Evaluation of the Performance

We began the piece with our duets/triplets which had been set up like an art exhibition, ours however being live art, so that the audience could walk around at their own pace. This was good because it allowed them to choose what they wanted to look at and gave them enough time to form their own opinions, giving them their own individual experience. The exhibition was able to show a range of different works and the contrasting themes of each piece, as well as how each group displayed them, meaning that the audience wouldn't become bored and if the didn't like one piece they could move on. 
However I did think that each performance space could've been larger and more protected because many of the pieces involved some mess of paint, water or jelly etc. which was cleaned up properly and made the main space dangerous to work in. This could've also been solved with more efficient cleaning method between the transitions.  
I found our triplet worked well because instead of being on repeat it was an endurance piece, meaning that each member of audience would experience it differently as it was constantly changing.

I thought that our class' piece went very well, expressing a clear theme of the nature-nurture debate as well as it being easy to follow. According to the audience they felt that they were clearly guided to wear they need to be, as there was always an actor ready to move them to their next position. I also found the humour was largely appreciated because all the topics had been quite serious and morbid, meaning that our representation of sperm fertilising the egg to the mission impossible theme tune offered them some light relief and kept them engaged.  
In our piece I thought that the latex gloves helped to show our characters as scientists and showed the investigation into our debate. The head torches also helped to do this but I found they were an interesting way to light up the space. This lighting meant that some parts were in shadow at different points and it was always clear which I thought helped to represent the debate suggesting it is not a clear cut argument. However the head torches were unreliable, getting broken and having the batteries dying which meant in some performances it lost the full effect. So next time I would make sure that we have more batteries and head torches than need just in case. The transitions between when we need them switched on also varied and often having them fall off our heads suggesting that we needed more time to rehearse with them and focus as a group on what we need to do when.

I found it difficult to use the whole space due to where the audience was positioned but I felt that if we had certain moments could've been held for longer, creating a more poignant meaning. Specifically I found that the space could've been utilised better in the sperm bit because it would've given Malachi more time to move into position and let the track play for the full time it was supposed to. 
I also thought that we needed to maintain a better focus because, although we'd managed to do this for the first two shows and most of the third, when someone forgot their line people giggled. I believe it was down to tiredness but think that even though it was near the end focus should've been withheld.

I thought during the piece when questions were being asked to the audience we projected well, especially during the first set of scientist question but I thought this was helped because it was high energy and enthusiastic. However when, at the end, we had to repeat the question is a sombre, thoughtful tone it thought the projection and energy dropped which meant the audience didn't witness the full effect as they couldn't hear what was said.

Overall I though the performance went really well and as it was experimental felt that it was better that we hadn't over rehearsed, keeping the acting and movement instinctive, making it better to watch for the audience. 
When the entire performance finished I thought it was nice at the end when we joined together moving as one whilst performing boto. I found that it showed our discipline and focus as we were able to work together.

Workshop 6 - The Whole Year Piece

For this section we created a piece, that was later cut, that saw all seventy five of us simultaneously reacting to one stimulus. The idea was that we would instinctively, as a whole, react to an unknown stimulus question. However this was later adapt to asking one person and the rest of us instinctively following them. 

To work instinctively we were asked not to think about what we were doing and just do which often resulted in physical movement that bridged on being unsafe, suggesting that although needing to not think there does need to be an awareness of your surroundings and the people around. I felt that with this element of danger and the hard extremes people were pushing themselves, it mirrored Artaud's ideas of "cost of the actor". I personally found myself getting incredibly tired afterwards and found that the more tired I became, the more instinctively I started to work as I couldn't be bothered to use my brain. It made my movements and reactions almost animalistic which I feel for an audience is much more appealing to watch as it appears natural.

I found that to begin I struggled to fully commit and work instinctively, but as soon as I began to relax responding to what the others were doing I stopped thinking and didn't fully remember what I did whilst we attempted it. I then really enjoyed it, feeling that I could truly express myself because I didn't have any worries about being self conscious and that I wasn't thinking. I also felt that some people tried to force an idea or movement on the rest of us, suggesting that we weren't all working as a team and not doing it for the audiences but for themselves because it didn't appear naturally. 

At the beginning I found it was interesting as we all reacted as one to the different questions as it challenged us to become in-tuned with everyone else, which is incredibly useful within theatre. I also noticed how everyone, including myself, struggled not to be selfish and react how we please, as it progressed learning that we needed to react as a whole, almost waiting for the whole group's decision. 

Workshop 5/6 - Finishing Group Devising

In this lesson we finished devising the group piece, as well as refining and changing certain parts.

To begin we replaced the foetuses growing up, with a similar idea, however instead having torches on our heads and a sheet covering us to we explore the "newly found" movements of our body parts, predominantly our hands. This idea is to replicate an ultra sound scan because the dark shadows bare a likeness to the procedure. We hope to encourage some audience participation as they're asked to touch their hands across the sheet like a mother would whilst having a scan, giving them a more sensory experience which will help to keep them engaged and hopefully create a larger impact, causing them to think and evaluate the debate. Again the idea focuses on the nature side of the debate.

Next we also added in a short transition into the mother-son scene, where as foetuses we are seeing/using a part of our body for the first time before growing tall and pretending to play as planes. As well as being a helpful tool to guide our audience out of the performance space, it enforces the idea of childhood and how people's differing childhoods can change who they become; a key argument for the nurture side of the debate. 

