BILLY IS WRITING @billyiswriting-blog - Tumblr Blog

Rehearsing the ‘secret’ Act 6

Reflection #6

‘Collaboration makes you wonder what your identity really is.’ (Storey & Joubert in Littleton & Miell; 2004 P.49

In reflection of the Live Event, I couldn’t help but feel slightly deflated. Over the process we had worked hard to put barriers in place to help us defend the risk in audience participation. The beauty and the difficulty of audience interactivity is that you will never know what kind of audience you will have. Of course you can try and control it through context, but you cannot control individual audience members and it is this which makes audience participation so risky but exciting. We had a small and intimate audience on the day; they were a good audience who complied with the rules. However they were a clever audience who seemed to work out the order of the performance by the 2nd round (2/3). This was interesting but something we weren't prepared for as when we had practised with smaller sample audiences, they had always managed to get to the third round. In reflection of the process, there are parts of me that wish we had integrated audience participation more frequently. We did regularly have sample audiences, however to really understand and develop audience management, it would have been more practical to invite audiences in more often. In reflection to my own personal learning, I have found working with audiences an interesting and insightful experiment. I feel I have grown as a practitioner and feel more confident in building and creating actor/audience relationships in my own work.

In regards to the collaboration, I found this particular collaboration one of the most enjoyable and insightful projects I have ever been involved in. The strength and belief we had in each other’s skills allowed us to work to our full potential in order to create a strong interactive piece of Theatre. Although I say I felt slightly deflated after the live event, I can confirm that I did enjoy performing the piece and working with the audience. The deflation purely came from my own disappointment in the piece not going to plan, but of course this is the risk! I felt like the process was almost experimental in its form, it wasn't necessarily about the performance being a polished and great piece of theatre. I felt like it was more important focusing ourselves on the details in order to make the piece successful. Although there were moments in the Live Event that didn’t work as we had planned, does not mean the piece was unsuccessful.

in this process i have learnt three things;

1. How to engage and build a performer/audience relationship not only in performance but in the process too. This naturally boils down to the performer and the collective, and the atmosphere which they to create, this can be controlled. For example; if the collective/ performers are nervous, so will the audience. if the collective are confident, then the audience will have confidence in you to trust the participation.

2. That it is okay not to take on ALL roles in a collective, instead to nourish and nurture your own strengths. The importance of trust when collaboration is vital.

3. Technology does not exist in performance to sabotage or disrupt, technology can be used to enhance your practice, as well as create stunning theatrical images.

Overall this has been an enjoyable experience, at moments it was difficult but our nature as a collaborative meant we able to work through the difficulties. We were able to develop our own individual practices, in order to create a Live Event which non of us had an previous experience in. To me this process has been a success, and a project to be proud of.

#collaboration #billyiswriting #reflection

Costumes for the Live Event.

Participatory Culture #5

Rewriting Macbeth was a difficult task, as not only was I rewriting the play, but I was also condensing and modernising. To communicate with the collaborative what writing I was producing, we used the net as a forum to share our work. Every time I wrote or developed a piece of the score, I would upload the file onto the Facebook group which we were all a part of. By uploading the item on to the group this allowed the roles to shift and change, it also allowed my other fellow collaborators to add and develop the script as they wished. We were using the net as a participatory activity. Mirko Tobias Shafer recognises the conduct in this on-line way of working. In relation to Henry Jenkins he claims there are 5 modes for the cultural production which we were undertaking.

‘This participatory culture is defined by Jenkins’ as a new mode for cultural production:

1. With relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement

2. With strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations with others

3. With some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices.

4. Where members believe that there contributions matter

5. Where members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least, they care what other people think about what they have created). Not every member must contribute, but all must believe that they are free to contribute, but all must believe they are free to contribute when ready and that what they contribute will be appropriately valued (Jenkins et al, 2006:7)

All 5 of these points related to our on-line relationship during the process. When working with collaborators based in different places it’s so important that the only form of communication isn't in the rehearsal space, but that there is a continuous and constant route of communication. In response to Shafer and Jenkins modes for cultural production I wrote five modes which applied to our process.

Our participatory culture is created through the medium of Facebook, to build and create a participatory and creative way of collaborating;

1. The access is readily available; it is a constant on each persons at all times. As a collective we have no reasons why we cannot access our own or each other’s creativity.

2. We will support each-other by sharing our creative work with each other, and allowing each other to adapt and change if we feel it appropriate

3. During the research process if we should find any materials which will suit other members of the group rather than just our own then we shall share it here, in order to support the collective’s progression.

