well...its been a while on here as realised have been running never walking, assembling thoughts in my notebook and not on here so hence back blogging to follow. sometimes its good to do that, the ole ' in retrospect' dialogue.
So..SPRINT last night I loved. the downstairs space i loved playing around with, and the dynamics of the foyer- precision, image making, generating engaging conversations. Initial feedback verbally was very positive, as I left the participants, I had comments form them such as 'wonderful, thank you.' and 'awesome,' but in my book, only one comment, which was about the way i present myself in a blurb, intentions to be cryptic? this is a long standing problem i have, how much to say, what is too much, and how the theatre audience blurb needs to be considered differently to the art one.how? why? I think the cryptic idea works well, maybe it should be more so, should this have been an entirely unannounced, invisible thing? I remember at Duckie how I was trying to insist that The Darkroom wasn't announced, taking people off through the door marked private etc etc but that the compere insisted, it was part of the vibe there to keep the energy high about the events happening. I thing I need to spend some time looking at this, I also met at EEC 2009 the critical writing guru Rachel Lois Clapham of Open Dialogues whom i should contact. I think it's also hard for me as i do rely on comments becoming documentation, as i don't record the work visually (apart from the relics)- maybe I need to find another platform for gathering?
I need to digest the event for a little while (I'm currently thinking abut what is interaction versus participation in the context of my practice now and in the future- create more open ended work??) , before posting my thoughts, and have another show on Friday (am I mad?) meanwhile, thoughts, suggestions, questions, from the participants or otherwise most welcome, now or once digested too:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment