R&J: the Up Version – Intro to Romeo &Juliet

(Find the playlet here)

How nice it would be, I thought, to tweak ‘Romeo & Juliet’ so that the depressing bits were, if not eliminated, softened. How uplifting it would be to have the attractive youngsters recover from their deaths by poison and gloom and live to relive the bits where all went well and romance put a spring in your step and a melody in your heart. Not only that, how fun it would be to just keep repeating the good bits over and over, gradually removing even the bits that were just slightly a downer.

The student designers built an excellent miniature theatre in their spacious studio. Like an enlarged Victorian toy theatre cut from stout card, this tunnel-like performance space looked overcrowded when inhabited by more than one actor yet was susceptible of ingenious scene changes and special effects. The show kicked off with an abbreviated version of the highlights of the back end of R&J, featuring the slaying of Paris (played by an actor playing Leonardo di Caprio, star of the only version of R&J I could bear to watch), followed by Romeo’s poisoning himself on finding what he takes to be the corpse of Juliet, then leading into Juliet’s suicide on finding her lover dead. These hot moments were then replayed with greater and greater abbreviation, faster acting and louder music. By the fifth cycle the dialogue is down to three lines and the final, sixth cycle sees the characters die and revive in a matter of a few seconds each.

Cornelia Parker

A tall, high cheek-boned woman in a headscarf stands on the white cliffs of Dover holding an ornate but tarnished silver-plated teapot. On the grass beside her are other pieces of silver – trays, cups, candlesticks. Calmly and deliberately, without any display of anger, despair or furtiveness, she tosses the pot over the cliff. It is followed at regular intervals by the rest of the collection. A little later, having descended to the beach, the woman picks her way across the rocks, retrieving what are now dashed and distressed chunks of mutilated metal. Later still, the teapot is placed in an art gallery. It is titled ‘Object that Fell off the White Cliffs of Dover’ (1992). In this unlikely setting the unlikely object has acquired a fascinating and most unexpected beauty.

Cornelia Parker, sculptor and installation artist, intensified her campaign against disused silver a few years later when she crushed hundreds of plated items with a steamroller. She has also flattened thousands of coins under the wheels of passing trains, plucked feathers from Sigmund Freud’s pillow and blown up garden sheds with plastic explosive. The results of these depredations have been hung in art galleries where they have received high praise from public and critics alike. Her collaboration with the actress Tilda Swinton, ‘The Maybe’ at the Serpentine Gallery, was the focus of excited national attention for its display of Swinton, surrounded by objects selected by Parker, sleeping throughout the day in a glass case. In November 1996 Parker mounted a solo show called ‘Avoided Object’ at Chapter Art Gallery in Cardiff. Word of mouth was infectious and the show attracted scouts from London. A few weeks ago Parker was nominated for the prestigious Turner Prize.

Galleries are not the only site in which she has placed her provocations. Forests, railway stations and bell towers have been requisitioned, sometimes for purposes of display, sometimes as places of concealment that may be chanced upon by the unsuspecting. Despite the many forms it takes, Parker’s art has an impressive internal consistency. All her work stems from a wittily philosophical consideration of the processes that bring everyday objects into being. She feels that this preoccupation, in turn, was partly brought into being by a curious event that took place in 1961.

Cornelia Parker’s father is ascending the ladder to the attic. He pushes aside the trap door in the ceiling then falls abruptly back. His head boils in a whirring cloud of black, glinting bodies which gush from the attic darkness. Connie and her sister scream in horror. The bluebottles pour down into the room, a lava of insect fear, filth and penetration. From the rank flesh of some maggotted creature in the eaves the attic continues to retch its spawn. The air is flies. To breath is to be infested.

Cornelia hastened to a children’s encyclopaedia in order to make sense of her shock. She found that the flies were called, aptly enough, calliphora vomitoria. She also found in the book other evidences of boiling exhalation and profusion: pictures of molecules and solar systems, transparent human bodies, exploded views of machines.

Parker is talking art history in her East End flat, standing beside a humming slide projector. Her slightly stooped stance reminds us that tall women are politer than tall men. They succumb to the wearisome need to bend down towards their lesser interlocutors. As she speaks one realises that her face is rarely in repose – her delivery is rapid, nervously energised, its content a dense mixture of anecdote and analysis. The vigour of her commentary is directly reflected in her work, which proliferates in an apparently unbroken stream much like the awesome eruptions that inspire it.