4. It is confirmed that all contributions matter, whether it is an ultimate part of the process or documentation

5. As individuals we all have the choice whether to use the forum as a platform to share, there is no expectation for every member of the collective to be involved in every post.

Collaboration as a company is not solely about each person involved, this is the bare minimum, there are always extra and integral components to support the collaborative process. Using the net was just one way in which we chose to do this. The net is embedded in the society we live in; Facebook was not the only mode in which this is translated. We experimented by collaborating with other social mediums such as FaceTime. When the idea of projection was first established within the piece we experimented with the liveness of this, FaceTime is a live entity which we were able to bring into the space through projection. There were difficulties with this, due to interception from different modes of technology. So, although the notion of FaceTime did not translate to the final piece, it is key to recognise that social media and social communication was a large part of our process. As stated previously Facebook was just one mode of collaboration which we chose to work with, collaboration with the Macbeth script was another obvious one. However it must be recognised that we collaborated with many other items to make this piece; the Ipad, the space, the lighting, the setting, all of these things were integral to our process, and if these had not been available ‘Billy is Writing’ would have existed in a completely different process. I believe that it is not just the people we interact with that are important during collaboration, but its also the parts hold the collective together, although these parts a small and intricate, they are still important and it is just as important to understand these relationships, as it is to understand the relationships of collaborating practitioners.

‘Such objects also function to remind us that in the encountering of props, bodies, technologies, sounds, texts and televisual/film images in these performances, we not only confront their various material presences but the wider social and public histories that have formed them as well’ (Quick; 2007 P.71)

Rehearsing Act 3; Hand Washing (Inspired by Bruce Nauman)

‘with both ‘Primitive streak’ and ‘Mental’ there was no overall planned structure to the process of creative collaboration that made sense; the whole thing was run on instinct. You kept pushing forward. A problem comes up, you solve it, you keep pushing forward and it is very much an active juggling to keep the whole thing in the air. The process of getting to the final product is quite invisible, even though you try to unpick it all the time’

Storey & Joubert in Littleton & Miell; 2004, P.41

#collaboration

Role of the Director #4

‘Sometimes the leader has no official recognition; sometimes the leadership rotates from one member to another; often the leader is also a performer.’ (Shank in Schneider & Cody;2002 P.235)

In the earlier stages of the process the question of ‘director?’ had been approached several times. I never enter a process with the desire to be the director however I tend to fall into this role quite often. In fact other practitioners I work with tend to give me this title rather than myself. When collaborating with Simon, Jess and Yanzhe, I found there was an equal weighting between each role. The lack of hierarchy allowed us to learn from each other in order to progress. Being the natural leader I am, I found more than often that I would take on a directorial position; however I would never claim that this was my position in the group. I would however, say that at some point we all played the role of director. We consciously made an effort to play with the concept of ‘no-director’, similarly to that of Gob Squads working relationship. To clarify - the perception of ‘no-director’ is that, the role of director isn’t defined by a singular member in the group. Instead the role is shared throughout; this is dependent on circumstance or skill set. When working in a complementary collective a shared role is a natural occurrence, whereas working in a more hierarchal format such as traditional theatre, you will find this is not the case. The actual term ‘director’ is only familiar to me outside of an Avant Garde setting. To elaborate on what I wrote previously about never choosing to be the director, I suppose what I’m trying to illuminate here is that the term director doesn’t really come in to my day to day practice. At points within the process I found there wasn’t just four practitioners sharing the role of director, but also a fifth element too. Working with technology became restrictive; there were points within our process where we weren’t able to develop certain acts until certain parts were in place. It was almost as though the technology took on a directorial status within our process, especially in the later stages. Certain moments of the piece were compromised due to the technology disturbing the work. I fell into the role of director during the earlier stages of creation; I have had previous experiences of working with smaller ensembles. Therefore I was able to recycle and develop workshops to suit the style of the collaborative. The first workshop I lead was a development on an exercise we did with Avra Sidiropoulous. For Avra’s workshop we were individually asked to bring one scene from Macbeth to the session, to begin with we were asked to imagine what the scene would look like. Imagine miniscule details such as: what it smelled like, or what we could hear, things which seemed out of our reach to create in a theatrical space. I found this particularly interesting, as what Avra was asking us to do was think limitlessly, and then we would have to reign ourselves back in. As a director, I believe it isn’t our job to recreate, it is our job to represent, it’s not what can we hear, but what we can’t and it all belongs to the atmosphere we aim to create.

