The lighting workshop was a real interesting and helpful way of experimenting with not just lights but with space and tech. The workshop made me aware about the importance of the spatial relationship between the audience and the performer. In the workshop, there were experimentations of how the position of the performer to the audience affected the dynamic of the audience-performer relationship. Previously, I had never considered the importance of where the performer is stood in relation to when the audience are entering the space. I thought that the performer standing close to the audience and somewhat interacting with them was really interesting to watch. This was something that I aim to replicate in my performance. Often, in performances, performers will not engage with audiences at any level during the ‘preset’ of the performance. Of course, this depends on the style and genre of the show / play being performed. Yet, when something is happening on stage, I always expect something to occur between what the performer is doing on stage during the ‘preset’ to when I am sitting down in the auditorium. This dynamic allows the performer to engage with the audience immediately. It sets the tone for the show. The tone would be something that might ease an audience without having a ‘fourth wall’ impeding on audience-performer interactions.

In the lighting workshop, I wanted to explore the use of lights that isolated certain areas of the space. The lights that I was keen to use were spotlights and corridor lights. Spotlights allows for focus to be drawn immediately to an object or performer. The experiments with the corridor lights to a square spot and a hidden spotlight hidden amongst a wash of other lights were thought-provoking with regards to designing my own show. I decided that I wanted a spotlight on a shredder that would be placed centre stage in this current stage design:

Diamond Formation in the round

This stage design was developed out of the lighting workshop. Previously, I had wanted to stage the show end-on. However, on reflection, this wouldn’t suit the type of show that I wanted to create. Nor would it test my ability to be unique with the show. Firstly, I wanted the show to be in the round, in a square formation. Then I wanted it in a thrust style, remaining in the square. In the lighting workshop, I experimented, with the aid of my tutor, to create a diamond shape which now serves as my current stage design. This design took me by surprise, even though it was a simple moving and re-angling of the orientation of the chairs. Automatically, I knew that this formation was perfect for the show. This due to its unique formation and it’s ability to be a diverse playing space.

With regards to the shredder, I would like it to be placed in the centre of the space with a spotlight angled down onto its position throughout the entirety of the performance. I would like to colour the spotlight red and / or orange. The colour, as well as the physical presence of the shredder would help to symbolise and give the impression that, that is more than just a shredder and instead, serves as a metaphorical representation for a bonfire.

Shredder as ‘firepit’

Experimenting with space and lighting has been useful for the development of the show. It, along with my themes, provides a springboard for material to be created for the show. The lighting workshop was a useful way of experimenting and testing ideas not just with lights and space but with projection too.

In the show, I wanted to explore the idea of the three figures of Savonarola, Goebbels and Trump morphing out of me. I want to act as a canvas for projection. I experimented with this in the lighting workshop. I had one of my peers, Jordan, act as the ‘model’ for the projection so I could see what it looked like.

From left to right: Goebbels, Trump, Savonarola.

The amalgamation of faces mapped onto Jordan’s face is quite haunting and effective. I was hesitant about whether it was going to work as I was not convinced that a projector could just project onto somebody’s face. In order to make the projection more effective I think that I will paint my face white for the performance. This will make the projection clearer to see on the face. The use of the white face paint should, in theory, mask my identity somewhat. Often, throughout performances that I have done, audience members that have known me have come with preconceptions and associations about who I am as a person. With the face paint and the projection I would like to start to jar with this image. Furthermore, in order to make the projection more visible I will have to be clean shaven, this might be an emotional and arduous process but worthwhile by the end.

Over the past few weeks I have been working solidly towards the show but without any reflections on the blog. This post, along with another will be backdates, looking and reflecting on the show’s progression over the past couple of weeks until present.

This post is titled: ‘Not Being Precious.’ I think that this is something that I have come to realise throughout the entirety of this process and will constantly experience until the run up to the show. In the middle of March I presented my ideas to Donald and Martin (my tutors). The ideas presented were complicated and on reflection there was too much there to constitute a short solo performance. Elements such as Rene Magritte’s The Son of Man jarred with notions behind ‘Cult of Personality’. The reason why it jarred was because looking at the figures, Savonarola, Goebbells and Trump, they do not systematically hide anything, so to speak. What you see is what you get with these men and this is why The Son of Man image jarred.

I also felt that in rehearsal I was trying to force elements in the show that were there for the effect rather than for a specific purpose in ‘forwarding’ the show’s progression. With this, I aimed to force in EVERYTHING, which is why my initial ideas were jarring and juxtaposed each other; thereby making it seem complicated.