To follow the mother-son section, that we created in the previous lesson, our group split into two and we had to devise a short scene surrounding the idea of puppets, again highlighting nurture. My group focused on Will as the puppet, guiding him physically in order to represent how children can be brought up and encouraged to do/believe certain things. The physicality of controlling his body and movement, is an exaggerated literal portrayal of parental influence moulding a child into what they want and what they do. I found this to work really nicely because it enforced how easily it was to do what adults say and not do anything for yourself, just doing what you've been taught and not discovering anything for yourself.

After this, we used articles based around the nature-nurture debate to create short images/pieces, eg. 9/11, 7/7, Lee Rigby's murder, the Jamie Bulger case, GCSE results, homophobia in  Mosul, Iraq, a blind man learning to ride a bike. We used the range of articles to explore both the good and bad results of nurture, trying to lighten the mood with the positive stories for the audience as they listen to the over head recordings of Michael Adebolajo, a 9/11 voice mail and a news report on GCSE results. We also wanted to suggest that the nature-nurture debate isn't just negative and showing them visually I thought the audience might find it easier to picture and relate. Tia, Mia, Shayde and I looked into a picture of the 9/11 attacks, with the victims walking from the wreckage coughing. We chose to to replicate this picture by bringing it to life through coughs and slight movement, because we felt that we didn't want to over play it, making sure that it remained respectful.

For the final bit we went back repeating the beginning formation, breathing in a more exhaustive way to fit the sombre tone of the piece. I found that this would allow the audience too reflect on what they had just watched and form a solid opinion on the debate. It also just have an solid ending which could then flow into the final group section.

Workshop 4 - Creating the Group Piece

In this lesson we began devising our group piece, focusing on the topic of nature vs nurture.

The idea was to begin the piece with scientist figures asking questions about the debate. To symbolise that we were scientists we all wore latex gloves and spoke in random sounds and noises to represent the scientific jargon which would the language often by used by them. The language was quite abstract and animalistic linking to Artaud's idea of  making natural instinctive work that truly represents human behaviour. However it can also imply the language that he created thinking that it could be used between actors to communicate.
The questions we asked ranged from:
Can the traits you are born with be influenced by the environment we live in?
Is sexuality determined by genes?
These helped to enforce the message of our piece straight away, encouraging the audience to consider our topic as they watch the piece, seeing how what we show them changes, differs or supports their initial views.

Next we focused on creating a physicalised representation of the reproduction cycle, starting from the moment of conception to the birth. Having the heaving breathing to replicate the sounds of a climax, paired with "Lets get it on" by Marvin Gaye, I found for audience members that as well as it creating some light humour, it may make them uncomfortable which gives the impression of Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty, making it a tense environment for them in order to heighten their senses. It also appears to an unsuspecting audience as rather grotesque because sex is often seen as a taboo, these kind of topics being something that Artaud thought theatre should address as many other mediums didn't.
Within this small section the cast becomes sperm, with tights over our heads and we proceed to crawl across the room to "fertilise the eggs" on the other side whilst battle-like music plays overhead. This part is my favourite bit because I find the idea incredibly bizarre and hilarious with the over dramatised version of something I deem as a relatively simple act, as well as getting to call myself a sperm. Although I truly like it as it an inventive way of portraying the idea, suggesting that it is a battle between sperm which is something I'd never thought of before.

This whole idea of reproduction was to also to show the side of the debate which suggested that humans are born with the genes that encourage their behaviour. Then the piece progressed and we moved on to include the idea of us all pretending to be foetuses, exploring their first times doing something; maybe opening their eyes, moving their limbs or standing. This then developed in to a sped up version of a child growing up to again highlight the instinctive behaviour we are born with.

However next we chose to focus on the mother-son relationship and how mothers mollycoddle and have a reluctance to let their children go. This I thought was done to enforce the idea that a mother has strong influence over her child and this can change a child's future attitude. We explored this through an alternate objective task which saw the mothers wanting to hold on to their children and their sons wanting to leave. For this we focused on "cost of the actor", having to push our limits in order to fully achieve the objective. Although against Troy, I found this reasonably easy to maintain my objective because he underestimated my strength and by the time he realised, I was in a good position to maintain my grip. As he struggled in my grasp I found it did become harder because his adrenaline started to kick in as he saw he wouldn't easily get free and personally I think that if I was an audience member this true struggle would be interesting to watch as it is believable and natural.   

To an audience, the piece we have so far, I think, to piece focuses heavily on the effect of the nature side of the debate, suggesting that we have a biased opinion that we're trying to enforce of them. Next lesson I feel as though we need to include more of the nurture debate.
I do however think it shows how people are born with certain instincts, like immediately crying after birth or learning to walk and talk, implying that some part of our behaviour does come from nature.  

I believe our piece is experimental because, although it addresses a political subject, it follows more of Artaud and Grotowski's ideas than Brechtian, and it certainly doesn't include any naturalistic acting, using physical representations of objects through bodies and over exaggerated behaviour instead. Following Artaud and Grotowski it looks into "cost of the actor" as well as including a range of physical movement and unnatural speech, therefore suggesting it is experimental.

Workshop 3/4 - Duets/Triplets responding to Art from the Tate

In this lesson we began to create a triplet responding to your art work from The Tate Modern. In my group is Eloise and Ellie and after discussing pieces we liked from the Tate we chose a couple pieces to base our installation about.