Within my version of the workshop, I asked all my fellow collaborators to sit in separate places within the space, with a pen and paper. We sat in silence, and then slowly we went through each act imagining what each act would do, if we had the power to do anything we wanted. Individually we wrote our ideas down, and once we had gone through each act we met back together in the centre of the space. From here we individually pitched the ideas we had during the task. It was interesting at this point to see how our practices already blended. Although there were definitely four very different versions of Macbeth being described, there were also moments of similarity developing. It was these moments of what Goat Island would describe as ‘collisions’ where our piece began to construct.

‘And I have and you have looked at the same thing and seen something different and now through your reflection I see it again and note a third thing: A collision and the collision interests me more than what you brought in and yet I don’t understand the collision. But it gives me ideas. And construction begins.’ [Goat Island; 2000 P.26]

We constructed together as a collective our version of Macbeth, and as the process progressed we picked out the strongest images and moments to create ‘Billy is Writing’

Claire Bishop states that ‘Collaborative creativity is understood both to emerge from and to produce a more positive and non-hierarchal social mode’ (Bishop;2006 P.12) within our collective I definitely found this. However I was dubious as in previous experiences within the theatre industry I know that this is not always the case. At points I have found myself stubborn and difficult when working in the collective. As an artist I feel still unsure of my practice, or at least what defines my practice. In cases I have found myself trying to take on all the roles, instead of nurturing my own skill set in order to learn from others. However working with Simon, Jess and Yanzhe, I found the rhizomatic environment to be more productive, more engaging and more inviting. The trustworthy nature of our group allowed us to work independently through the process, however if some reason one member of the collective wasn’t working at the level required then we found the comfortable nature of the group allowed us to speak out about the problem without fear of someone being defensive or argumentative.

#director #performance #billyiswriting

Rehearsing Act 5; The Battle

Writing the piece #3

‘The important thing I find about collaboration is the necessity to be mutually vulnerable and there can be no high arguments of who is more important than the other. Whether you are the instigator of the project or not, there has to be a levelling of personality that goes on. There has to be an authentic acceptance of this fact, because you both decide to be equal in it. Then you have each other to the edge of what you individually thought you were capable of.’ (Storey & Joubert in Littleton & Miell; 2004 P.47)

Working in a collective with such a wide and versatile range of skills proved itself to be influential; we were able to learn from each other in order to develop our own practices. Within the collective we each assigned ourselves roles; my role was ‘writer’. In my own practice I enjoy and excel at putting together scripts and scores, these work as backbones to support and carry the process. Within my individual process I tend to write the score prematurely and through moments of improvisation and technical enhancements, I add and build.

We decided to begin working with Macbeth after partaking in a directing workshop with Avra Sidiropoulou. We found Macbeth to be a neutral piece of text, it’s social and popular position in the entertainment industry meant that we were all familiar with the play to some extent. It also meant there would definitely be an angle from which we’d all be able to approach. The other writer within the process was Jess, as writers we have two very different writing styles. Within this project I found myself recycling the themes from Macbeth to produce the narrative, whereas Jess worked on rewriting moments of monologues and texts from the script of Macbeth.

‘collaborators’ identities can remain distinct over the course of the collaboration, contributing their particular strengths and taking the lead at different stages, as tends to occur in complementary collaborations; one writer might be stronger in action and the other in emotional insights’ (Meill and Littleton; 2004 P.14)

Miell and Littleton reference the notion of complementary collaborations, as a collective I felt that all our roles complimented each other. Moments where this definitely applied, was when writing with Jess. Again like Miell and Littleton exemplify one writer may be ‘stronger in action and the other in emotional insights’, this statement could not describe mine and Jess’s relationship better. My style of writing is directorial and nondescript, I write about reality and find it difficult to write metaphorically, hence making me ‘stronger in action’. Jess on the other hand has a creative and delicate tone to her writing; she also has the incredible skill of being able to intertextually weave metaphorical autobiography into classic texts (like Macbeth), revamping these texts to add a modernised ‘emotional insight’. At the beginning of the process Jess went through each act of Macbeth and pulled out the themes and strong images which she felt should be acknowledged in each act. From this I began to build a performative narrative that would be carried through the piece in each individual act. The text I wrote was a blend of the imagined performance of Macbeth, and the actual performance of Macbeth. There was slippage between the fantasy and the reality; I played on the fantasy version of Macbeth by remembering and recalling recognisable images from the play. As stated previously, the status of Macbeth in the entertainment industry is huge, and so by blending the popular images into my original text, allowed them to become simulacrum's for the audience to identify with when partaking in the live event.