In addition to these thoughts I also got very side-tracked with relation to researching practitioners and their work. Notably Tim Crouch. My favourite Tim Crouch show is An Oak Tree and on reflecting on my rehearsals in March, I also started to replicate elements that he did in his show. I almost wanted my show to be of the same tempo, style as Tim Crouch’s work and this in itself led me into a wall.  I tried to make the show into a Tim Crouch style and it started to fail. The only person that can make a show in a Tim Crouch style is Tim Crouch himself. In this mindset I knew that my show was going to be in a Kieran Spiers style and not some cheap replica of someone else’s techniques.

Despite me hitting a wall during the middle of March, post meeting with my tutors; I was still wanting to be inspired by Tim Crouch, Simon Mcburney and John Fleck. Rather, I wanted to be inspired by them objectively rather than deeply personal.

From these initial reflections I tried to strip the show right back to its bare bones and focus on what I am actually exploring. I decided that this show was still going to be providing a subtle comment on Savonarola, Goebbels and Trump. It wasn’t going to be a lecture (which is what my initial ideas tried to adhere to). I wanted to look into what connects these ‘characters’ and not just through the ‘Cult of Personality’ By stripping back the show I was able to remove the ‘skin’ of it. It allowed me to see what I could take out (I.e: what as now irrelevant) and what I could keep and/or develop. The staging of the show was a large change. From the outset, I had wanted it to be end-on. To have a table, a music stand as a lectern and play around with the idea of changing costume on stage. I decided against having it being end-on, as I felt that it needed to be a show that immersed the audience within the spectacle. I wanted the show to be in the round, but a box. The audience on all four sides, similar to a square.

Vanity

I decided that what connects these individuals, and in the broader context of dictatorial figures in history, is vanity. Vanity is what connects these individuals as they are seemingly so sure of themselves and in awe of their actions and their principals. Despite Savonarola wanting to abolish vanity object in his ‘Bonfire of the Vanities’ that action in itself is, in my opinion, instigated by his own personal vanity of the Christian faith. The more I thought about these figures back in March and even the more I think about them today; I’ve started to realise that I am drawn to these figures in some peculiar way. I think that I am drawn to the because of their audacity to believe in what they create and then exerting that belief onto the general public of the time. I consider myself quite leftist and so my views are naturally against those of Goebbels and Trump. Savonarola is interesting because he existed in a time before Capitalism and Socialism and yet seemed to dominate in an era of what I could only describe as religious Feudalism. Especially in Italy. Yet, his way of ‘control’ and ‘leadership’ was likened, arguably, towards a form of early Socialism. For example, with the ‘Bonfire of the Vanities’ he aimed to dispel and destroy vanity objects. I.e, vanity mirrors, make-up, musical instruments, musical manuscripts, fine dresses, playing cards – anything that were to be deemed immoral or tempt one to sin. The reason for this exorcism of objects, as referenced in my previous blog post, was to eliminate sin. Although the bonfires were orchestrated as events to eradicate sin by destroying objects, there is the possibility that these events have some connection to the destruction of materialism, which, broadly speaking, is asscociated with Socialism / Communism.

It was interesting to view these figures from the light of their political allegiances and whether that contributed to the act of them being vane; which I think that it does and doesn’t at the same time. I feel that the idea of power, certainly goes to peoples’ heads. Not just these figures in particular but it can relate to all people. With this thought in mind, it led me onto the ideas surrounding Megalomania, or, as it is commonly referred to now, Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Recently I did some research into the Bonfire of the Vanities that occurred in Florence in the late 1400s. The first bonfire of the Vanities occurred on the 7th February 1497. The bonfire is a burning of objects which are condemned by authorities as having associations with sin. These objects included vanity items such as mirrors, cosmetics, fine dresses, playing cards and musical instruments. Other targets were books that were deemed immoral. These include works by Giovanni Boccaccio and manuscripts of secular songs.

These bonfires were orchestrated and led by Girolamo Savonarola, an Italian Dominican Friar active in Florence.

Savonarola wanted to destroy secular art and culture and became moral dictator of the city of Florence when the Medici were driven out in 1494. Sent to Florence originally a dozen years before, he made a reputation for austerity and learning. Savonarola’s opponents referred to him and his followers as ‘Snivellers’ and he grimly disapproved of jokes and frivolity, of poetry and inns, of sex, of gambling, of fine clothes and jewellery and luxury of every sort. He denounced the works of Boccaccio, nude paintings, pictures of pagan deities and the whole humanistic culture of the Italian Renaissance. He called for laws against vice and laxity. He put an end to the carnivals and festivals the Florentines traditionally enjoyed, substituting religious festivals instead, and employed street urchins as a junior gestapo to sniff out luxurious and suspect items. During the first  bonfire of the vanities in 1497 he had gaming tables and packs of cards, carnival masks, mirrors, ornaments, nude statues and supposedly indecent books and pictures burned in the street. The friar also disapproved of profiteering financiers and businessmen.

