Response to Seminar One

Early on in this seminar a photo essay was shared which presented a process of sequential perspective. As each slide changed the viewer gathered a new understanding of the image before. This process appears an appropriate visual representation for Richard Gough’s use of theory. My understanding of his approach is that like his work he views theories as structures that must ‘translate, mutate and betray’ their predecessors. This was the case in his discussion of Post Dramatic Theatre. He identified this theory as assisting in comprehending the world of contemporary performance. Forced Entertainment was noted as an example of this theory. He noted that the works of this company have now become overwhelmed or perhaps over burdened with their use of theory in performance. Such condition is met with obvious frustration. He suggested the condition could be described as ‘Post Dramatic Stress Disorder.’ Whilst this term was directed as Forced Entertainment it appeared as if it were a broader critique of makers and academics who allow theory to use them. In place of this, the theory of ‘Greater Performance’ was raised as providing a more flexible perspective to view a theatre with a greater worldview. One that is less Euro-centric and one that could be used without letting the theory become the driving force of production and research. The theory of ‘Greater Performance’ was not referenced as replacing the theory of Post Dramatic Theatre but rather the next step in Gough’s constantly mutating use of theory. In this case theory is acknowledged as a growing frame through which to understand performance as well as a previous performance theory.

Gough also employed an autobiographical method to provide metaphors through which his approach to theory and practice could be understood. He recounted stories of branding sheep and collecting stamps. He pointed out that both of these activities have achievable outcomes; there is ‘a light at the end of the tunnel.’ They were both fixed methods of solving a problem. Despite this, he also recounted the way he became fascinated with creating hybrid stamps, ‘grafting them together to form hybrid communities, new commonwealths.’ I feel the moment of ‘grafting’ is central to understanding Gough’s use of theory. This analogy reveals the point at which Gough evokes the imagination to see a ‘new world’. By experimenting with the space in between, the interdisciplinary, he is able to gain a new perspective. To return to the photo essay referenced at the start of his seminar he effectively takes another step back to appreciate the same object from a different angle.

I wish to finish on a consideration of the object, seen as Gough noted how central it was to his work. The object was explained as something that called to be understood. There was a noted fascination in its qualities, actions and ‘networks of meaning.’ I propose that the object to Gough is much like the world of performance. On its own it is dislocated. It is evident the theory through which the object is viewed gives the object meaning. As he noted syringes and a beaker make sense if it was understood that he was a scientist. I argue that Gough’s use of theory is a process of constant mutation in an attempt to consistently re contextualize the object and take the next step back to discover the next frame through which the same object can be seen.

Gough also employed an autobiographical method to provide metaphors through which his approach to theory and practice could be understood. He recounted stories of branding sheep and collecting stamps. He pointed out that both of these activities have achievable outcomes; there is ‘a light at the end of the tunnel.’ They were both fixed methods of solving a problem. Despite this, he also recounted the way he became fascinated with creating hybrid stamps, ‘grafting them together to form hybrid communities, new commonwealths.’ I feel the moment of ‘grafting’ is central to understanding Gough’s use of theory. This analogy reveals the point at which Gough evokes the imagination to see a ‘new world’. By experimenting with the space in between, the interdisciplinary, he is able to gain a new perspective. To return to the photo essay referenced at the start of his seminar he effectively takes another step back to appreciate the same object from a different angle.

I wish to finish on a consideration of the object, seen as Gough noted how central it was to his work. The object was explained as something that called to be understood. There was a noted fascination in its qualities, actions and ‘networks of meaning.’ I propose that the object to Gough is much like the world of performance. On its own it is dislocated. It is evident the theory through which the object is viewed gives the object meaning. As he noted syringes and a beaker make sense if it was understood that he was a scientist. I argue that Gough’s use of theory is a process of constant mutation in an attempt to consistently re contextualize the object and take the next step back to discover the next frame through which the same object can be seen.