She is talking about her enchantment with the exploded view. “You could just about visualise what the original object was,” she explains, “but I started thinking how all the fragments might reform to make completely new objects with new uses.” These speculations eventually evolved into the ideas that have so fruitfully driven Parker to make art.

In 1991 she took her preoccupation with the metaphysics of explosions to an extreme that marked a breakthrough in her work. Parker filled a garden shed with tools, a lawnmower, a bicycle, books and toys, all culled from the artist’s trove of orphaned objects that is the British car boot sale. The shed was installed and photographed in the Chisenhale Gallery in London’s East End, then dismantled and transported to the British Army School of Ammunition at Kineton.

Lieutenant Colonel Joe Hastings and Major Dougie Hewitt applied sticks of pale marzipan explosive to the interior of the shed and blew it to pieces. For several hours squaddies and a delighted Parker combed the area, picking up every single shard and sliver, every shred of the shrapnel of the mower and the mangled mass of bent bike.

A few days later an eery and exquisite sculpture, ‘Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded View’, was unveiled in the stark concrete space of the Chisenhale Gallery. Parker had painstakingly reassembled the shed and its shattered contents, suspending each tiny blasted scrap from a filament of wire and illuminating the whole with a single bare white bulb placed at the epicentre. The shed had been frozen in space a millisecond after its disintegration; only the bang is missing, rather like the cold, dark matter that astronomers say makes up the weight of the Universe.

The business of finding new currency for old and familiar objects has led the indefatigable Parker down some exotic pathways. Her ‘Thirty Pieces of Silver’ also featured an act of great violence followed by a display of surpassing beauty. Turning again to the cornucopia of the car boot, the artist collected hundreds of old silver and silver-plated teapots, candle-sticks, toast-racks, salvers and the odd trombone. The tarnished tat, displaced from numberless mantlepieces, was laid out on the ground in a long, gently curving line and slowly crushed by a steamroller. After the grinding and clanking had subsided, Parker picked up the pieces.

Hanging in an even stratum a few inches above the floor of the Hayward Gallery, the layer of flattened and mutated metal shimmers with ethereal grace. The trophies, having had all their worth crushed out of them, have acquired a new value.

Not all the attention Parker receives is comprised of undiluted delight. Between the specialist critics and an eager audience lies the press. Like most contemporary British artists Parker is resigned to the fact that these days derogatory treatment by both tabloids and broadsheets goes with the territory. A recent transaction with the media focused on just one piece of work from a linked series. “I’d been thinking about how tiny things can become lethal weapons when a certain pressure is applied. A straw caught in a hurricane, for example, can pierce somebody’s skull.”

The sculptor made several passes at this proposition. She had the lead shot removed from some shotgun bullets and replaced with pearls released from a necklace. The bullet was fired through a gentleman’s suit. Another bullet, containing small change, was fired into an encyclopaedia. When the book was opened, it was found that the coins had pierced a photograph of an aircraft carrier. The encyclopaedia was exhibited with the title ‘Aircraft Carrier Shot by a Dime’.

Linked to this series were Parker’s sculptural meditations on the signifcance of meteorites. Purchasing a six inch meteorite from a geological supplier for £300 – “A very good price,” she remarks, “they’ve all gone up since they found life on that one from Mars” – she heated it with a blow-torch and applied it to a crisp white shirt, claiming, with some justification, to have burnt a shirt with a meteorite. The tabloids were not impressed.

“When the Turner nomination came out,” she explains ruefully, “they put a picture of ‘Shirt Burnt by a Meteorite’ in the papers and said ‘She’s been nominated for a dirty old shirt with a hole in it.’ That shirt was plucked out of context and it just seems like a one-liner.”

The YBAs [Young British Artists], supposedly typified by Damien Hirst, have become inseparable from the controversy staged around their work and Parker is frequently written about as if she were part of the gang. A distinction that generally escapes her commentators is that at the age of 41 she has, in fact, quite happily relinquished the ‘Y’ part of the sobriquet. She graduated from the Fine Arts course at Reading University in 1982 and has been steadily mounting exhibitions in the art capitals of the world ever since. Given that there’s no proper money in art unless you’re up there with Damien, Parker lives off a succession of commissions, awards and residencies, whilst renting a modest shared flat in Shoreditch. At the time of writing she was rather looking forward to seeing her newish partner, a Texan artist on the point of visiting London.