Savonarola made many powerful enemies. Among them was  pope Alexander VI who felt uncomfortable with the Dominican’s denunciation of the laxity and luxury of the Church and its leaders, and who eventually excommunicated the rigorous friar. In 1498 St Mark’s was attacked by a screaming mob and Savonarola was arrested by the Florentine authorities. He along with two friars were  tortured  and condemned as heretics.

On the morning of May 23rd, 1498  a crowd of Florentines gathered in the Piazza della Signoria, where a scaffold had been erected on a platform. Some of the crowd screamed abuse at Savonarola and his two companions, who were formally unfrocked and left in their under-tunics with bare feet and their hands tied. A priest standing near Savonarola asked what he felt his  martyrdom. He answered, ‘The Lord has suffered as much for me.’

Savonarola

The figure of Savonarola is an interesting figure in history. As I see it, he degraded peoples freedom to express themselves by burning objects that he saw as being vainglorious. In the foreword to Selected Writings of Girolamo Savonarola Religion and Politics, 1490 – 1498 Giuseppe Mazzotta, in the foreword, suggested that “Savonarola can be called a moral revolutionary. His vision is broad. Like the reformers who were to follow him, he attacked the dominant paradigms of social life” (Mazzotta, 2006). Savonarola effectively created  an early form of  Cult Of Personality.

Defining Cult of Personality

A cult of personality is created when an individual uses mass media, propaganda or other methords in order to create an idealized, worshipful image. The Sociologist Max Weber developed a ‘tripartite classification of authority.’ Weber defined three types of legitimate political leadership, domination and authority. In his essay The Three Types of Legitimate Rule he wrote about these types of domination. They are characterised as such:

1. Charismatic authority (Character, heroism, leadership, religious)
2. Traditional authority (Patriarchs, patrimonialism, feudalism)
3. Legal authority (modern law and state, bureaucracy)

The ‘cult of personality’ holds parallels with what Weber defined as ‘charismatic authority’. It relates to divinisation and the etymology of the word probably derives from England around 1800-1850. Then it had no political connotations but was related instead to ‘cult of genius’  ‘Cult of Personality’ and ‘personality cult’ were popularized by Nikita Khrushchev’s speech On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences which was given on the final day of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, February 25, 1956, which criticised the idealisation and worship of Josef Stalin.

How Cult Of Personality works with my initial show ideas

Most dictators had their own cult of personality with which they used in order to control culture and the media. It was also created because those leaders created a following that idealized and worshipped them. What I am looking for in performance is a link between Savonarola’s cult of personality to other prominent events and figures with which this way of ‘governing’ is applied to change and adapt popular opinion, as well as the diminishing of free speech, free thinking and expression of cultural identity.

From Savonarola, to Nazis and to Trump

As said, Savonarola, in my opinion, created an early form of Cult Of Personality through the  bonfire of the vanities. From researching the bonfires it led me to the book burnings that took place in Germany in 1933, orchestrated by the Nazis.

The Nazi book burnings was a campaign that was conducted by the German Student Union to burn books in Nazi Germany and Austria during the 1930s. The books that were targeted were considered subversive or they represented ideologies that were opposed to Nazism. In 1933 the German Student Union proclaimed action against the ‘Un-German Spirit’ which was to cleanse literature by fire – ‘Säuberung’. On the 8th of April, 1933, the Student Union drafted the Twelve Theses which called for the purging German literature of Jewish influence.

Against the un-German spirit!

1. Language and literature have their roots in the folk. It is the German Folk’s responsibility to assure that its language and literature are the pure and unadulterated expression of its Folk traditions.

2. At present there is a chasm between literature and German tradition. This situation is a disgrace.

3. Purity of language and literature is your responsibility! Your Folk has entrusted you with the duty of faithfully preserving your language.

4. Our most dangerous enemy is the Jew and those who are his slaves.

5. A Jew can only think Jewish. If he writes in German, he is lying. The German who writes in German, but thinks un-German, is a traitor! The student who speaks and writes un-German is, in addition, thoughtless and has abandoned his duties.