INSPIRATION:

[1] Shooting Painting by Niki De saint Phalle

[2] Spatial Awareness 'Waiting' by Lucio Fontana

I was drawn to the beauty of what the violence of shooting created.

Eloise was drawn to the simplicity of something that appears so violent.

From these pictures we focused on the physical appearance of the artwork in order to create our piece.
We chose the idea of looking at three different types of mental illness: psychopathy, OCD and alcoholism. I believe we want to highlight these issues, bringing them attention and awareness to the idea that we can support these kind of people. 
As there are three of us, each person is going to take a role as one of the traits, with Eloise symbolising psychopathy, Ellie being alcoholism and me portraying OCD.
For psychopathy we chose to have a character with split make up, one side normal and the other messy to show the difference between the difference between what we see on the outside compared to the inside of a psychotic person. Every time the messy side is faced to the audience, Eloise will pop a balloon with red paint in to symbolise their lack of empathy (this replicates medical tests that some people under go, with red light suggesting psychopathic thoughts). The popping of the balloons is heavily influenced by the shooting paintings, the knife used to pop them influenced by the other picture. This knife is used to represent the violence often associated with psychopaths, although it may not truly represent the deficiency. 
Ellie's role representing alcoholism sees her sitting under the dripping paint collecting it in empty alcohol bottles, gradually increasing the volume of the alcohol that the bottle used to contain, this suggesting how alcoholics get worse as they progress.
My roles to imply OCD is to attempt to order the bottles and clean up the messy paint, signify the stereotypical characteristics of the illness. Also having half of my make up to appear as though melting, to show the inner melt down someone with OCD may have when things aren't as they want. 
The performance will then run as a piece of live art, progressing as the time goes on, so that no audience member will witness the same thing. I think that it an experimental piece because it doesn't have a clear linear plot with no links to Stanislavsky or Brecht. It clearly links with Artaud's idea of effecting/shocking the audience due to it's violent nature and weird concept, therefore showing it is experimental.

Our piece relies heavily on props and what happens we do with them to represent our chosen topic so when showing to the class we explained the concept through the pictures below. 

 

 

We also watched the rest of the class's pieces (pictures below).

Tia and Esme's piece of girls exploring each others bodies

In Esme and Tia's piece, I thought their use of shadow really helped to show their theme of hidden teenage exploration and the frowns up same sex couple still held be parts of society. The contrast of their two shadows made the images we saw confusing but that made it more inviting to watch and work out, although we all said that the two shadows needed to meet more often if they were to have a larger impact of their chosen theme on the audience. I found that contrast of their movements and the use of gentle music created a mellow mood, helping us focus on the piece. The use of music was a key feature of Artaudian methods, as well as the physical movement which helped the performance to show the experimental ideas this term is about.  

Miles and Will exploring blind paintings of heaven and hell

Malachi, Troy and Soloman showing how attitudes to nudity have changed

  

Nature-Nurture Debate

Article on the Debate:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/nature-nurture-and-liberal-values-roger-scruton-jesse-prinz-david-eagleman-neuroscience

I share similar views on the nature-nurture debate, believing that some people are born with defects that cause them to be horrible people, even though they've grown up in a loving home. For example Joanna Dennehy, who killed men for fun, grew up with a "normal" family (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25669206). And  the murder of Lee Rigby, who killers both came from respectable Christian families (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby).
Although this can also work the opposite way round, coming from poor, maybe abusive, upbringings to do good in the world. 

However I also believe upbringings can heavily influence the person you become, for example the Beckhams, their sons have all gone through modelling like their father. The Attenborough and Redgrave families have also had all members become a part of show business, suggesting that the children were heavily influenced by their parents careers.

Workshop 3 - Creating story through pictures

To begin the lesson we were given five random pictures and asked to create a short story from what you see. It wasn't limited by restrictions so everyone had their own take on what Sarah meant. Most people took the pictures on face value, using what they immediately saw to form the story but Sarah later suggested the idea to look in the background, look into the small detail in the pictures, because this can often lead to more interesting, unique and imaginative work.  

                                  

I focused on each picture as a whole, not noticing small detail, and tried to create a linear storyline as I attempted to find sense in what was already peculiar. The question was posed to us that in experimental term, and theatre in general, why do stories need to make sense. For me I found this question interesting because I'd never really thought about it and found it difficult to not try and make sense of things. As humans in general we always need a definite answer which is shown science, which however suggests to me that within theatre and the arts, why should we have to comply to these ideas.  

This idea also suggests that the audience doesn't need to fully understand what's going on, able to make their own mines up and create their own interpretations. It means that they have to work hard, as in my opinion theatre is not just for entertainment and to make people think.

The following task was also rather difficult because again Mia and I struggled not to put the pictures into a linear story line. (The pictures below are laid out in the order of our narrative.) However not being able to detach from this idea we chose to focus on our portrayal of the story. The two of us behaved like a tag team, bouncing of the others excitable energy which gave it an improvised and spontaneous feel. This also meant the speech was reasonably fluid and maintained a good energy to keep the spectators engaged, although I did feel that some of it may have been too rushed, leading to some mumbling but with some more rehearsal time it could've been perfected and less improvised. I did also feel that as it's experimental term there could've been a more inventive and unique way of doing it, maybe not giving the explicit story and causing them to make up their own minds.

Watching the other's perform their short stories was interesting because everyone had different ideas and the random stories combined with the movements made it all quite experimental, in some places incredibly weird.