The work that so impressed the Turner Prize selectors saw Parker working on a much smaller scale than that of her shed and steamroller period. ‘The Cardiff show,” she says, “had lots of little residues of objects that are all quite slight but together add up to something solid.” The ‘avoided objects’ speak of their role in a process which has made them seem redundant. “They’re about things that have lost their life or not yet got a life.” As an example, she cites ‘The Negative of Sound’, a framed assemblage of strands of black lacquer, the swarf discarded from the ‘master’ of a record first cut in Abbey Road Studios. “The idea of the negative of sound, for me, is fantastic. How can you listen to it? What does it sound like? What kind of instrument would you have to have to play them on?”

Avoided objects can also be ex-objects. For ‘Exhaled Cocaine’ Parker persuaded Customs & Excise to give her the ashes of seized, incinerated cocaine, presented by the artist as an end product ‘breathed out’ by a crucial process in its history. This poetic recycling of residue is also seen in a piece whose title would, quite wrongly, lead overheated British journalists to believe their usual suspicions were justified. ‘Pornographic Drawings’ is the fruit of another successful transaction with Customs & Excise. “They’re Rorschach blots made from confiscated pornography. The video tape was chopped up into tiny pieces, to get rid of it, and they gave me a big bag full. I wanted to recreate images from things that had been taken out of circulation, so I made an ink out of it. Most of them did turn out to be quite pornographic, but if you think they are, that’s you projecting because they’re only accidental ink blots.”

Parker’s attention is directed always at the ignored, undervalued and forgotten. She pushes quizzically at the surface of the everyday until its objects reveal their hidden histories. These stories reveal in turn that much of what we take for granted is immersed in the streams of memory and myth that carry meaning into our lives.

Even if she does not win the Turner Prize, many of her Avoided Objects will be seen by the thousands who visit the Tate for the six week show featuring the work of all the nominees. In addition to the works described, visitors will see her embryo guns, the feather from Freud’s pillow, a magnified photo of the grooves of a record owned by Hitler and several other evidences of a refined and ingenious sensibility.

Pressed to speculate on her prize-winning chances, the artist is characteristically modest. “Oh, it’ll just be great to be shown in the Tate” is the most she’ll say. Were Parker to pull it off, however, her power to realise some of her more ambitious projects would be considerably enhanced. NASA, for example, would be bound to send a meteorite back into space for her and she might, at long last, be able to persuade Stanley Kubrick to part with a sample of his navel fluff.

1997

What We Talk About

I posted this piece some time ago. I have linked it to a current post (09/06/09) in order to support a series of posts on ‘surveillance theatre’ that will, probably, culminate in some comments on Charlie Kaufman’s movie ‘Synecdoche New York‘ (2008).

Go along to the Anti-University in Rivington Street in Shoreditch any night of the week in 1969 and, without paying any money, you could attend lectures, participate in encounter groups and witness tirades designed to take a wrecking ball to comfortable habits and cherished assumptions. The place hummed with insurrection and was eagerly attended by an extraordinary cohort that sprung from the street, the squat, the commune, the asylum, the drop-in clinic and the academy. The toilet had no door, the phone had no dialling lock, the clients no patience.

One evening at the Anti-U, anti-psychiatrist David Cooper was talking about Vietnam to a group of thirty young men and women. He put it to us that America behaved as if it were a fair but stern father correcting the errant child that was Vietnam.The group was excited by this mapping of the psychopolitics of the family onto a scene of international conflict. The windowless room was thick with smoke and the Cooper Groupers, as we called ourselves, ran with the idea, elaborating it on the hoof. Cooper, shaggy red beard and shoulder length hair, puffed awkwardly on his cigarette yet remained bear-like and imposing. I had known him for two years and found him kind but often scaring in the extremity of his prescriptions for the death of the family and the triumph of a world of melted categories.

A voice from the back of the room cut through the discussion. “Of course, what we’re really all talking about is who’s got the power in this room – Cooper or us.” The debate skidded to a halt. Cooper nodded sagely. I knew that I had just come across one of the great Secrets of Life, a paranoid truth that I have come, over the decades, to rely on as much as the A to Z.

I saw that there, beneath our noses, all the time, whatever we’re doing, whenever we do it, lies a remarkable covert operation. We talk about ourselves all the time! Power articulates us! All conversations on all topics are mere tissues, scarcely opaque, draped over an unceasing, frankly brazen, project to analyse power relations and optimise our place in them. Even when we talk about matters of vital importance, matters of the world and its pain, we are covertly discussing, with additional help from our stances and gestures, how we experience our interlocutors.