6. We want to eradicate lies, we want to denounce treason, we want institutions of discipline and political education for us the students, not mindlessness.

7. We want to regard the Jew as alien and we want to respect the traditions of the Volk.

Therefore, we demand of the censor:
Jewish writings are to be published in Hebrew
If they appear in German, they must be identified as translations.
Strongest actions against the abuse of the German script
German script is only available to Germans.
The un-German spirit is to be eradicated from public libraries

8. We demand of the German students the desire and capability for independent knowledge and decisions.

9. We demand of German students the desire and capability to maintain the purity of the German language.

10. We demand of German students the desire and capability to overcome Jewish intellectualism and the resulting liberal decay in the German spirit.

11. We demand the selection of students and professors in accordance with their reliability and commitment to the German spirit.

12. We demand that German universities be a stronghold of the German Folk tradition and a battleground reflecting the power of the German mind.

Between April and May the students burned around 25,000 ‘Un-German’ books. At meetings places, students threw the books into bonfires during ceremonies that included live music, singing, ‘fire oaths’ and incantations. Something no so dissimilar from the bonfire of the vanities.

Here is a video of Goebells’ speech to the students at the bonfire in 1933:

Here is the translation:

“The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism has come to an end and the German revolution has again opened the way for the true essence of being German. This revolution was not started at the top, it burst forth from the bottom, upwards. It is, therefore, in the very best sense of the word, the expression of the will of the Volk. There stands the working next to the bourgeois, student next to soldier and young worker, here stand the intellectuals next to the proletariat.

During the past fourteen years while you, students, had to suffer in silent shame the humiliations of the November Republic [i.e.: the Weimar Republic, transl. note], your libraries were inundated with the trash and filth of Jewish “asphalt” literati.

While scholarship gradually isolated itself from real life, the young Germany has re-established new conditions in our legal system and normalized our life.

The movement which in the past attacked the state has now penetrated the state, indeed even more so, it as become the state. And with that that German spirit has achieved quite different possibilities of effectiveness. Revolutionary elan and revolutionary energy which were experienced by German youth during the past years have now become the tempo and elan of the whole nation.

Revolutions that are genuine stop at no boundaries. No area must remain untouched. Just as it revolutionizes people it also revolutionizes things.

Therefore, you are doing the right thing as you, at this midnight hour, surrender to the flames the evil spirit of the past. There the intellectual basis of the November Republic is crushed to the ground. But from the rubble will arise victoriously the Phoenix of a new spirit, a spirit that we carry forth, that we nourish and to which we give decisive weight.

I believe that never before was a group of youthful students as justified as you are to be proud of your life, proud of your tasks and proud of your duty. Never before had young men the justification to exclaim with Ulrich von Hutteng [German author, 1488-1523, transl. note]: ‘Oh Century, Oh Sciences, it is a joy to be alive!’

Barriers that separated us are torn down. Volk has reunited with Volk. And if old people do not understand this — we young ones have already completed the process.

The old past lies in flames; the new times will arise from the flame that burns in our hearts. Wherever we stand together, wherever we march together, we want to dedicate ourselves to the Reich and its future.

As we did so often, while we were still fighting in the opposition, now that we hold the power, and with it the responsibility, we join together in the vow that we previously so often promised to the nightly sky: ‘illuminated by many flames let it be an oath! The Reich and the nation and our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler – Heil.”

Translated by Dr Roland Richter
(Richter, 2017)

This speech is fascinating and in rehearsal I attempted to blur this text along with the inauguration speech made by Donald Trump. Trump over his Presidential campaign and even during his current presidency has managed to create his own ‘cult of personality.’ This was generated through his online twitter presence for the majority. His tweets, which are on average 3 – 4 per day are seemingly very preachy in nature. They proclaim the ‘greatness’ of America, the ‘greatness’ of the lord and most importantly – ‘Let’s make America great again.’

More recently, Trump has spoken out against the media and has subsequently tried to control the media and what they say about not only Trump but his campaign. Last week, Trump was issuing a statement at the White House and journalists from the major news organisations was turned away by a spokesperson at the White House.

Furthermore, Trump issued a travel ban which aimed to ban Muslims coming into the country over a temporary period. This all helps to create the ‘cult of personality’ in a very subtle, less dictatorial way.

What I want to achieve in performance?

In my solo performance, I want to explore the relationship between Savonarola and the bonfire of the vanities in 1497 to the Nazi book burnings led by the German Student Union and Goebbels in 1933 and then looking at how these events relate to how we can understand Trump and his inauguration speech, and the diminishing of culture and freedom of speech in 2017. 