For instance, I mostly enjoyed the physical portrayal of the stories because it meant that as an audience member I had to work harder to understand what it meant, having to come to my own conclusion about what I was watching. Esme and Ivory were an example of this as they went along their timeline of pictures, re-enacting the story the story they'd created. This meant that I was engaged with what I was watching, although I know that watching pieces that included comedy also gave me the same willingness to watch.
An example of a comedic piece was the boys rap, which was predominantly funny because it was unexpected, however whether it would've been funny to an audience who didn't know them is another question. I personally find rap in play quite funny, especially when it's performed by people who wouldn't normally be rappers, although this is only my personal opinion.
I found the most interesting piece to watch/be apart of was the Chinese whispers, done by Eloise and Jasmine. I really like how it linked to their idea that stories get changed over time and I found I stayed engaged because I felt included and enjoyed the actor-audience interaction.

Mia and I's selection of pictures

Jerzy Growtoski

Born                     Jerzy Grotowski 11 August 1933 Rzeszów, Poland
Died                     14 January 1999 (aged 65) Pontedera, Tuscany, Italy
Occupation Theatre director
Alma mater Russian Academy of Theatre Arts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Grotowski

Jerzy Grotowski was an innovative theatre director and theorist whose approaches to acting training and theatrical production have significantly influenced theatre today. 
In his influential publication Towards a Poor Theatre (1968), Grotowski explained the focus of his work in the Laboratory Theatre and outlined the following agenda:

We are seeking to define what is distinctively theatre, what separates this activity from other categories of performance and spectacle…our productions are detailed investigations of the actor-audience relationship. (11-15)


His experiments investigated the suggestion that the actor is the core of theatre art and he used the term ‘poor theatre' to explain his desire to explore and utilise basic dramatic elements that could enhance communication between actors and audiences. Like the theorist Artaud, he noted that theatre has its own language and that this form of language is quite distinct from the words of a text. He argued that dramatic literature offered only a framework for actors' explorations of themselves and that theatre only had meaning if it could enable actors and audiences to transcend stereotyped visions and conventional or habitual behaviours and responses. In many ways, he saw theatre as a spiritual process that could enable the discovery of truth and compassion and he wrote that he hoped that his work would enable personal and social transformations. 

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/academy/theatres/grotowski,%20jerzy.htm

Theatre - through the actor's technique, his art in which the living organism strives for higher motives - provides an opportunity for what could be called integration, the discarding of masks, the revealing of the real substance: a totality of physical and mental reactions. This opportunity must be treated in a disciplined manner, with a full awareness of the responsibilities it involves. Here we can see the theatre's therapeutic function for people in our present day civilization. It is true that the actor accomplishes this act, but he can only do so through an encounter with the spectator - intimately, visibly, not hiding behind a cameraman, wardrobe mistress, stage designer or make-up girl - in direct confrontation with him, and somehow " instead of" him. The actor's act - discarding half measures, revealing, opening up, emerging from himself as opposed to closing up - is an invitation to the spectator. This act could be compared to an act of the most deeply rooted, genuine love between two human beings - this is just a comparison since we can only refer to this "emergence from oneself" through analogy. This act, paradoxical and borderline, we call a total act. In our opinion it epitomizes the actor's deepest calling. 

- Jerzy Grotowski (19 June 2004). "Source Material on Jerzy Grotowski's Statement of Principles". Owen Daly. Retrieved 2008-09-18.


My thoughts: 

Looking into Grotowski I interpreted that his ideas were based around the skills of the actor and their abilities. I believe he wanted them to use what they knew to work instinctively and organically, not having to rely on costumes, prop, set etc.

I find that he wanted to explore the actors raw emotions and physical limits which from my view is good to help any actor, no matter what style of theatre is their preference. I find that by pushing limits, as an actor I then know how far I can go and then suit it to whatever I'm having to do, using elements in all performances and saving the extremes for when specifically needed.

I also found that Grotowski believes that theatre can make a difference to both the actors and audience, and to this I agree because I feel that we can address taboo subjects in an entertaining manner. This often effects the audience making them think and want to address the issue, because although TV and film can do this too, audiences often feel as though, through theatre they have an intensified personal connection with the actors because it seem they are witnessing it first hand and in the flesh, even though it may not be portrayed in a naturalistic way. Therefore much like Grotowski I think it is our duty, as actors, to help address the worlds issues, helping to create personal and social transformations.

Peter Brook

"I can take any empty space and call it a bare stage. A man walks across this empty space whilst someone else is watching him, and this is all that is needed for an act of theatre to be engaged."

Born                      Peter Stephen Paul Brook
                                 21 March 1925 (age 89)
                                 Chiswick, London
Occupation  Director
Awards                 Tony Award for Best Direction of a Play
                                 1966 Marat/Sade
                                 1971 A Mids

In England, Peter Brook and Charles Marowitz undertook The Theatre of Cruelty Season (1964) at the Royal Shakespeare Company, aiming to explore ways in which Artaud's ideas could be used to find new forms of expression and retrain the performer. The result was a showing of 'works in progress' made up of improvisations and sketches, one of which was the premier of Artaud's The Spurt of Blood.

– Lee Jamieson, Antonin Artaud: From Theory to Practice, Greenwich Exchange, 2007

His major influence, however, was Joan Littlewood. Brook described her as "the most galvanising director in mid-20th century Britain".

