Whose Cloud was it anyway? (2010.04.27)
De.bunked was my first attempt at devising, according to my Oxford Minidictionary, the word devise means “plan; invent” (Hawkins 1981: 116). As my level of experience in ‘invention’ of this kind is close to nought, I shall not comment on our devising method, nor our company as a whole, instead, I must reflect on the content, from my observations as an outsider, who had ultimately been placed in a group under the constitution of the course, with the assumption of devising as a collaborative [1] process that thus came with this ideal of a team of creative individuals.
In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Erving Goffman talks about a social environment as a performance with individuals as performers and observers, working as a team. Directors, on the other hand, although start as “a member of the team, may find himself slowly edged into a marginal role between audience and per[formers], half in and half out of both camps” [2] (Goffman 1990: 103). De.bunked was a team of nine, who simultaneously shifted between being a performer and an observer, within a “set of individuals who cooperate in staging a single routine” (Goffman 1990: 85). I shall therefore use the word showings to refer to the performances that we, as a team, generated for the audience who also naturally worked as a team during their time together in the showings, observing quietly from a distance; and I shall use the term- actors, to refer to our two performers who had the freedom to act, react, reenact and interact with each other and with the audience.
The final showing of Whose Cloud Is It Anyway? was on March 9th 2010, it ran from 3pm to 9pm. There was no backstage- all equipments, cables and members of the company were visible. Audience were invited and asked to stay as long as they wanted and contribute as they wished (Douglas O’Connell, one of the scenography tutors, shredded one actor’s notebook that had been carelessly placed next to the shredder, as a statement to warn us to be careful of what we ask of the audience). There was certainly something exciting in the way that things were presented, but what I found most problematic was not that it was set in a black box space, nor was it the fact that we were communicating online when we could have easily talked to each other in person, but the fact that we were dealing with the topic of cloud-computing.
The showing essentially derived from one article [3] from The Guardian that our director read and got obsessed over. We all did some research, read more articles and watched youtube clips, but would we (I) say we were in a position to comment and debate on this subject? No. Were we able to dig deep enough into the truth and offer something challenging and honest in the showings? No. And to me, it is unethical to deceive our audience and to confuse them into thinking that there was more to see in these showings than what was there to look at.
Ultimately, I feel that form is something that could be, and should be experimented explicitly but to shallowly put together content that is based on so few, and multihanded sources is simply not justifiable.
On February 18th 2010, I was asked to write a script over night based on all the discussions that we had had so far. Our main ideas at that point were- ‘traces’, books being digitized (Google Books) and the gradual loss of ‘romance’ with technological advances. Baring in mind the cultural differences between our two actors [4], I wrote a script about two women, for different reasons, working in different areas in a book digitizing warehouse, how by working there, lead them to rethink the romantic notion of having physical objects and human contact. I did the best I could but it was almost immediately rejected when one of our actors claimed to be nauseated by the thought of acting, which I felt, in itself, was a ironically romantic notion.
Having hit a brick wall, we decided to do some improvisation- we were sat around the room and each one of us had a specific task assigned. Our two performers were thrown into the middle of the room to ‘react’ to the Youtube videos that were projected onto screens around the room, sound and lighting were adjusted to create atmosphere. This day, February 25th 2010, was the day when we ‘discovered’ the format (and most) of our showing.
I thought I would use this opportunity to research on my interest in the act of documentation as performance. As recent studies have been about the rivalry between photography and video as the ‘best’ medium for performance documentation, I thought it could be interesting for me to take a step back and use writing.
Paper every fucking where. Who's going to clean it up?
What's there to celebrate anyway.
Fucking confetti for nothing.
Yeah chuck it, throw it, sprinkle it. Why not.
Yeah spinkle it everywhere, even do a little bit of translation in it. Why, not.
Truly reusing waste. Genius.
I'm out.
This was my commentary whilst our performers were throwing shredded paper onto each other, dancing and rolling around on the floor. In the following rehearsals, I tried to interact with our actors with my writing:
ONLY READ ALOUD WORDS IN ""
ONLY RESPOND TO TEXTS AFTER >>
4. You alright? Yeah, just fell over.
5. Clouds in the Bible
6. Virus
7. A chasing lights
>> A, what are you running after?
As I sat behind the small monitor, on my laptop typing this, I knew the chances of anyone coming over and engage with it was very low, but I did so to emphasise my role as a performer as well as an observer.
In the final version, I had developed a system of noting events and also become more focused on details and thus more of a documenter. Audience was greeted by a projection of my documentation on the wall as they entered, it was like Dan Graham’s Present Continuous Past(s) (Appendix A) in some way, that the documentation of the actions that were the performance becomes part of the performance itself.
