In today’s workshop we explored Interdisciplinary and socio-political engagement. We explored the impact a socio-political performance can have on its spectators and how varies mediums of performance can strengthen this impact. With the progression of technology and new media’s, the globe seems more connected today than ever before. It seems that the political and social policies of individual cultures and nations are discussed and influenced by every corner of the globe. For example, the US Presidential election of 2016 seemed to not only be a troubling subject for the American people, instead people from across the globe had very strong opinions about it. As a result, contemporary performance-making is becoming more socially engaged. Combining interdisciplinary forms of performance, artists are able to create work that has a powerful impact on its spectators. This post will address the social conflicts presented by contemporary art as well as discuss the nature of socio-political performance.
In preparation for today’s workshop our reading was the introduction to Nicola Shaughnessy’s Applying Performance: Live Art, Socially Engaged Theatre and Affective Practice (2012). Shaughnessy highlights that socio-politcial theatre is not created for the spectators pleasure, but instead is developed with the aim to inspire a social change, as stated in her introduction:
‘Practitioners of applied theatre and performance care about and/or care for the communities they are working with; the work is often politically or pedagogically motivated; it has conscious integrity and commitment. The process of applying performance is a bringing together of elements to create change, to make something new’. (xiv)
Helen Nicolson argues that socio-political theatre, ‘relates to work which is oriented towards aspects of social change, personal development and community building through various forms of participating in drama, theatre and other performance practices’ (2005, p.90). Introducing the concept that theatre can be used as a means to spark a political movement and bring social change, our discussion in today’s workshop focused on Exhibition B by South African artist Brett Bailey. The piece portrays various eras of racist history in the form of a human zoo. Spectators walk through the installation observing these moments as if they were at a zoo. Before further exploring Exhibition B, it is important to understand where Bailey was coming from in creating this piece; his intentions and motivations. Thus, the video below will assist in our understanding.
As stated by Bailey this piece was created as means to highlight the reality of racism today. Exhibition B was cancelled on its opening night in London in September of 2014. Protestors, the majority of which were London’s black community, argued that the piece promoted white supremacy rather than worked towards the demise of racism. While the content of Exhibition B is controversial in itself, it is obvious that the protesters were not outraged by the depictions, but by the fact that Brett Bailey is a white South African, thus his ancestors would have played apart in colonising Africa. Furthermore, racism and segregation is still a prominent issues across Africa, thus as a white man, black Londoners felt it was insulting for Bailey to depict black experiences. Acknowledging the premise of the protest, it is important to acknowledge that the actors within this exhibition are black artists from London who clearly supported the piece.
As expressed by the protestors, the key issues that surround this performance are:
- This piece addressed racism and was created by a white male.
- It portrays the most grotesque elements of racism and leaves nothing to the imagination.
- As a white South African whose ancestors were likely apart of the slave trade and endorsed white supremacy, Baily has no ‘right’ to educate people on black history.
Developing on from the identified key issues, the question the dominated our workshop discussion was, should art be censored? Personally, I see Bailey piece as an important educational performance. I have two key points to address here, both of which are in the defence of Baileys performance.
- Firstly, protestors argue that slavery and racism are not the only aspect of black history. While this is true, protestor fail to acknowledge the on going negative impact that slavery and imperialism has had on Africa and communities of African decent across the globe. Bailey’s piece does not portray the achievements of white supremacy. The piece does not show white men and women planting flags in the flesh of black men and women; it simply tells the darkest stories of black history and highlight how discrimination has not been buried, but is well and alive and has simply taken on a different form. Further more, Baily’s Exhibition B tells the stories of slavery that are not priorities in school systems or that are apart of our general knowledge, perhaps because they are so brutal. From personal experience, having being taught in both here in England and Zimbabwe, throughout primary and secondary school, the topics that bailey presents in this exhibition were not apart of the curriculum. The inhuman acts of slavery were simply glanced over, while topics like the rise and fall of the British Empire were covered in depth and somewhat glorified.
- Secondly, protestors fail to understand that by censoring subject in accordance to a persons background and race endorses segregation and discrimination. Creating and allowing a platform for open discussion without the fear of scrutiny, will lead to the end of discrimination; it demolished the barriers between us and them, thus creating unity. Allowing this interaction between cultures will lead to the end of tragic beliefs such as Islamaphobia and the brutality towards black people. The freedom to explore issue is the only way to solve it.
Work cited
Image from workshop powerpoint