Brook's work is also inspired by the theories of experimental theatre of Jerzy Grotowski, Bertolt Brecht, Chris Covics and Vsevolod Meyerhold and by the works of G. I. Gurdjieff,Edward Gordon Craig, and Matila Ghyka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brook

The Empty Space is a book by director Peter Brook examining four modes or points of view on theatre: Deadly, Holy, Rough and Immediate. 
In it Peter Brooks explores the nature and purpose of the theatre, examine aspects of contemporary theatre production and philosophy that prevent the theatre from fulfilling its purpose most effectively, and discuss ways in which theatre might (must?) change in order for that purpose to be fully realized. Central to the his thematic point is the contention that the fundamental reason theatre exists is to awaken in an audience an understanding of the human condition they were previously unable, or unwilling, to apprehend.
http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-the-empty-space/#gsc.tab=0


For Artaud, theatre is fire; for Brecht, theatre is clear vision; for Stanislavski, theatre is humanity. Why must we choose between them? 

-Brook, Peter. Part I, `A SENSE OF DIRECTION,' `Provocations,' The Shifting Point 1946-1987, p. 66, Harper and Row, New York (1987)

My thoughts:
Looking into Brook I found that his idea of theatre is not dissimilar to mine, believing that any space can be turned into a performance area. I find this an interesting idea because it opens up options for what is so called conventional theatre and allows us, as actors, to explore and play with the differing spaces (which is what we study in site specific). 

I also like his idea that we don't have to choose between the three main practitioners that we study because I often feel like we're told to focus on only one at a time. I enjoy all the types of theatre we've learnt about and would like to experiment with them, possibly combining ideas together. Therefore I find I relate more so to Brook than the others specifically, as he doesn't want to pigeon hole the types of theatre to which ever is "best", leaving it more open to personal preference or experimentation.

By combining the different methods he can show the diversity of theatre which therefore links to his idea that it does not need to be convetional. 

Antonin Artaud

Born            Antoine Marie Joseph Artaud
                          4 September 1896 Marseille, France
Died            4 March 1948 (aged 51) Paris, France
Cause of death Intestinal Cancer
Nationality   French
Education   Studied at the Collège du Sacré Couer
Occupation   Theatre director, poet, actor, artist
Known for   Theatre of Cruelty
Notable work   The Theatre and Its Double
Style           Erotica

The Theatre of Cruelty has been created in order to restore to the theatre a passionate and convulsive conception of life, and it is in this sense of violent rigour and extreme condensation of scenic elements that the cruelty on which it is based must be understood. This cruelty, which will be bloody when necessary but not systematically so, can thus be identified with a kind of severe moral purity which is not afraid to pay life the price it must be paid.
– Antonin Artaud, The Theatre of Cruelty, in The Theory of the Modern Stage (ed. Eric Bentley), Penguin, 1968, p.66

[Nietzsche's] definition of cruelty informs Artaud's own, declaring that all art embodies and intensifies the underlying brutalities of life to recreate the thrill of experience ... Although Artaud did not formally cite Nietzsche, [their writing] contains a familiar persuasive authority, a similar exuberant phraseology, and motifs in extremis ...
– Lee Jamieson, Antonin Artaud: From Theory to Practice, Greenwich Exchange, 2007, p.21-22

Artaud sought to remove aesthetic distance, bringing the audience into direct contact with the dangers of life. By turning theatre into a place where the spectator is exposed rather than protected, Artaud was committing an act of cruelty upon them.
– Lee Jamieson, Antonin Artaud: From Theory to Practice, Greenwich Exchange, 2007, p.23

Imagination, to Artaud, was reality; he considered dreams, thoughts and delusions as no less real than the "outside" world. To him, reality appeared to be a consensus, the same consensus the audience accepts when they enter a theatre to see a play and, for a time, pretend that what they are seeing is real.
Artaud saw suffering as essential to existence and thus rejected all utopias as inevitable dystopia. He denounced the degradation of civilization, yearned for cosmic purification, and called for an ecstatic loss of the self.

Artaud was heavily influenced by seeing a Colonial Exposition of Balinese Theatre in Marseille. He read eclectically, inspired by authors and artists such as Seneca, Shakespeare, Poe, Lautréamont, Alfred Jarry, and André Masson.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Artaud)

My thoughts:
After looking into Artaud, and from what I previously know, I believe that he wanted to focus on hard hitting taboo subjects that would effect the audience. Especially doing them in a way in which they do not feel safe as they often do in a conventional theatre piece where there is still a divided between the actors and audience. This theory I feel helps the audience to have a stronger emotional and physical reaction to what they're witnessing and from this I think Artaud wanted to highlight how society is becoming complacent towards the issues in the world.
I also enjoy that he likes to look beyond reality, focusing on imagination and dreams, because it allows me as an actor to explore themes and ideas that I wouldn't normally within naturalism, as well as being able to use my body and voice in unusual ways. I find it refreshing not to conform to conventions.

I also believe that he wanted actors to work completely naturally, getting them to push themselves to their physical limits as what he refers to as "cost of the actor". Consequently I agree with this method because as an actor I find it helps me to push myself, often discovering new/different ways to move and react and knowing how far I can take them. For me this then helps what else I perform because I will have explored the extremes of what I wish to do and then can hone in and refine what I've discovered to suit the work.

Workshop 2

Today we continued to develop the work of 'Cost of the actor' and '...being cruel to one’s self.'