74. A's music
75. A with headscarf, L with box
76. Protest
77. A's pre-recorded monologue about riot
78. L's poetry to Chopin- use me at your convenience, with shredded paper
In this durational showing, where anyone could come in and go out at anytime, where there was no stage, just a crowded room for everyone to wander around, having this ‘continuous past’ performance i.e. the specific and intended documentation, acting as a focal point for the audience to place themselves immediately in context of the showing at the moment they entered the room, helped reducing the sense of disorientation and confusion.
I would like to point out the fact that there were also two types of video recordings throughout the showing. There were short clips that were elaborately filmed on our performers’ compact digital cameras and laptops, which were uploaded onto Youtube for the actors to immediately reenact and react to; also, there was a camcorder that was hidden in the opposite corner from mine, recording the whole duration of the showing, which, more than “any other form or activity of representation, […] constructed within discourses of documentation and disappearance as at once both the sav[iour] and death of live performance” (Reason 2006: 73). The former type of recording was done solely for the purpose of being put back into the showing; the latter, however, was straightforward video documentation, providing a restricted, dead but raw account of the events, unfortunately, it was unlikely to be of any use thereafter. It bore witness to the parts of the showing where no audience was present, and it contains the evidence of some of the audience reactions, which is theoretically valuable, but it was afterall another product of the obsession to archive.
As a documenter, my position was also, like the director’s, hanging on the fine line between audience and performer. I was simultaneously one of these roles, in both cases, as an outsider, but with differing agendas. The former expects something in return- a question, a feeling or even a gift. She enters naïvely, then observes, ponders and doubts; she then exits, with an objective opinion. The latter, on the other hand, burdened by his duty, must not intervene with the performance of his fellow team members, but rather, to observe from the outside inwards.
Present Continuous Past(s), Dan Graham
The mirrors reflect present time. The video camera tapes what is immediately in front of it and the entire reflection on the opposite mirrored wall.
The image seen by the camera (reflecting everything in the room) appears eight seconds later in the video monitor (via a tape delay placed between the video recorder, which is recording, and a second video recorder, which is playing the recording back).
If a viewer's body does not directly obscure the lens's view of the facing mirror the camera is taping the reflection of the room and the reflected image of the monitor (which shows the time recorded eight seconds previously reflected from the mirror). A person viewing the monitor sees both the image of himself or herself of eight seconds earlier, and what was reflected on the mirror from the monitor eight seconds prior to that–sixteen seconds in the past (the camera view of eight seconds prior was playing back on the monitor eight seconds earlier, and this was reflected on the mirror along with the then present reflection to the viewer). An infinite regress of time continuums within time continuums (always separated by eight-second intervals) within time continuums is created.
The mirror at right angles to the other mirror-wall and to the monitor-wall gives a present-time view of the installation as if observed from an «objective» vantage exterior to the viewer's subjective experience and to the mechanism that produces the piece's perceptual effect. It simply reflects (statically) present time.
(Doug Hall/Sally Jo Fifer: Illuminating Video – An Essential Guide to Video Art, New York, 1990, p. 186)
01. Two girls in black and white rolling around inside a white rectangle on the floor.
02. Shadow puppets- rabbit, hare, boop boop.
03. Intense headache on the right.
01. Arezou holding her knees at the corner of the rectangle.
02. She is holding her face.
03. Rubbing her eyes.
04. "This is business- fast, better, cheaper. This is improvement."
05. She yawns as I yawn.
06. She stares at something ahead of her.
07. "Wabbits"
08. She is on her knees.
09. Cannot see anymore. Fuck it.
One is arranging and the other looking through the remains.
One is talking constantly and the other lying down on the floor.
Nothing to write now.
Bye.
Paper every fucking where. Who's going to clean it up?
What's there to celebrate anyway.
Fucking confetti for nothing.
Yeah chuck it, throw it, sprinkle it. Why not.
Yeah spinkle it everywhere, even do a little bit of translation in it. Why, not.
Truly reusing waste. Genius.
I am the voice of google. I'm wearing black t-shirt and jeans.
Nice ass.Can't see your face both
Nice one. Nice view. Yeah move it.
Do a little dance with the other girls.
Not bad. I like it. Very nice.
I once watched a Czech film about Laputa- the city that floats in the air. One day in a month or is it a year, the people stop talking, Because they think that talking uses too much oxygen and that it would get used up if they keep talking so much.
But that's just the movie.
