On Location 2: Night Shooting, Urban Setting

I have been wanting to do an experiment for a long time now where I took the last stage of my performance 'The King of Beauty" in which he dresses up as Miss America and take it to a bus stop at night. This required quite a lot of confidence. The first time I tried to do this, I got all dressed up in make up, got the props and camera, drove to the bus stop, saw one person and then I bolted back home.

With more resolve – and at a later time slot – I decided to brave the outdoors.

Firstly, I remembered two things that Dave Mann told me: the flash will freeze the person in the photo and the long exposure time will capture any ambient light. What I hadn't accounted for was:

a) lens flare – even though I had a lens hood, the sheer amount of light in the urban setting from streetlights and cars inevitably causes flare
b) speckling – some of the pictures were destroyed by a speckling effect from the light, which appears on the image as missing pixels and is very hard to repair and
c) the inevitable motion blur – Some of the pictures were ruined by the long exposure time. It was cold and windy, I can imagine I was probably shivering, which has translated onto the image as motion blur

The camera also took a while to process the image after taking the shot, making continuous shooting fairly difficult.

However, it wasn't a total loss:

Miss America In Suburbia 1

As you can see there is a rubbish truck behind me which crawled very slowly along the street as I was taking pictures – I'm sure all the garbage truck men were having a good guffaw as they saw me. There were also two girls who popped out at one point to point and laugh. However, after those two experiences, I thought it couldn't possibly get any worse, so it made it easier to persist and push past that once the initial embarrassment had disappeared.

The most annoying thing about motion blur is that the clarity of the expression was lost:

Miss America In Suburbia 2

As you can see, where the flash 'froze' the model, there is motion blur, but the second one was much clearer. However, something is lost in the clarity. As an aside, an interesting effect I really loved was that at intermittent points, cars would zoom by and here you can see that as a trace of red light due to the long exposure. It really added a sense of life still going by as the photo was being taken.

The best shot of the night also used this ghosting effect:

Miss America In Suburbia 3

A few elements come together in this picture: a couple of cars came by at the same time so you have a brightness from the road. It also uses the 'double contrasting gesture' I experimented with in my very first shoot to provide some kind of juxtaposition, in addition to the ghosting effect I have been testing. I think this 'ghosting + double gesture' could be an interesting way to proceed with this.

I think I also need a more effective way of monitoring how the shots are going 'on-site' as taking photos of yourself, reviewing, running back can be an arduous process. This is easier with tethering in the studio as you can instantly see it on the computer, but I'm wondering if there is a camera with a larger display, for example, that would help me see how the shots are turning out 'as I go'.

On the whole, I'm glad I got this one out of my system. It didn't turn out quite how I wanted it to – I wanted to emphasise the hysteria and isolation of this Miss America figure. Several things could be done to help this. Taking someone out with me might be a massive confidence boost for a start. Also it might be worth considering doing this as a daytime shoot to see the contrast between night and day light, and whether it adds/detracts. Additionally I'm quite satisfied with the capturing of the ambient light as I think the exposure of the pictures was actually very good and well balanced in contrast with the flash.

What the Camera Sees (And Shouldn't See)

So far my investigations have focused on things that have been aimed directly at the camera, or that the figure in the photo has a knowledge of the camera that is being posed at them. I decided to stage an investigation that was much more private and perhaps more sinister. In this setting, the camera becomes a voyeur. Or, perhaps voyeur is too passive a word as the camera becomes more like something that exposes – quite literally – the subject.

In fact, 'exposure' becomes quite an interesting term if we take it both in a literal and photographic term. To expose something in photography is to shed light on it – it is an act of 'throwing light' on a subject. Perhaps this is why we believe in the veracity of the photograph: we believe that it brings something to light that was previously kept in the dark. In the very early days of photography, this was perceived to be the 'tabula rasa' of the film: an uncarved block that could only have what was exposed by light impressed on its surface. However, exposure takes on a deeper meaning when the camera makes all acts – including private acts – public. The camera loves to expose as – through angle, frame and lighting – it reflects things back at you in a new light. The camera is not a voyeur, but sometimes a very vicious tattle-tale who only sees things from its own perspective.

