Friday, 16 January 2015

Vile Arts Roundtable on Live Art... (part 1)

Good evening and welcome to The Vile Arts Roundtable. We've been avoiding this particular discussion for the past day, for reasons that might become clearer as we go on, but I am going to hand you straight over to Mr Criticulous, our host.

Thank you, Gareth. You'll be able to recognise the different speakers by their fonts - I've got a rather dashing Georgia tonight. Our guests will be representing different perspective on our subject, which is Into the New. As a seasoned entertainer, I'll be bringing a few dramaturgical perspectives...

While I'll be commenting on the quality of the ladiez. The kind of Live Art that comes out of the RCS' CPP degree is usually full o burds wiv their kit off.

That, of course, is Mad Cyril, and he has an interest in sexual
representation...

And violence, natch.

And I shall be sitting in the corner mumbling polysyllabic jargon.

Thank you. First of all, a little background. Into the New is the annual showcase for the final year students of the Royal Conservatoire's Contemporary Performance Practice course. Traditionally, it is rooted in live art - in the sense of expanded theatre - and has given us artists like Elaine Black and Nick Anderson. 

And burds wiv their kit off.

I think perhaps we could address that, then, Cyril. You see nudity as being intrinsic to the live art experience?

On the one hand, I reckon it's completely inappropriate to bang on abaht the nudity. We ought to be above checking awt the jubblies, and examine wat the nudity represents. We got to see two naked wemmen this year, and one nuddy bloke. 

In this particular conversation, I think we ought to agree
http://www.sciencedump.com/content/projecting-video-falling-snow
some rules... we won't be mentioning the names of the performers who were naked.


Absolutely: I am more interested in the overall use of the naked body within the context of Into the New, because there is undeniably a consistency between its use in 2015's edition and in previous years.

It's a lazy farkin shortand for emotionally vulnerability, innit?

I think it is also used as a symbol of gender identity, too... it opens up a discourse about essentialism.

So that sort oo was naked and goin about the stage was confrontin the audience with her essential femaleness?

Yes: she was asking questions about what constitutes 'the female'.

And the bloke?

He was doing vulnerability.




No comments :

Post a Comment