Comments on: Straight from the Horse’s Mouth | Autobiography in the theatre

By: Augusta Supple

Augusta Supple — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:04:51 +0000

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for writing in.
I didn’t see all the works (not Tims, nor Jonathan’s – which I didn’t feel I needed to as Kevin Jackson did – you can read his response here: http://kjtheatrereviews.blogspot.com/2011/12/horses-mouth-hell-for-leather.html ) and so I am not going to critique the individual performances – what I am critiquing is my response and my expectation to the idea of autobiography in theatre.
I think you, Patrick, are the best person in this instance to give your perspective on these performances – since you saw them and loved them.
I don’t think I say they are “self-indulgent” at all -certainly not in a perjorative sense.What I am wanting from what I saw, is more SELF – and true self. I don’t mind induldging an artist’s “self” – in fact, I think this critique is calling for the artists to go deeper to provide me with more “self” or “deeper self,” which I felt was missing from the pieces.
That being said, I have heard that, in particular, Zoe Norton Lodge’s piece Possum was absolutely outstanding and something I would very much enjoy – and I am crossing my fingers that she launches it into a larger show for me to enjoy next year.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:56:15 +0000

Hi, could you critique any main shows from festival? I’d be interested in your thoughts about the others. I saw Program A and Program B and found most of the works to be performances for the audience in the best sense. I found Tim Spencer’s brave and very well written, Burns’ show was personal and revealing. You’ve critiqued the group of creators as self-indulgent and haven’t revealed anything substantial, and made some assumptions about their backgrounds. I appreciate this is an account of your emotional response to the festival, but I think the context is being forgotten.

By: Augusta Supple

Augusta Supple — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:44:27 +0000

Hi Alice,
Thanks for your comments – it is interesting to think about why and what we choose to share as artists.

I think, for me as a maker and audience an aspect of “confessional” is important in the idea of autobiographical performance- something which comes forom the artist and which they are compelled to share.
Bec Clarke aired this at the forum as a need to heal or move on from something she had experienced. For me as audience I delight in the reassurance that we are brave in admitting that which we are ashamed of or frightened to admit.

And that is the difference between art and marketing.

Marketing sells us an idea.

Art gives us ideas.

And for me, with something personal, there is always great risk.

Play and playfulness with self and identity is also important – it the essential heart to true clowning. It’s also the sweetest way to deliver a face-numbing punch.

And yes – safe spaces should make for risky art – not safe art- or safe story which is cute or cooly ironic. And risk is important as it shows that we feel the danger of investing in something that MEANS something to us – such as our lives.

I’m sorry i missed Brian’s work. He told me in Septmeber about the work he was doing at tin Sheds Gallery when I went to visit TK Pok – about the storytelling/chinese whispers train and trail he was doing as a work with the other artists in residence – and I found that concept about self and story REALLY very exciting and really fascinating. How does a story change when it is moved between the memory and bosies of other people?

Being direct, being vulnerable, being scared, being honest, being brave, being fearless – risking the opinion of people that know and love you, and people that don’t – all that which you have mentioned pricks up my ears.

And of course being cute, smart, wry whilst being all those things is also fun – but for me, I don’t want the latter if it doesn’t have the former.

By: Alice Williams

Alice Williams — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:10:28 +0000

Hi Gus,
thanks for your interesting piece. I didn’t see the festival. But am interested in the conversation because it touches on something I’m thinking about in my work at the moment too.
When does the democratic speech – sharing anecdotes become self production?
What kind of selves and stories need to be produced for our social and interpersonal health, and what kind of stories limit or market ourselves?
I mean there is nothing wrong with producing and marketing an identity, but there are qualities – vulnerability or risk that can be denied in the process, sometimes even as they are portrayed – in a hip geek sense. I would have loved to see Lucy’s show. She (and of course Phil) does so much to support other people’s work, I imagine her own work would have some aspect of that dead pan practical generosity. Also, I know that the festival was, like you say, full of really interesting people.

I found your piece interesting because it brings up the question of what kind of play is taking place. Which I think is really important. For me, play is always productive. But asking what kind of play it is makes sure theatre remains a place where it is possible for people to play, in a wide spectrum of diverse, vulnerable, bizarre, maybe funny maybe true ways.
That diversity of a genuinely risky, vulnerable but safe place is really vital. So thanks for that.
Also I saw a beautiful performance that Brian Fuata did the other day at nightime that made me feel just that, the sense of openness and direct expression through craft that really redeemed my sense of what is possible in a theatre.

By: Augusta Supple

Augusta Supple — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:38:36 +0000

Hi Benito, I think lives of people are quite dramatic – often without their wish or their design for it to be. i think Andrew Urban’s show FRONT UP proved that.
As far as the work being middle class like my own – well I have to say that I think I have done a great job of social climbing if I come across as from the “middle class.” My major disappointment is twofold –
One is that I know that some of these people who offered work are WAY more interesting and complex than the work suggests.
The other is that I was unengaged with the performance experience. Strangely Benito, I did feel “other” to the experience – I felt like I was not “cool” enough, I felt outside the “gang,” I felt like I felt too much, that I expect too much, that I am boring, that I am too intense, too serious, that I should just go home and let them have their fun. So I did.

By: Benito

Benito — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:15:57 +0000

Correction: should be ‘too much’ not ‘to much.’ Forgive the typo, still on my first breakfast tea.

By: Benito

Benito — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:14:07 +0000

Interesting piece on autobiography Gus. Perhaps your problem was that you were expecting something more dramatic whereas it sounds as though these guys had pretty comfy middle-class lives to much like your own. That there was no ‘other’ to experience. (Although perhaps there always is, and we just aren’t all conscious of it?) I guess this is why fiction exists, as Kafka explained, so as to have something larger than reality available. Perversely I feel that sometimes one requires the absurd, hyper and surreal as a way to safely portray the true inner being.