In this investigation, I Heart Television, I decided to invert the knowledge of the camera, or the expectation of enactment happening when the still image is viewed, and make it an exposer – an intrusion on an extremely private act. It started with a literal interpretation of a gesture, loving your television, and took it to a level of mania and hysteria.

I'm not saying that the poses or acts weren't staged – obviously they were – but I tried to introduce a mania or erotic impulsivity to it.

Tuning In

Television Love

The set up of these pictures felt very 'Readers Wives': there was something very domestic about the shots and very seedy about the setting adding to the image's uneasiness. Also, the deranged and ominous motivations behind the gesture – clearly driven by eroticism – provide

I found this series became replete when it followed a sequence and had a poignant 'ending':

I Heart Television

Here we can see the mania and the indulgence, as well as the love and entertainment the TV provides, but for me it's the last image that completes it. It feels like a frenzied action driven by an uncontrollable eroticism, which then inevitably ends in shame. The camera exposes this shame and amplifies it. It focuses on the ridiculousness and makes the figure in the picture feel it. It makes the viewer feel uneasy for peeping into this private act. And what is most surprising is that even though the act is sexual, the over-riding question (or perhaps it is underlying) is did the person actually enjoy this act? The pleasure seems to be taken beyond the point of pleasure to sadness and pain.

I think the interesting thing about this experiment is what is it the camera should see, and should it expose what it sees? Do we even have a choice about what is exposed by the camera and what isn't? To the camera, all acts are fair game.

Also, there is a difference between the knowledge of the presence of the camera and a sense of enactment where the figure expects to be viewed, and presenting the viewer with a sense of privacy and a 'forced enactment'. This 'force' presents the viewer with unease, but could also give birth to intrigue.

I met Anna Friel and I felt like an extreme communist

So, by the grace of my job, I do get to go to some wonderful events. Yesterday, I was at the announcement of the stage play of Breakfast At Tiffany's which will have Anna Friel in the leading role of Holly GoLightly.

A couple of Chambord and champagne cocktails and all was going well, until they started the speeches. And I suddenly felt like a communist who'd walked into the plans for Adolf Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch.

Now, okay, I'm willing to admit some snobbery on my part, but when you hear people who more or less control the theatre world proving how little they really know about the genre as a whole, and leading on from that how the majority of people are being spoon fed shit from idiots, then it really starts to get your goat.

Speaker number one comes up- the co-producer.

"... and yes, it was me who first put Beckett in the West End, proving that something obscure and contemporary can be appreciated."

Oh yeah... Really? Obscure? The play of which a film was made starring Peter O' Toole?

The play which launched and inspired hundreds upon hundreds of of wonderful cutting edge theatre?

The play that's on curriculum's everywhere?

The play by one of the most famous Irish playwrights of the last centruy?

The play that's over fucking 50 years old? Contemporary?

At this point, I was midly miffed, and wanted to scream at him, "Why not put on 'Blasted' by Sarah Kane and really challenge people to fucking think, you tosser."

But it didn't end there. The writer comes up to speak and says:

"It's an adaptation of the book..."

Right. So no Hollywood ending.

"And as iconic as the film is, we just wanted it to be something different."

Right. So no Hollywood ending.

"And what we want to stress is this is a different entity taken from the book that Capote wrote."

OKAY JEEZ FOR FUCK'S SAKE! We get it- there's no Hollywood ending. Just say to people, "Sorry- there's no teary ending where George Pepard runs off with Audrey Hepburn."

Except, I look around the room at all these gleeful, expectant faces who have absolutely no fucking clue, because no-one's bothered to read it in their lives and I have this niggling thing at the back of my head that knows they'll watch it and be disappointed. Well no- they won't- they'll shell out £40 for their seats and be placated by brainless crap.