I would like the show to be minimalist but visceral. Despite it being minimal I’d like to explore a very surreal undertone. I am looking at Tim Crouch and Chris Goode as performance practitioners who I find their work interesting and inspiring. Crouch’s My Arm, to me, is a simple, minimal show. It has a surreal-like undertone. It questions authenticity, it features characters through the use of objects and yet Crouch remains, to a degree, himself. This is similar to An Oak Tree in which Crouch plays himself throughout. He engages with the audience in a very imaginative, very meta-theatrical way. The show itself is minimal. There is practically no set. Everything is established through words between him and the ‘Actor’.

I have been avoiding replicating Crouch’s style, and yet I find myself drawn to the delivery of An Oak Tree. Specifically, I love the way he engages with the audience and the way that he brought up an audience member to engage with him on stage. This is something that I find interesting, but might not explore in the show. However, I feel that the performance could lend itself towards a discussion between me as ‘The Performer’ to an audience member who is ‘The Participant’

These concepts will be broadened and explored further in a following blog post.

Bibliography

Borelli, A, Passaro, M.P, Beebe, D. (2006) Selected Writings of Girolamo Savonarola Religion and Politics, 1490 – 1498. Yale University.

History. (2017). Dr.Goebbels – 1933 , Speech to students against un-german books ,(HD) ,2.1.. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Ewr6tWTmE [Accessed 8 Mar. 2017].

Richter, R. (2017). When Books Burn: Speeches, May 10, 1933. [online] Library.arizona.edu. Available at: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/goebbels.htm [Accessed 8 Mar. 2017].

Freedom of speech: (Noun) “the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.”

Over the past two weeks I have been consolidating my initial ideas for performance. The poetry I had written during the first few weeks of my process has, from assessement, a subtle political undertone regarding free speech. About speaking out and having a voice. This has since led me to reconsider the poem 1st September 1939 by W.H. Auden. In particular the last two stanzas:

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

  Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame

In bold I have highlighted the sections of these stanzas that really stand out to me. These lines in particular create images in my head and might be used in more that one way in performance. In essence the performance that I want to create will, broadly speaking, be inspired by notions surrounding Freedom Of Speech.

The Son Of Man

Rene Magritte. Son Of Man

Rene Magritte’s The Son Of Man is another influence that I found interesting when considering the notions surrounding freedom of speech. The painting is said to be a self portrait of Magritte and despite the fact that the majority of his face is hidden by the green apple one can just about distinctly notice the left eye protruding from the blocking fruit. Of the painting, and of the apple itself, Magritte said this:

At least it hides the face partly well, so you have the apparent face, the apple, hiding the visible but hidden the face of the person. It’s something that happens constantly. Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see. There is an interest in that which is hidden and which the visible does not show us. This interest can take the form of a quite intense feeling, a sot of conflict, one might say, between the visible that is hidden and the visible that is present.

                                                                                                         (Anon, 2017)

Drawing attention to the section highlighted in bold, we are in a very media led society. The media controls how we think and how we operate, broadly speaking. The media shows us the news or a politician tells us something. This ‘information’ hides yet more deep-seated information which the ‘informer’ knows about but doesn’t make reference to. So in effect Magritte speaks true of this concept when he suggests “Everything we see hides another thing.” We are a more speculative society. With access to online archives, social media platforms we are able to process and discover lots of information. Which is hidden or otherwise presented outwardly. “we always want to see what is hidden by what we see” is something that resonates in today’s society. The media shoves information and news in our faces. Information that becomes incredibly biased depending on the political allegiances that, that media organization is linked with. Typically this tends to be geared towards showing us a middle-class, conservative viewpoint. They present us ‘news’ that hides the actual ‘facts and figures’ that we need and want to know. This is how I interpret the painting in relation to modern society.

I have since been thinking about stage images about how to start the show. I am thinking of starting the show posed and dressed similar to Magritte in his painting. It would be a very surreal moment to start the show. In order to create the apple effect I would like that use a projection of a green apple straight onto my face that covers it. The apple can have religious connotations with knowledge in relation to the story of Adam and Eve. Knowledge and free speech work hand in hand and whilst this image plays out visually I would want to have a recording of myself speaking the two final stanzas of 1st September 1939 underscored by some synth-like strings.

Bibliography:

Anon, (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.quora.com/What-does-Rene-Magrittes-The-Son-of-Man-mean [Accessed 8 Mar. 2017].