everything was being watched. This included all Apocryphal members, the visual artists and the audience themselves.
In this setting, individual performers could be surrounded by audience, working on a very intimate level, as one of our performers Melina said, “the audience was touchable”. So called “mini” performances sprung up as well as bigger moments of action amongst the audience, so rhythmically the show worked in a different way feeding off of more immediate energy. Our showings usually rely on each audience member having their own experience of what or whom they choose to focus their attention on. Melina suggested that in this case they became 360 degree spectators, as even if a spectator wasn’t looking at you, they may be standing behind you or leaning against you, which added a warmer relationship with them.
The big question hanging over our discussion was one of expectation. The visual art world is very different from the theatre one and performance has an array of definitions in both realms. We were aware of this and were excited by the prospective conflict when we became involved in the project, but we hadn’t necessarily accounted for the weight of our own expectations and reactions. One of our missions as Apocryphal is to “undermine the reality grid of right now”. This includes battling with our own individual reality grids as well as our performance personas and working where we may not know the outcome of what we are doing. If the work wasn’t dangerous the experiments wouldn’t be as fruitful, and the question of rules of the room and permissions came up for everyone from “can I hug an audience member?” to “can I eat the orange that is a part of one of the art works?”
Questions began to fly around our discussion, just as they were flying around the performance, as every decision the performers made in response to their own questions created a new set of choices for performer, artist and audience alike. Theron suggested we play a game at the next lab where performers write down the answers they create to the questions they have about what they are allowed and not allowed to do whilst performing. This sounded like a good idea to me, and another way to investigate that dialogue between performer and performing moment.
It also reminded me how the showings of the lab work are just as much experiments as our experiments in the lab rehearsals. It is only by experimenting with a live audience that we can find those questions that haunt us about the work that we do, which in turn lead to the evolution of our next experiments and a lab showing. I left the evening looking forward to our experiments next week and where we are taken next.