I had to grow foul with knowledge, realize the futility of everything, smash everything, grow desperate, then humble, then sponge myself off the slate, as it were, in order to recover my authenticity. I had to arrive at the brink and then take a leap in the dark. – Henry Miller
I’ve been dwelling on what this next installment in the reflection might end up being. Questioning whether it’s relevant or practical to document how this work was pieced together and what we were thinking when we made it. I’m not sure it’s really useful to go into great detail, but some rough outlines might be interesting, so this is what we shall work with. The following are the core ideas, questions and meditations that sat at the heart of our work and discussions around the work.
- The choice to live. The reasons to die.
- The choice to die. The reasons to live.
- The seemingly inconsequential details that either drive us towards or keep us from death.
- The futility of memory as tangible saviour. Yearning for a lost time that slips from view each time you (I, they) turn around to grasp it.
- The slow, inexorable death of the theatre.
- The theatre is dead.
- The theatre isn’t dead yet.
- The theatre is dead to us.
- The existential crisis is universal and inevitable.
- It’s all in the mind.
- The existential crisis in performance is universal and intimately familiar.
- The theatre is one, big existential crisis.
- It isn’t really, but sometimes it feels that way.
- There’s an archetype – or a story arc – that illustrates this clearly. Again and again. Why?
- Why are there performers in theatre?
- Why characters?
- What purpose does the character fill?
- What of the role of the audience?
- Why is there an audience?
- What meaning do we place into a performance space?
- What defines a performance? What are the necessary elements? Why?
- Why do we crave Aristotelian structure?
- Why do we yearn to see our selves in the elements of “performance” coalescing on stage?
- Why do we yearn for recognition?
- What is the opposite of that? Is it alienation?
- Why does theatre that does not give some form of pleasure (recognition and/or idealisation of the self) make us (people, you, them, me) so angry?
- Why is the subjective response regarded in the self so often as truth? How can we better understand that in ourselves and in our audiences?
The creation of this work and the curiosity we have with these ideas, when articulated, have caused so very many peers to ask, why we are not pursuing academia. Because surely, theoretics and academic exploration is where these questions and experiments are most at home.
The argument is not lost on me, but I have to ask – why are they not at home in practice and presentation, too? Why do we not have a deep, broad culture of dialogue and experimentation in performance practice outside of academia? In the world of the work, in the face of a public, in a wholly nourished creative sector? Why is it not just that – about the practice?
{ 0 comments }