"The musical crowd aren't going to be happy because there's only a few songs in it..."

A few? A few? Hell, we all remember Moon River, but when the fuck did Holly GoLightly start singing and dancing around? I think they're getting confused with that other movie that Audrey Hepburn was in.

"..but hopefully people will respect its intelligent" Burn in hell

"...witty..." I really, really want to ask you some challenging questions on theatre right now but I'll keep quiet

"intelligent storyline" You've already said intelligent you brainless fuck

Okay, I am miffed because the area of performance I work in is very niche, but its establishments and institutions like these that make it impossible for live art to thrive. If people could make more informed decisions on what they wanted to see instead of being told 'what theatre is' then I'm sure it would lead to a livelier artistic community with increased diversity.

I'm not trying to be a snob... what annoys me is that these people control the theatre world. They control the money and they control what people see. West End theatre is not really art- it's rehashed ideas with a lot of money behind them. And the sad thing is it continues to be a world of safe bets where no one is challenged.

Added to this, I'm surprised more people aren't angry that they're being treated like a nation of idiots. A nation that can't handle anything too risky or upsetting. And to me it's an insult to our collective intelligence. If people remain unchallenged, things remain the same. How can we ever evolve the arts scene if we're just producing the same stuff en masse?

Something really needs to change.

The last day

The last part of my placement culmniated in seeing Alexis perform live in Montreal at a 'Words and Music' night. It was strange because Alexis' soundscape technique was used by another artist, but in a more structured way. After reviewing all of her documentation and learning about her practice, it was the perfect way to end the placement. Knowing that most of the time she is improvising in sound and in speech made the live moment more compelling. It also emphasised the difference between documentation and 'liveness'; an issue I have reseached avidly and with enthusiasm. It reinforced the performance artist's notion of liveness.

I also managed to speak to one of her friends who disclosed to me that Alexis had appreciated my time here, which made it all the more worthwhile.

A day later...

I attended a rehearsal last night with Alexis' duo 'Mankind' and they were preparing to record for their album. It is extremely interesting to watch purely for the element of watching them warp technology manually. I told Alexis that that was one of the main reasons I was interested in her work; her use of analog technology and the irreproducibility of her work. She, however, emphasised that this was not an important part of the live experience, but being live is.

Then I went to dinner with Alexis. It was a chance to observe her with her friends and get more info. I asked her about the leap to full-time artistic work, and she told me that there comes a point where you do have to take the plunge and see if you can live full time as an artist. This has always been the last barrier to break for me because of the constant financial instability. Alexis also expressed concerns over being egotistical as an artist, but I have always thought that artists will always be perceived to be this way because they are not conservative, but instead like to show people what they can do. 

Later it became apparent that the arts community in Montreal is very small. They have community celebrities and conventions that they all know of and talk about frequently, and it is not at all like the UK where the scenes and interests vary from city to city. I guess this is also a result of Canada's sparse population density. All the creatives seem to know each other; I spent last night sitting next to one of the actors from the film 'C.R.A.Z.Y.' (one of my favourite films made in Canada).

Today were the tech rehearsals for the performance of 'The Blender' tomorrow. I mainly observed the technical run through and took some photos. It strikes me that there is an element of delicacy in discussing people's work. Some of the work I really felt was too cluttered or too obvious, but I also feel because of this background where 'inter-arts' is such an exclusive arena, that they feel they are truly doing something innovative; they don't know where to draw the line or remove things as there is no scene dictating the framework. It would probably serve them well to class themselves as live or performance artists and then progress on a linear idea.

It was very interesting to see the work coming out as many of these people are professionals in other areas such as dance, and what their interpretation of performance or live art might be. I would have loved to have worked with them directorally, but at this stage I said nothing for fear of being patronising or discrediting their work.

Tomorrow will be a long day with rehearsals in the morning, then a performance in the afternoon...