Parip/Practice as Research in Performance

Note: This site is currently under construction

South West PARIP Meeting

30 June 2002, Jolly Porter, Exeter

Present
Roberta Mock (coordinator), Graham Ley, Anthea Nakorn, Ruth Way, Rebecca Loukes, Pam Woods, Jerri Daboo

Our Practice
The following practice-based research activities are undertaken by those present:

dramaturgy
movement practice and dance as ‘total’ artform: moving away from a consideration as a separate ‘discipline’; working with text; finding voice; non-verbal responses to ‘sites’; use of improvisation; training voice through the body; collaboration with visual artists; dance film work; body/mind awareness; the relationship between physicalization and psychology
directing practice
collaborative performance practice and live art
performer training
researching body/mind process as metaphor for practitioner/theorist split
clothing & fashion in performance
the performance of cultural identities
negotiating and articulating practice-based experiences

What do we feel PARIP could be doing? Where can it go from here

state case/lobby to raise profile of, and issues important to, practitioner-researchers
act as an interface between individual practitioners and institutions
work towards challenging and clarifying RAE expectations regarding assessment of practice. This includes making it imperative that the matter of practice in relation to the RAE is clarified via SCUDD.
develop into an association of practitioner-researchers: archiving and defining is probably not as important as establishing an ‘identity’, forming a group to enable discourse, focused discussions and networking
to help negotiate the positioning of ‘academic’ practitioners within the ‘profession’
lobby for the recognition of studio-based performance work

Postgraduates

although postgraduate students do not fall strictly within PARIP’s brief, it is important to recognize and incorporate their experiences: they represent the ‘grassroots’ of a potentially large practitioner-researcher base in the UK; they will soon be teaching and doing research at universities; the debate over practice as research in terms of degree assessment mirrors, and perhaps sets the agenda for, the wider debate (that is, the position of post-doctoral practitioner-researchers, etc.)
most of those present are either engaged in practice-based PhDs or are currently supervising/examining them.
the issues raised at this meeting are as relevant to postgraduate students as they are for practitioner-researchers already established at academic institutions.

Issues for Practitioner-Researchers

need for ‘safe’ environment in which to experiment
but, simultaneously, we need to produce ‘good practice’ as well as ‘good theory’; that is, at least some of our work must be sustainable in the market place, find an audience, be commercially viable
art vs craft debate
need to recognize and identify the importance of process and development as well as their relationship to practice
funding
difficulty in ‘articulating’ practice
within universities, we need support managing time and prioritizing; our practice must be valued within our organizations; we require an acknowledgement that we need time and space to train regularly, to keep up skills, etc.
there is a tension/suspicion between many in the theatre ‘profession’ (ie, practice) and many in academia (ie, theory). Where are we located? How do we differ from both? How do we meet using the same language?
practitioner-researchers work to different patterns and different rhythms than those in ‘professional’ theatre (eg. evenings and summer).
we need to be able to describe the ‘limitations’, ‘actualities’ and ‘potentials’ of practice-based research in terms of real logistical and structural ‘problems’ that create forms of work that are culturally valued
comparisons to practitioners based in Europe, for example, shows much wider support; there are issues of anti-intellectualism and work ethics in Britain in particular that must be challenged from the inside.

What can we do as a regional group?

it was agreed that it would be most beneficial to ‘pool’ our resources in some way and that the group could support work in ‘risk-taking’ situations
we could form a network of ‘friendly’ touring venues in which to show our work, disseminate our practice, and gain feedback. This would enable funding in many cases.
we could tour ‘programmes’ of our work to organizational members (eg. an evening consisting of short productions, works-in-progress, films, etc.) as well as full-length pieces
this would enable a form of ‘peer-assessment’ (eg. two members who facilitated and saw work during one of these ‘tours’ could jointly write a review for a journal such as STP)
the network could extend to providing venues for workshops and other forms of presenting and researching; this would provide an opportunity for artists to do practice with no particular need to ‘produce’
the group can act as a network to facilitate collaboration.
as there are only representatives from Exeter and Plymouth universities present, this must be more fully discussed with members from, for example, Bristol, Glamorgan, Dartington and perhaps some of our partner colleges. We will do this in the first instance via email with those who have expressed interest in being part of this group.

Next meeting
mid-November.