I suck and I love to fail

'We start with what we know.' A sentiment echoed by many of the practioners / speakers at the Post graduate conference (January) at CSSD. So what do I know, what aquired, learnt knowledge do I bring with me?

‘I suck and I love to fail’ was my first discovery within my BA at St Mary’s University. All we had to do was repeat the phrase over and over again, until we found enjoyment in it; in the knowledge that it was OK to muck up. The exercise was instigated by Tom and Deborah of The Spontaneity Shop and has resonated within me until today. It is important to note that the concept is not new. Undoubtedly they ‘stole' the exercise or phrase from ‘Jon Wright’ in Impro for storytellers (Did he write this?), who no doubt acquired the idea from Gollier (spelling incorrect), and he from someone before that.

The notion parallels with the working methodologies in research, highlighted by Experience Bryon in our first ‘class meet.’ It was this day that we had to explain our theatrical background and reasons for being on the course. My response was that of clowning and to find a pathway out of the many influences and experience I have, an attempt to find a commonality or link between what I already know; without the chaos that ensues in my head? ‘What is my research question?’ Experience asks, and my response was I do not know…

I didn’t like the out come of the conversation. "I do not know?"

What I’m interested in is the life of theatre. The notion that Theatre is a transformative space, for not only actor, but audience and indeed the space itself (and everything in it). I identified with the clown because you cannot hide yourself behind character; the clown is allowed to make a mistake and it is OK. In essence Clowning is a method in which I explore the transformation of space, the life of the theatre, because its very form is present; alive. The clown can play with a situation and create something out of nothing, (not necessarily out of laughter, but through tears and the range in between), and its ability to perform to these situations in real time acknowledges the space of the theatre, and plays between what it is, a theatrical experience, and what it becomes, the transformative space created by that experience.

Labelling myself as a clown however destroys the countless possibilities within theatre. Labelling myself as clown suggests this is my methodology, a way of analysing or playing with the methods of what it is to be clown. (Methodology can be broken down to preffix, ‘method’, and suffix ‘ology’, ‘method’ a way of doing, and ‘ology’, the analysis of the preffix). However this is not my only experience of theatre, nor is it all I want to play with. In effect (or affect), I want this course to find my methodology for the methods I already enjoy performing, as well as learn some new. This includes, but is not finite, puppetry, dance, singing, acting (in its traditional sense actor has script) and writing. Looking to learn silks and anything else I can find that physically challenges me.

"To make my methodology work for me and not work for my methodology". Experience in a seminar chat week1)


Perhaps to find out what I know I need to identify with what I don’t, and here a list would be endless, but I feel it is important to identify gaps in knowledge that come out of discussions and I am exposed as a fraudster of authority to myself, or to others.

Perhaps the best example of this was my attempt to fuse my understanding of what performance based research (PBR) is, with that of Blast Theories 'new technologies' and the actor director relationship. In my understanding Blast Theory man (name?) set out a systematic approach to performance based research. A try and fail account that is not new to a devising process or infact, to any sort of experimental understanding. I jumped at this notion because it appeared to be underlined with ‘I suck and I love to fail.’ Yet in questioning, the method was split open. It suggests that research is passive or reflective, to happen out of mistake. This line grated on the nominal notion of research. We set out to find something surely. I think this is a blurred area in my understanding. By disaccrediting ideas or concepts found in the ‘happy accident’ we exclude knowledge that is just as valid of that in which we set out to find?

….. thoughts to be completed on directing and a fraudsetr of authority, move to reflections on 'critical reflection'...