18/3/13
Today we performed our ideas to our peers in order to get some constructive feedback. The audience picked up on a few things that didn’t necessarily correspond so well these were as follows.
- The black markers were far too squeaky when we went to write on the boxes, they felt it distracted from everything else going on.
- We had decided to incorporate some quite solemn music in the background but when this was being played whilst we were performing the audience suggested this was too loud. In reflection we agreed and felt it should be quieter. We also felt the subtlety would be more effective as our overall statement suggests we want to evoke emotion which we feel the music contributes to this.
- We decided that we wanted Tequila who was reading out the poem to be inside the alcove as the wall was being built but as the positioning of the audience was behind her, her voice was being lost in the window area and wasn’t being projected out. The audience was right and we’re pleased they picked up on this so we could amend her positioning.
- The comments we were writing on the boxes such as #baby no.1 and why is this happening, someone pointed out these seemed too obvious. On reflection I understood what they meant and agreed the messages didn’t provoke any real thought to the audience. We were giving them the answers on a plate and that certainly wasn’t our intention.
- There were some comments about whether a link between the video loop being played and our performance was needed. Our argument was it was in the space and we were acknowledging that. One concern we had was the volume that this installation was projected at, this was something we would have to ask The Collection about and whether we could turn it down.
- At the end of the piece we decided to knock down the wall, this was to signify the destruction of space. However after we did this as a group even we felt it didn’t really work, again it was too obvious and our aim wasn’t to make clear obvious points to the audience. Much like a piece of art could have a thousand and one interpretations we wanted our performance to do the same. This is also where we realised we could incorporate the other window alcove space and perhaps the boxes could go there after.
It confirmed some positive responses!
- Everyone seemed to like the minimalist approach to our piece.
- The audience liked the words being said aloud, they felt the added dimension was a nice touch and that it was nice to have something to listen to.
- The building of the wall they thought was a good concept and that it was effective in the space.
We were using our knowledge of the architecture and art around us and responding to the space. A statement that Clifford McLucas makes I feel elaborates on this point, ‘The real power of site-specific work is that it somehow activates, or engages with, the narratives of the site in some kind of way. That might be with its formal architecture, or it might be with the character of the building. It might be to do with the history of the building. (1995, p.47) After our feedback the discussion proved helpful, we do have a few points to adjust and rectify but none the less we are pleased with the progression we have made from this week!
Word count: 584
Works cited:
McLucas, C. and Pearson, M. (1995) Performance/ Place/Public (Brith Gof Archive, NLW), company document.