#writing #billyiswriting #collaboration

A critical reflection upon the processes of my work over the past seven years highlights the following 9 themes: 1. Motivation 2. Cross-disciplinarity 3. Recognition of value 4. Fear of risk-taking 5. Relationship of trust 6. Intimacy and mutual vulnerability 7. Facilitating collaboration 8. Ownership 9. Identity and personal growth

‘9 Themes of Collaborative Work’ Storey & Joubert in Miell & Littleton;2004 P.42.

A sample audience during the rehearsal process.

#rehearsal #interactive #billyiswriting

Role of the Audience #2

Gareth White describes and introduces the idea of audience participation as ‘One of the most misconceived, unproductive and excruciating of the avant-garde’s blind alleys, or otherwise as evidence of the childish crassness of popular performance’ (White;2013 P.1) and at the beginning of this process I couldn’t agree more. From my experience of watching Theatre; the thought of audience participation used to make me recoil in fear. However at this point in my career it must also be considered that the only audience participation I had really experienced was that from my peers in a university context. I’d consider myself a naturally confident performer, so it may seem strange for me to have an opinion on audience participation as strong as this. As a performer and as an audience member I feel comfortable and confident when I know my role, the slippage between viewer and producer only makes me feel self-conscious and to be honest quite awkward.

My individual work tends to sit in the field of autobiography where I choose and allow the audience to be passive, I ask nothing of them other than to sit and engage with the performance. Already at the early stages of the process, collaboration was already having an effect on my individual practice, I was being asked to comprise a stationary element of my practice.

Early in the process I was quite defensive, asking negative questions such as ‘Why would I want to put an audience through participation?’ However after discussions with my peers and the module director I began to warm to the idea. A pivotal moment of mind changing happened, when as a collective we visited London to see the performance ‘A House Repeated’ by Seth Kriebel and Zoe Bouras at Battersea Art Centre ( 2015). For me the performance began to change my perceptions, it was a simplistic piece of participatory theatre. Although that dull sense of awkwardness was present whilst watching the piece, Bouras and Kriebel seemed to create a sense of unity with the audience. Although there was a natural sense of hierarchy and it was obvious the two performers were in complete control, it didn't feel so separate. They explained on entrance the role in which the audience would play this confidence and assurance allowed me to relax and understand my role as an audience member. Assurance and audience management is key when making a piece of participatory theatre. I believe that if the performers lack confidence in the role of the audience, then in turn there’s a risk of the audience also being unsure hence creating a situation that could potentially sabotage the performance.

The role of the audience in the live event of ‘Billy is Writing’ has the potential for them to become co-authors and co-performers as they interact with, and shape the performance. I wouldn't go as far as to say the audience define the work instead through their interaction, they play with the material and shape the end product (in so far as the live event can be considered an end product). As performers and creators it is our responsibility to translate this. As writer it was my task to sit and actually establish the rules of the game. I sat with Simon and discussed the programme* he had written, to begin we made a list of actions that were integral for the piece to work. We tried and tested these rules out with a small audience, the feedback was good and they explained that the rules were clear. However something that really affected this was the way in which we delivered the rules. By scripting these rules, the delivery became rigid and lacked the relaxed atmosphere that we craved to create. Taking feedback from peers and lecturers into account, it was suggested that we actually used the rules as guide rather than a script. The idea of this made me feel nervous; the risk of performing the rules unscripted meant that there was a chance we would miss an essential element out.

Dorothy Miell and Karen Littleton discuss how risk-taking is a major part of collaboration, they claim ‘Risk- taking is an inherent part of creative work although: ‘a mutual relationship of trust’ is recognised as being ‘key when collaborating creatively’ (Miell, Littleton; 2004 P.46). The ‘mutual relationship of trust’ has been and continues to be a strong element of our working practice. Moments of dissatisfaction have been sparse as, as collaborators, our bond of trust is incredibly strong. Working in a supportive collaboration such as this has made the idea of risk-taking a lot easier to deal with. As an individual artist this has allowed my practice to progress and gain confidence in the notion of interactivity within performance. I hope the level of trust we have as a collaborative transcends into our relationship with the audience, so that we can create a strong and comfortable environment for the live event to be a success.

‘By spreading the risk, [collaboration] encourages you to take more chances’ (John-Steiner; 2000, P.19)

*The Programme: based on an iPad, the programme was made up of five buttons, each button represented an act. Each button would also send a live instruction to Tom (the technician); here he would alter the lights and the sound to suit each act. The iPad was given to the audience at the beginning of the performance and it is this which determined the order of the performance.

