One to One to None

The work this week has looked at the idea of intimacy as a key component of Live Art. This was with specific reference to, what Dror Harari calls ‘the intimate, one-to-one encounter between performer and viewer.’[1]

Image Source: theconfidentteacher.com

The rise in Intimate Performance, or One-To-One performance pieces has been noted by practitioners, reviewers, and academics, and the Live Art Development Agency in the UK recently published an attempt at a comprehensive study of the burgeoning work.

What follows in this post is not so much a study of the work, per-se, nor a review, as I have never experienced this type of performance myself. It is more of a reflection on my reactions as I read the source material for the seminar (which didn’t take place formally, due to ongoing strike action, however we have arranged as a group to meet later in the week for a discussion of all of the work for the week).

Rachel Zerihan writes evocatively of her experience encountering a particular piece (Kira O’Reilly’s Untitled Action) of Intimate performance: ‘The energy seemed electrified, my fear was paramount as she invited me to sit beside her.’[2] The visceral descriptions of many of the works looked at through the reading affected me forcefully, allowing myself to imagine myself in the situations depicted. It made me feel extremely vulnerable. I’ve never liked the idea of participating in a One-To-One performance, and I’ve never really thought about why that would be. Through this reading I have been able to examine my own reactions and reasonings.

Image Source: kiraoreilly.com

Deirdre Heddon explains that ‘in One to One performance the spectator is actively solicited, engendered as a participant. Demanding a more explicit and overt relational exchange’ which requires the spectators involvement to create the performance.[3] I realise that any performance is a sort of feedback-loop between performer and spectator, but, speaking purely personally, for that to be highlighted and made explicit through Intimate performance would make me feel very vulnerable.

Much of the work discussed makes the body explicit: the intimacy of the encounter foregrounds the physicality, yet distance, that each of us embodies from the body: we are all bodies, yet we take pains to deny the fact. This close encounter with another body highlights our own physicality, in ways that can be exposing (literally and mentally).

The closeness also has the feel of a confession, or counselling: both of these are connotations that I would feel uncomfortable with in the context of a performance. Maybe it's the implications of theatricality and falseness, something that Adrian Howells took care to counteract, by exemplifying the ‘virtue-osity’ of the work he produces.[4] And while I realise this, I don’t think that it’s something I would be able to counteract within myself.

Adrian Howells: Footwashing for the Sole
Image Source: thisisliveart.co.uk

However, some of the discussion has provided me with solid research for my own work, as I being to plan my dissertation arguments: particularly Zerihan’s consideration of catharsis, and the explicit responsibility of the participant.

I just don’t think that this form of live performance is for me!

---

[1] Dror Harari ‘Laotang: Intimate Encounters’, TDR: The Drama Review, 55.2 (2011) pp.137-149 (p.139).

[2] Rachel Zerihan, ‘Revisiting Catharsis in Contemporary Live Art Practice: Kira O’Reilly’s Evocative Skin Works’, Theatre Research International, 35.1 (2010) pp.32-42 (p.37).

[3] Deirdre Heddon, Helen Iball and Rachel Zerihan, ‘Come Closer: Confessions of Intimate Spectators in One to One Performance’, Contemporary Theatre Review, 22.1 (2012) pp.120-133 (p.120).

[4] Helen Iball, ‘Towards an Ethics of Intimate Audience’, Performing Ethos, 3.1 (2012) pp.41-57 (p.50).