I turned to study the speaker. Slouched against the wall, beyond the last row of chairs, was a dark-haired young man of about my age, wearing a suit, white shirt, no tie. He had a long nose, beetling eyebrows and piercing, shifty eyes. I’d seen him at the Anti-U before – his name was Patrick Schofield and I knew he was a patient of Cooper’s.

I made friends with Patrick and embarked on a crash course in forbidden knowledge. The son of the owner of the renowned and eponymous Leeds department store, he lived alone in a large flat off Queensgate in South Kensington. At some point in his university education he had drifted sufficiently far from a state of equanimity to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act and committed to Scalebor Hospital near Ilkley. Not craving any species of salvation that his doctors might proffer, he battled through the vegetalising drug regimes, endured the intermittent offhand interviews and sluggish group therapies, consistently managing to nurture and preserve an acuity of vision that, on a bad day would make him see things that were not there and, on a better day, allow him to assay that day and its denizens with a soaring clarity.

Patrick’s doctors were gratified, despite his general lack of compliance, when he asked to edit the Scalebor monthly magazine, hitherto an unprepossessing clutch of stapled and gestetnered white A4 sheets with a cover of another colour. He decided that in addition to the patients, the doctors and nurses should be invited to contribute and the whole would be prefaced with an essay written by himself.

The essay proved so incendiary that its author was promptly discharged into the community, where his capacity to endanger the mental hospital staff would be considerably reduced. In a coolly argumentative prose, Patrick had systematically uncovered a dreadful secret: there was no therapeutic agenda at the hospital, patients were kept there in order to legitimise a constant battle for power between the doctors and nurses. The objects of the struggle were the patients and the prize for the winners of the battle was control over the patients’ lives.

With forensic doggedness Patrick considered the roles, purported and actual, of all the various classes of clinician, therapist and carer in the Scalebor system. He described an intricate lattice of struggles and alliances, demonstrating throughout that each faction craved an intimate dominance of the drugged inmates. I read the piece, so it seemed to me, without blinking or breathing. The essay reached beyond the walls of the gothically named institution and offered a critique of all institutions. Patrick was a magus, to know him was to be initiated into the dark art of the seer of everyday life, one who found the behavioural world at his fingertips a wasteful irritation, a candied rind to be peeled peremptorily away before you could get the pips to squeak.

The world began to race. The combination of counterculture, LSD, my own radical anti-psychoanalysis and Patrick was steadily stamping out pockets of resistance in hitherto troublesome areas. Armed with a portfolio of exceptional insights, I felt exhilarated yet beleaguered. One problem I had was my conviction that, despite the occult nature of the behaviours I was discovering, everyone knew what was going on. They all knew what we were all up to and had conspired to conceal it from each other, out of a sense of shame and embarrassment. This is certainly what Antonin Artaud thought, and look what happened to him. Rather than glide through my new life on the ice-skates of insouciance, I found myself growing more guarded in case I inadvertently gave the game away with a knowing look or a fumbled Masonic handshake.

If all this threatened at times to rear up and turn the world inside out, it was processed by Patrick himself with unfaltering logic. Effectively oblivious to the ostensible, he moved though a terrain of threats, violence and betrayal in which all whom he encountered were stained with perfidy. Many of the assaults he endured were barely acknowledged by the miscreant – they were everyday violences perpetrated blindly in the shadowy cut and thrust of the universal secret struggle. On one occasion, for example, I was sitting in an armchair in Patrick’s flat, talking with the degree of unease that I often felt in the presence of his effortlessly merciless gaze. He interrupted me, pointing to my right foot, which was supported by my left knee and projecting towards his chair. I had been pointing and flexing my toe in a heedless, jiggling way. “Your foot,” he observed, “kicking at my chest.” I’m afraid he was absolutely right. There was no other explanation for it. To deny ownership of the gesture would be to compound the assault.

When it got too much Patrick would rearrange the environment to make more room. As I suggested, this was a logical operation. Others took it as proof of his insanity. Troubled by his relationship with David Cooper he determined to embark on a quest which would heal the situation at many levels. Boarding a train at Paddington he set off for Wales then, alone in a first-class carriage, shaved off all his hair, including his eyebrows. He was now the Sacrificial Lamb. Fiercely inspirited but still wary, he concealed his true purpose from others by donning a woman’s wig of short, curly hair. After a couple of hours the train seemed to slow down. Patrick peered out of the window and was delivered of an awesome sign. Writ large, in black on white, the words CARMAR THEN slid into view and stayed before him, obscuring all else. He knew then that he was most significantly attuned, whether to the wellsprings of providence or to the abyss, he could not tell.

