alt + F4 for normal screen






page 231


print this page

exit RELEASE

cog in a mechanism, and that one would get more interest out of simply chatting to them.  In this one often felt extended as a person and often able to operate at one’s best and fullest. Because of our way of working we always operated on the edge beyond which what we did souls be nothing.  It is almost impossible to define what it is that makes a set of events into ‘something’ and why in other conditions it would be nothing.   So often someone would appear to be doing practically nothing and yet it would count, have an impact.  Other less good times one would embark on a seemingly clear activity and yet it would be nothing. Was there any means of taking stock, of criticizing what went on?  Certainly this is the case and the events were subject to the same criteria any art work is subject to. It could be criticized in terms of energy (presence or lack of), awareness, capacity to capitalize on creative opportunity, capacity to carry through ideas, sensitivity to space, weight, movement, imaginativeness, etc. The actual exercise of criticism within the work process was subtle, and I think had to do with one’s trust of the other participants, i.e. one trusted above all their judgment of limitations, of what would be cliché, of what would be interesting of what would be too risky, etc.   Eventually one trusted the others too, to look after themselves and to take responsibility for the whole.  Thus there was no need for leaders or followers, or for dominant members and passive members. How might this work continue?  This is hard to assess, perhaps too soon after the event.  One step will be to try and define what we left out.  Although on the face of it nothing need have been left out, the work, in acquiring its particular characteristics, is bound to reject others.  Because this happens tacitly between participants it is hard to identify at the time, but likely to become more evident in retrospect. NOTES ON “THE LITTLE THEATRE,” MIRANDA TUFNELL Initially I used the character Harmonica to establish a means of interaction, thinking of the accompanying aspect of the Harmonica—a so to be sung while walking—joining in with whatever came along… the characters and the props are the means by which we meet… For me the key to this work has been constantly to be aware in myself of how I need to respond in each particular situation and to get out and away from habits and formulas of response. …the character is whatever happens to it…