We began with a task that focused on body over mind - we started with some movement work, asked to allow the body to overcome the mind, be fluid, improvise with the body. Then after a while soft music was introduced which I found helped to take my mind off what I was doing and gave me a rhythm that I could focus on instead. This music also helped to set the mood of what I was doing, encouraging fluid movements that we then used as we reacted to other bodies in the space. I found with the slow tempo of the music it worked well to help our movements flow and with our focuses on that we lost some of our inhibitions, therefore encouraging more interaction.

I do however find that when we mingle as a group our movements tends to move towards the floor, believing that we should try to maintain different levels because otherwise it begins to get monotonous. The movements together though, did although us to react of each other, using their bodies and energy to influence our own which I found distracted me, helping me to focus on the task and work harder.

The next task we did was tickling each other and then having to replicate what we did and what they did minus sound, which was done because we are not becoming characters we are representing/replicating a person or emotion, in order to hopefully have a greater affect on audiences (a key idea of Artaud's). The replication of the movements had a bizarre quality, making our movements somewhat grotesque and exaggerated, linking to Artaud's theatre of cruelty. 

Later on in the lesson we had to listen out for music to start our different tickle or fluid movements this meant that we had to become more instinctive with our movements and just react to the music, helping it to become more organic. By doing this it also gave us more focus and meant that our reaction time was quicker which would aid our movements in future tasks. 

Artaud's theatre of cruelty is was also explored as we were "being cruel" to our selves, pushing our physical limits as we attempted to achieve the impossible tasks the rest of the class set. For example, my task was to walk through the wall and onto the roof. To push my limits I had to use all my strength against the wall, even though I knew it was an "impossible" task. However I do feel that as a class we all needed to push harder because I felt that we all didn't fully believe what we were doing as this kind of working is quite new to us.

The task was incredibly frustrating because we knew it was impossible and Sarah was still telling us that we weren't trying hard enough. This did then make you work even harder but I did feel it still could've been stretched. I know I was slightly cautious of injuring myself on something around the, so in future if we used a room that had less hard surfaces and safety hazards I think it would be a lot easier to push your limits.

I found that when we just did things without thinking too hard about it, it then meant that you could work more instinctively and therefore work harder , pushing you limits. Without the restrictions of thinking about the reasons behind the task and ignoring that I might not achieve it, it enabled me to just do the task with more natural responses. This is again addressing the "cost of the actor" because we sacrifice the reasons for the task and accepting just doing it in response.

Introduction to Experimental

To begin we had to walk along a grid, helping to instil initial focus, by making us spatially aware of the others in the room, and it also highlighted an interesting way to move around the space. Then told that what we most desired was at the end of it, it gave us an objective to focus on, distracting us from our thoughts and making the movement more natural. Similarly the use of music helped to stop our brains from thinking too much about the task at hand, which as well as creating truthful movement also set up an acceptance of the later tasks and a willingness to attempt them without becoming too self-conscious.

The music helped to create a faster pace too, me believing that this aided Sarah’s wishes for us to work harder as it made me walk and an energised speed that increased my heart rate, consequently giving me energy to fulfil this.

The next task was knee fights, where having to touch your partners knees gave you something to focus on. As Sarah told us to work harder, the more focus we gained and we stopped over thinking it, making the movement more natural and animalistic. I found that when Georgia was able to hit behind my knees it spurred me to become more competitive, making me more determined to win and encouraging more focus.

We then pretended to been fishing which I found helped encourage the use of tension in my body. Exploring the different levels of tension is something Artaud wanted to explore often referring to seven levels of tension. I find that by exploring these different levels you find new ways to use your body as well as improving physical limits.

The task "lover trying to leave" task gave you an objective to focus on helping you not to think. It therefore became more instinctive. Every time we were asked to work harder, it became more difficult because having two contrasting objectives meant that it wasn't only myself increasing the intensity. I found that when Olivia held me in an incredibly tight grasp I began to panic slightly at the idea of not being able to move. This evoked natural, instinctive emotions which encouraged me to work even harder and almost build up with adrenaline. It made the movements more animalistic and created a raw emotion. However we could not push it too far and completely forget where we were because it was constantly in my mind not to injure one another.

We next began by doing alphabet boxes which I found gave me new ways to move my body, finding movements that could be interesting for future devising, therefore a useful devising method. 

Once I knew where the letters were it became a lot easier and you could move without having to think, your body just reacting to the music.

This task was repeated but in groups which I found was slightly easier as you could react of the other peoples movements and respond. As well as using their bodies to reach your letters which I found gave me more interesting way to move so I wasn't thinking as much as I had been when doing it solo, therefore making it more natural. Again it could also help group devising tasks in the future for physical theatre work.

Being in the dark with our eyes closed meant that there were no fears of people judging you so you could just react to the music. I did find it difficult not to think about what I was doing at points. I was more cautious of hitting or getting hit by someone which did restrict some of my movement.

Artaud heavily relies on music as a basis of his work, often using it as a stimulus for pieces and movements which I think he does because it helps keep a tempo for movement and ensembles in time, as well as encouraging actors to not get distracted by their thoughts. I think we did it in order to become more comfortable with allowing our bodies to move in different ways to what we are used to without the fear of others judging us. It also helps us become more instinctive and work naturally with moving to music.