Bonkers now, heading further and further west. He will not eat or drink, for he must present himself to Cooper in a condition of purity. The train will go no further. He steps down and wanders through the streets of a little town. A little city, to be precise. The smallest city in the United Kingdom. He had arrived at St. David’s Head. It was a logical operation.

Patrick wouldn’t ring up after an episode, I’d go round there. He would tell me about his capers, acknowledging that they were, perhaps, a bit off, but always explaining their symbols and teasing out their meanings. There was no question of resisting an imminent caper, any more than you would resist going to the corner shop for milk. He found it strange that the lives of others were not similarly punctuated, given what was going on.

I didn’t see him for a while. The phone rang. I chatted with a friend. He said “Sad about Patrick, wasn’t it?” What? “Sad that he’s gone.” Where? Where’s he gone? “Oh, you don’t know! He went to Beachy Head. He jumped off.”

Leery of Lifelike – Intro to Popeye

When I began writing for performance in 1972 I was keen to avoid the rhythms and cadences of so-called ‘naturalistic speech’. I noticed that in most plays the characters would talk to each other a few lines at a time and that they would often articulate insights into their situation quite at odds with their character, as if the playwright wanted to say important things yet was not able to make speech show rather than tell. The idea that, in theatre, only speech can show or tell reflects, of course, the novelistic model that informs much British theatre. The latter, in turn, can often be characterised as ‘radio theatre’ insofar as it it is not essential to be able to see what is being performed.

I determined that, since I was not concerned to reproduce the appearances of everyday life, it would be silly to attempt to simulate ‘the way people talked’. I decided that my ‘characters’ would only be allowed one line at a time. Sometimes speeches of an unlikely length would be permitted (see, for example, ‘Natural Born Lear‘). Nothing in between. The characters should not, furthermore, be articulate. Unless the non-credibility of their articulateness could be used in a way that constructively heightened the artificiality of the occasion.

I further felt that live theatre, of whatever persuasion, is a strange and unnatural affair and that language for theatre should somehow reflect that strangeness.

I have maintained this approach for 35 years. In the course of writing the full-length ‘Vanity Play’ (2006), I noticed that a small number of speeches (no more than five) of medium length had been given to certain ‘characters’. This was an indulgence and I have no desire to extend it beyond the current project. I would like to assure those who like my work that this is not the thin end of a wedge. If anything I find that I want to write increasingly fragmented and nonconsequential work. I have written of this aspiration elsewhere on the site.

In the delicious playlet ‘Popeye‘ the constraints outlined above and their underlying aesthetic principles are rigidly observed. Well, quite rigidly.

The characters in the playlet all derive from counterparts in the original. I can’t remember the plot elements I was appropriating but the text seems to read well enough without having to know who was who and what they did.

On reflection I can see that the previous paragraph is truculent so I will do some research (this research was not carried out – Ed. 2019) that will enable me to relate all the delicious playlets as closely as possible to their sources. I haven’t got time to do that today.

In a Book

The Live Art Almanac is a collection of responses to some questions sent out by the editors a few months ago:
What articles have you read, what emails did you receive or forward to a friend, what blogs have you visited, what texts crossed your path? Did they engage you, amuse you, or make you rethink Live Art? If it caught your eye and had something interesting to say then we want to know about it.

There’s a piece from Strength Weekly in it, called Why Do Men Walk Funny? Also writing from Tim Atack, Madeleine Bunting, Barbara Campbell, Simon Casson, Brian Catling, Rachel Lois Clapham, Helen Cole, Stephen Duncombe, Tim Etchells, Ed Casear, Lyn Gardner, Guillermo Gomez-Peña, Daniel Gosling, Leslie Hill, John Jordan, Nick Kimberley, Adam E Mendelsohn, Alex Needham, Sally O’Reilly, Mary Paterson, Will Pollard, Chris Riding, Nick Ridout, Ian Saville, Theron Schmidt, Rebecca Schneider, Rajni Shah, Kate Tyndall, Mark Wilshire and John Wyver.
It can be purchased from Unbound

25.08.2008