#audience #interaction #participation #performance #billyiswriting

1. Find a structure where every voice is heard. 2. Work from people's strengths. Make sure everyone is challenged creatively. 3. Work toward complexity rather than simplicity. 4. Do not expect to understand everything intellectually or rationally while creating. 5. Come to rehearsal with a fragment not a completed idea. Though the group process, the idea comes to completion. 6. Balance talking with doing. 7. Begin the collaborative process with showing material each member has created rather than telling each member about an idea that has not been created. 8. Try different approaches to the rehearsal process. For example, each member takes responsibility for one portion of the rehearsal. 9. When confronting problems during the process, do a different activity together. Take a walk, go to the zoo or see a movie. 10. Describe to each other how each individual in the group approaches art making when working alone. This helps in developing an understanding of their aesthetic position. 11. Be willing to try everyone's ideas even if you have an instant dislike to those ideas. 12. If you have no connection to someone else's material and are having trouble performing it, try to expand your vision to include and learn from it.

‘Collaborative Methods’ from Goat Island School Book 2 (2000)

#goatisland #collaborative #methods

Building the score, and introducing objects.

#objects #scripts #scores #ribbon #billyiswriting #performance #rehearsal

The Collective & Collaboration #1

Collaboration is the nature of several separate parts that come together through the notions of negotiation and composition in order to produce something new. To some extent it could be argued that most creative forms are continuously fashioned from a source of collaboration. As artists we are constantly borrowing, reshaping, constructing and de-constructing influences that already exist in the world around us. We are constantly colliding and collaborating with other parts in order to reform something new, essentially this could be described as recycling.

The task that has been set for this module involves three main directives, these are;

1. To develop and understand strategies and procedures of collaboration

2. To understand ways of compositional making within a collective

3. To be reflective, reflexive and aware of relationships between the collective, and other theatrical devices.

I will be attempting to fulfil this task by working in a collective made up of myself and three other practitioners.

Initial thoughts about the collective;

Simon Bedwell

I have consistently worked with Simon over the past four years, our practices are entirely different, and we are both conscious of this. However this is something that has always seemed to work in our favour. Simon is a lighting and stage designer, two areas of theatre production where I lack intelligence. We have collaborated in many different ways in a variety of productions. We have collaborated as a pair and we have also collaborated as a part of a larger company. From my experience of working with Simon at this point in my career, I know he is a practitioner I can completely trust. I know he has the ability to support and guide me through areas where I may struggle.

Jess Chaney

There has been two moments in which I and Jess have collaborated together. Both were professional productions that were in collaboration with Professor Claire Hind and Gary Winters. However these collaborations did not require either of us to have particularly integral parts of the making, instead we collaborated as performers. I have frequently watched Jess’s work and understand that she is a writer, like me, which comes as a great comfort.

Yanzhe Zhao

At the beginning of the module I have never met Yanzhe, as he is an international student from China. As we have had no experience of working together it is important that we discussed and conversed about each other’s experiences in theatrical styles and making. I understood from early in the process that perhaps our styles were very different. However it was also an element that excited and intrigued me, as it is these moments of difference which make collaborating more challenging and interesting. Working with Yanzhe also made me feel a sense of responsibility to offer him what Mark Jeffrey would call a ‘gift’ (School Book 2, Goat Island 2000) of my practice and in return Yanzhe to accept this gift and offer an element of his .

‘The act of receiving, and the acceptance of a gift is an important philosophy we adhere to, especially in the practice of our artwork. Through receiving one can attach many different levels, how to be influenced, to take on others’ thoughts as presents and reinterpret into your mind and body. Once the digestion of the gift has been articulated in oneself then we begin to understand the nature and the power of sharing. Taking forward information given. This idea of ownership becomes a wider participation, and one of interaction and creativity with others’ Mark Jeffrey ( Goat Island;2000 P.107)

#collaboration #collective #billyiswriting

Bennis and Biederman wrote of how members of 'Great Groups' are liberated for a time, from the prison of the self. I would add further that taking risks, buoyed by collaborative support, contributes to a developing, changing self. Through collaboration we can transcend the constraints of biology, of time, of habit and achieve a fuller self, beyond the limitations and the talents of the isolated individual.

(John-Steiner 2000 P.188)

Workshop: Introducing chairs into the space for 'Act 3' of Billy is Writing

#chairs #workshop #performance

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

BILLY IS WRITING