We read Artaud’s play "A Spurt Of Blood" and initially I was excited as I've seen an A-level production of it, however I was confused because I hadn't previously realised how open to interpretation the script was. I found myself wondering how difficult it might be to have to produce the play, although I feel as though with the openness of the script you could do nearly anything which poses both pros and cons. It may be difficult to pick one idea from the many that you might've found, however it also means that you can’t get anything because it is so open and bizarre.

I got the impression that the play was an exaggerated portrayal of society and the stereotypical characters that we see were heightened to the maximum.

After briefly acting out the play, to get an idea of what it’s about, we chose to a small section to perform in detail, being asked to consider music, sound, lighting etc. My group chose to focus on Artaud's stage direction “He hides his face in horror. A multitude of scorpions crawl out from beneath the Wet-Nurse's dress and swarm between her legs. Her vagina swells up splits and becomes transparent and glistening like a sun. The Young Man and Bawd run off as though lobotomized”. I had the idea to perform in darkness, the audience also closing their eyes so that they would be completely unaware of what was going to happen. It also restricted their senses, heightening others and making them more cautious. This linked to Artaud's ideas that there would be a greater effect on the audience if they had to imagine what was happening because work can often be limited by the restrictions of what the actors can show. We then created a sound scape of whispers, insect type noises to give the impressions of the scorpions. We also chose to blow across their necks, gently scratching and touching them because from previous experience it makes people uncomfortable which is a exaggerating the reaction we'd had to reading it. The scratching was also able to imitate the feel of cockroaches scurrying about.This all showed Artaud's theory to assault the senses which I find is often more memorable for audiences because breaking the fourth wall between actors and audience isn't that common within "typical" theatre. 

I thought what we did was successful as it helped us make the audience feel vulnerable. However I found that the lack of focus from the audience slightly ruined the tension, as well as some audience members not following what we'd asked and not closing their eyes, this meant that they didn’t get the full effect.

As an audience member I found the use of loud music in some of the pieces was disorientating, adding to the effect which made me feel vulnerable. The darkness also helped to heighten senses, aided by the loud music I it was unnerving to not know what was going on and fear of the unknown.

Nature vs Nature

Nature vs nurture: outcome depends on where you live

The balance of nature and nurture in influencing how a child grows up varies depending on where they live, according to a new study.

Both nature (meaning our genes) and nurture (the environment we grow up in) are known to significantly affect traits like our height and weight, our IQ, and our chance of developing behavioural problems or autism.

But how strong environmental factors are in determining each characteristic, compared with the influence of DNA, differs significantly across the country, scientists have found.

Researchers from King's College London studied 45 childhood characteristics in 6,759 pairs of identical and non-identical twins across the UK, to determine whether their genes or their environment was more important.

A new series of "nature-nurture" maps produced by the team revealed that some areas are "environmental hotspots" for particular traits, but in other places the same attribute is mainly governed by genetics.

For example, across most of the country 60 per cent of the variation in children's behaviour at school - whether they were unruly or not - was down to their genes.

But in London environment played a greater role - possibly because wealth varies so dramatically within communities, meaning twins growing up on the same street are more likely to fall in with different groups of friends who could influence their behaviour.

Dr Oliver Davis, who led the Wellcome Trust-funded study, published in the Molecular Psychiatry journal, said: "There are any number of environments that vary geographically in the UK, from social environments like health care or education provision to physical environments like altitude, the weather or pollution.

“The message that these maps really drive home is that your genes aren't your destiny. There are plenty of things that can affect how your particular human genome expresses itself, and one of those things is where you grow up."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9326819/Nature-vs-nurture-outcome-depends-on-where-you-live.html

My comments:
The points that this article makes are valid and I agree with most of them as I don't believe that there is one set answer to the nature-nurture debate.
I think that how people behave is partially due to genes, whether people gleam traits from their parents or gain genes for certain illnesses. However some traits maybe be influenced by the people and environment they grew up it. 
Some children, it is believed, grow up to become violent due to abuse when they were young, which is an argument sometimes for John Venables and Robert Johnson in the James Bulger case. People also think that video games and books may influence people into doing whatever, although others argue that this may not just be the case. with children being brought up in families with stronger morals that still witness bad things yet know the difference between right and wrong.

Referring to the article above, my mother is an identical twin who grew up with her twin (in London) and they were joined at the hip, sharing groups of friend- most probably being each others best friends. This therefore contradicts the articles comment "twins growing up on the same street are more likely to fall in with different groups of friends who could influence their behaviour". The two of them are also similar in the way they behave, speak, dress etc. suggesting to me that it maybe genes that influence their similarities, seeing as they share much of the same, or that it might in fact be due to the environment they grew up in. Therefore in conclusion I don't think there is a simple answer to the debate, varying from case to case.

Tate Modern

Title of art piece: Quartered Meteor

Artist: Lynda Benglis

Artist rationale:
The curator and critic Richard Marshall has described Benglis’ intention with these works, saying:
The artist was fascinated with metals not only because of their permanence, but primarily because of their inherent attributes – energy, reflective surface, value as a natural resource, and capability of being returned to a liquid state. Quartered Meteor suggests a molten mass that has entered the earth’s atmosphere and slammed into a corner (Marshall, p.6).
Critic Tom Hess expands on the cast sculptures’ reference to natural processes:
Benglis’ concern with making soft things hard while preserving their insouciant memories of softness may or may not have something to do with feminism, phallicism, and other politico-sensualities. She is more concerned, I think, with the Romantic concept of the artist as a force of Nature. Nature can change states – freeze water, melt rocks; Benglis, too, can congeal or liquefy matter – and in the process make sculpture as calculated, precise, and refined as icicles
(quoted in press release for ‘Bettina Rheims/Lynda Benglis’, Cheim & Read, New York 2002, http://www.cheimread.com/exhibitions/2002_10_bettina-rheims--lynda-benglis/?view=pressrelease).

