Performance and Science 2018
Full Name: Alex Mermikides
Annual Conference Theme (if applicable): Performance, Science and the Visual
What were the main points that emerged from your WG this year?
The WG theme this year was performance, science and the visual, prodding participants to explore the interrelation of the seen and the unseen across performance and science. The ten papers and subsequent discussions were wide-ranging and diverse in their disciplinary interests. However three key themes emerged:
- Many of the papers explored science performances that stage the ‘unseen’ or the ‘unseeable’ – entities thought to be too small, vast or complex to be perceived without the technologies of science. For Quigley and Weitkamp, the focus was on the universes envisaged by theoretical physics – the quantum universes in Dead Centret’s Hamnet and Chaos theory in Weitkamp’s account of her Chaos Cabaret. For Bouchard and Mermikides it was the microscopic world of genetics that was of interest, for example in Hola’s Chimera. Eco-data finds its theatrical equivalent, for Hudson, in the bicycle-powered tours of the Handlebards.
- In these and in other papers, we were starkly reminded of the tricksiness of vision and perception.Arnold recalled Shakespeare’s visions – of daggers, ghosts, and revenant – that appear to mind but not the eye. May’s paper revealed that this ability to visualize is not universal, and he explored the impact of this discovery in the training of actors. The phrase ‘I see’ assumes that perception and cognition to be closely related processes, but Johnson troubled the truth claims that both science and performance make through their experiments and presentations.
- Ashill’s ‘performance slide show’ demonstrated how performance might invite a more attentive and sympathetic way of looking at non –human species that are often overlooked despite their participation in the care of human – including medical leeches. Halprin compared the ‘tender’ gaze that Hanke turns upon the experience of aging to representations of love in later year in Morris and O’Connor’s Juliet and Her Romeo. These papers foregrounded a running theme of the working group conference: the politics, ethics and aesthetics of the gaze.
What was discussed at your business meeting?
Convenorship: Gianna Bouchard is standing down as convenor, with Paul Johnson taking her place. Alex Mermikides will remain as convenor until after the next year’s T&PRA conference in Surrey.
Interim events: several ideas were offered for interim events. There is interest in continuing the pattern that has been established, of staging interim events at science venues. Ideas included the Bethlam Hospital Museum and the Chelsea Physics Garden. We also wondered about engaging more directly with science/public engagement in science communities for example, with a panel presentation at the British Society of Literature and Science or at one of the science festivals (Chelthenham, Manchester). Suggestions of academic settings for interim events included York (offered as a venue by Karen Quigley) and Kirsten Shepherd-Barr’s group.
Membership: The WG has a small stable core of members, but attracts new participants to every event we run. The transcient component of the membership is expected and refreshing but we should aim to expand the core. Themed call for papers for conferences remains the favoured way of attracting papers and delegates. It was really good having an academic from a non-theatrical field (Emma from Science Communication). She and others should be encouraged to continue participating.
Further comments: delegates enjoyed the leisurely pace of the panels – 2 or 3 x 15-20 minute papers with time for discussion after each paper. We should continue to do post-submission themeing of the panels. We should also continue to encourage proposals for performances, workshops and panels.
Types of contributions:
Papers and performance lecture/slide show
Number of formal contributors (those listed in book of abstracts) 11
Approx. overall number of delegates who attended your WG Sessions 26
Composition of WG (PG, ECR, etc.)
Mostly established academics
Did you have any non-UK participants? No
If your WG hosted an Open Panel, do you have any feedback?
N/A
Any additional points or feedback not covered above?
Conference as a whole was very well organised – excellent sign-posting and hosting. Tech support and student ambassadors were great.
We enjoyed the catering card system as it gave more flexility in terms of when and what to eat – though some missed the networking opportunities that buffet lunches enable.
Important to be at Aberystwyth to show support after a difficult period.