Mock Run 02/03/10 Afternoon
1. Cloud talk
2. Upbeat music
3. A films L making paper puppets- seaside town/boats postcards
ONLY READ ALOUD WORDS IN ""
ONLY RESPOND TO TEXTS AFTER >>
4. You alright? Yeah, just fell over.
5. Clouds in the Bible
6. Virus
7. A chasing lights
>> A, what are you running after?
8. L directing A- A still chasing lights
9. A moves on the floor
10. CompanyC 1st video
I trip twice a day in average, I can't help it, it's like it's too much effort to lift my feet when I walk. Maybe I need to try harder and actually start paying more attention.
11. Facebook
12. Charlie
13. L falling off chair
14. A's recorded rooftop monologue- headscarf- God, please help us.
15. A's sarcastic laugh was good
ONLY READ ALOUD WORDS IN ""
ONLY RESPOND TO TEXTS AFTER >>
16. librarian and waitress
>> Why are a librarian and a waitress trying to give a lecture?
17. Cloud computing is for disabled people? What?!
05/03/10 de.bunked - 3rd run (final) - WB Performance Studio 2
1. warm up + refreshments
2. IBM cloud ad- looped
3. Arezou's music
4. A + L live feed- paper puppets + notebook
5. beach conversation. L- I'm your father of course... Are you excited to be here?
6. Rolling Stones
Oh hello there, glad you made it.
7. A + L scanning and shredding
8. L's friend Jason in Africa- is cloud culture going to be important to them?
9. blue sweater guy on red sofa Google Books speech
10. where Liz's friend is in Africa does not actually have internet. Oops.
11. ScanTech speech
12. A + L Shakespearean clouds
13. popular youtube video montage
14. A + L making funny noises
15. livefeed- beatboxing
16. happy music for A to dance to
17. L joins
18. Charlie- performers break
19. No light
Lost sight of the performers...
20. A makes more paper puppets
21. one paper protestor on the box
22. A with headscarf, rooftop video
23. L pushes box over for A to stand on
24. protest continues
25. A's pre-recorded monologue about riot
26. A writing something onto paper and throwing them out
Oh HELLO! Look, more people.
27. A + L scanning and shredding
28. internet censorship video
29. A with shredded paper
30. L- Lizzie West... from scanned notes
31. Lizzie West does not have a drinking problem unless she can't get a drink
32. video of dork with guitar
Yeah we want to have fun.
34. L talks about Facebook photos
35. A still with shredded paper
36. video of L doing crazy dance
37. L dances to livefeed with youtube
38. Kate Bush
39. video of Rob's thoughts on our piece
40. A talks to audience
41. Jon & Seven Wombs
42. L copies Prae's yoga routine in video
43. A + L walking and tripping and falling
44. ICA speech sound only
45. Break
46. L shredding
47. postcard video
48. Jazzy music, nice.
49. L's rabbit den story
50. Prae making my tea
51. I cannot see either performers again
52. L looking at timeline
53. broken projector. Shit. have our audience see this, shit.
54. thanks Kristen, bloody demo thing.
55. IBM cloud video- looped
56. Prof. Arezou needs her glasses again!
57. Amie gives definition of cloud
58. L calls A a waitress?
59. Ken doesn't drive
60. Charlie's 2 mins
61. L's classical music- Chopin I think.
62. L's flute duet- Jon joins, A takes photographs
63. L talks about ladybird on the pavement
64. video of A + L beatboxing
65. L raps to eminem- nice hood.
66. A dances to L's rap
This is ace.
They should do open mic night.
67. oh hello Arezou
68. Dirty old man chat
69. silly dance
70. A + L scanning and shredding
71. video of debate on digitising books
72. L explaining to audience about the future
73. rooftop video
74. A's music
75. A with headscarf, L with box
76. Protest
77. A's pre-recorded monologue about riot
78. L's poetry to Chopin- use me at your convenience, with shredded paper
79. video of Rob's thoughts on the piece
80. waiting for upbeat music, come on
81. virus?
82. video of computer virus
83. Oh no, bad remix of a bad song
84. LOUD
85. Jon does weird sound effect on keyboard
86. Chaos
87. A dies?
88. No
89. IBM cloud video again
[1] ”collaborate v.i. work in partnership.” (Hawkins 1981: 79)
[2] The audience is “likely to hold him more responsible than other performers for the success of the per[formance]. The director is likely to respond to this respon[sibility] by making dramaturgical demands on the performers that they might not make upon themselves.” (Goffman 1990: 103)
[4] Elizabeth West is 23, from the U.K. and Arezou Ali is 30, from Iran.