Materials made of: Lead and steel on steel base

Photo:

Themes of the piece:
“While many artists were interested in the literal properties of materials, Benglis wanted to suggest bodily and geological flows. Here the title also indicates a divided astral mass.”
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/benglis-quartered-meteor-t13353/text-display-caption

Why it inspires you:
 It looks almost like lava flowing although it’s been halted in time and i likr that its like a force of nature that normally flows with an unstoppable force. I like how the different layers are piled up and overlapped, which to me gives the impression of dead bodies. It does however also give me the impression of The Blob (1958 film) which gives it a somewhat comical air. It also looks a little like tar so it could be used as inspiration for a piece against smoking.

Potential ideas for theatrical work:
From this I get the ideas of a physical theatre piece which uses fluid movement, maybe dark themes due to the piece’s dark colours. It also looks like the different parts overlap so you could use actors bodies to give this impression.

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/benglis-quartered-meteor-t13353




Title of art piece: Shooting Picture (Tirage)

Artist: Niki de Saint Phalle

Artist rationale:
“I had the idea of putting some bottles of paint behind a plaster form, these would be fired on with a gun and the paint released; the idea of destruction being one of construction” (Niki de Saint Phalle, unpublished text 1987).
The moment of action and the ritual surrounding it were as important as the finished work. The artist later recalled that the experience was
“like war. A nice war. No one ever got hurt. But after a shoot-out we always felt emptied, exhausted, like after a bull-fight. There was the whole ceremony of the gun. The whiteness of the blank picture ... the smoke, the noise, and the colour” (ibid.).

Materials made of: Plaster, paint, string, polythene and wire on wood

Photo:

Themes of the piece: War, shooting, guns

Why it inspires you: It's such a simple idea and the contrast between the dark, grotesque ideas of shooting which the beauty of the array of colours it produced. I like how it symbolises how easy it is for people to find shooting thrilling without noticing the effects.

Potential ideas for theatrical work: You could do a piece based around shooting, guns, war maybe. It could be a simple play about it or you could achieve a piece of experimental work, either immersive or not, ehich could include the ideas and sounds that surround guns/shots.

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/saint-phalle-shooting-picture-t03824



Title of art piece: Autumn (L'Automne)

Artist: Henri Laurens

Artist rationale:
'I aspire to a ripeness of form’ Laurens said. ‘I should like to succeed in making it so full, so juicy that nothing could be added.’ This monumental figure is a luxuriant embodiment of nature. It is one of a number of sculptures Laurens made in the 1940s relating to the traditional odalisque or exotic, reclining female nude.[display caption]

Materials made of: Bronze

Photo:

Themes of the piece: "The title 'Autumn' given to this one was probably suggested mainly by the ripe, luxuriant fullness of the forms, and by the impression that the figure is basking in the sun.
 Although the title, Autumn, was only added after the work was completed, its bursting forms suggest the fruitfulness of the season." [display caption]

Why it inspires you: I enjoy that it's not a conventional woman's figure and with its twisted limbs it makes the piece somewhat comical. Being unnatural also means that it doesn't conform to stereotypical female model bodies. I also like how the face is covered with leaves, giving it it's link to autumn.

Potential ideas for theatrical work:You could do physical theatre work, using a tangle of limbs, or instead you could link the piece to nature, using a combination of organic movement and themes around the environment.

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/laurens-autumn-t01111



Title of art piece: Incidents 023 (From Incidents)

Artist: Henry Wessel

Artist rationale: Part of Incidents 2012, a series of images selected from Wessel’s long career. As a group the images are intended to be seen in an order almost as if the spectator is going on a walk. The images are “captured from his car, on the street, or in other public places, these commonplace scenes with minimal interaction with the subject."[diplay caption]

Materials made of: Photograph, gelatin silver print on paper

Photo:

Themes of the piece: life, relationships, commonplace, shelter

Why it inspires you: I think that the picture is simple and not over complicated or staged. It simply shows what I see to be two men in an embrace and to me this is striking because I also get the impression it's set in the past, a time when gay rights were prosecuted.

Potential ideas for theatrical work: I feel as though you could create a piece based around gay rights or maybe a piece about human need for shelter.

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/wessel-incidents-023-p80526



Title of art piece: Condensation Cube (Kondensationwürfel)

Artist: Hans Haacke

Artist rationale: "In the early 1960s Haacke produced works that explored the interactions of physical and biological systems and their natural processes... Condensation cube departs from the notion of static object animated only by the interaction of the viewer… Condensation begins to form and run down the sides of the box, changing according to the ambient light and temperature. The work’s appearance therefore depends on the environment at which it’s placed." [display caption]

Materials made of: Perspex, steel and water

Photo:

Themes of the piece: changes, transparency, environment, water

Why it inspires you: I like that the piece is simple but has a more in depth meaning. it intrigues me that the piece adapts to its environment meaning that other spectators may witness the piece looking different from my own.

Potential ideas for theatrical work: I think you could use the themes of the piece to create work, maybe showing some sort of evolution or use physical theatre in fluid motions to represent water water.

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/haacke-condensation-cube-t13214