THIS SURVEY is an attempt to provide some-thing of a map, sketching the field of currentsite-specific performance practices in Britain,inking in some of the prominent landmarkswithin that field, and pointing to potentiallyrewarding paths that might be followed fromhere. It is a map that has emerged primarilyfrom a questionnaire (see pages 142–143)completed by performance companies andby solo artists, but that also draws togetherinformation from supporting documentsand telephone conversations, from fundingbodies and press reviews. While it is occasi-onally appropriate to use a statistical formatlisting proportions and relative percentages,in the main my presentation of the surveyresults is discursive, reflecting the nature ofmany of the questions asked and responsesgiven.

There is room on this map to indicate notonly common points of reference but alsopoints of departure: the aim is not to arriveat an all-encompassing paradigm of site-specific practice, but rather to explore somegeneral questions. What are the preoccu-pations – thematic, formal, and pragmatic –of practitioners producing site-specificperformance? And how do practitionersrepresent themselves, their work and site-

specific performance in general to them-selves – and to others?

Inevitably, as a survey of this kind seeksto include certain people and practices, italso excludes others. I have only, for in-stance, included artists based in England,Scotland, and Wales – this provides a rela-tively small (but, in practical terms, manage-able) geographical area that none the lesscovers a variety of political and cultural aswell as actual landscapes. Such a decisionconcerning the range of the survey clearlyskews the results in ways that will not beknown until comparative studies are avail-able; in particular, it would be interesting tocompare this British perspective with likepractices across other cultures.1

Similarly, the process of targeting peoplefor the survey needs to be acknowledged,because this too will affect the nature of theresults. Potential respondents were soughtthrough a number of methods: in addition tocontacting artists of whom I had previousknowledge, I used web searches, recommen-dations (from funding bodies and from thosealready responding to the survey) and twointernet mailbases (one on the theme of liveart and one for university drama depart-ments). Though leaning more towards the

140

Fiona Wilkie

Mapping the Terrain: a Survey ofSite-Specific Performance in BritainWho is producing site-specific performance in Britain? Who sees it? Where do theseperformances occur, or, more particularly, ‘take place’? What tools are used to constructa performance of place? Why is the site-specific mode chosen? And, crucially, how isit variously defined? Drawing on a survey of British practitioners conducted betweenNovember 2000 and December 2001, Fiona Wilkie sets out to explore these questions.While pointing to the wide variety of practices that might be delineated by the term‘site-specific’, she analyzes the implications of such generalizations as can be made –about the types of performance site chosen, the effects of funding policy on the characterof work being made, the possibilities for identifying a ‘site-specific’ audience, and thedebates surrounding the terminology itself. Fiona Wilkie is currently completing aPhD at the University of Surrey, on which this article is based, which aims to developa theoretical model for site-specific performance, with particular reference to thespectatorial role.

‘theatre’ end of the performance spectrum,the survey includes responses from dance,dance-theatre, installation, and live art. Thisdiversity allows us to ask what is happeningin and between these various categories withregard to their various relationships to place.

The 44 practitioners represented (as listedon page 159) range from those who definethemselves precisely through their site-specific approach (such as Wrights & Sites,a performance collective, and Grid Iron, atheatre company) to those whose non-theatre-based work engages with some of the metho-dologies arising out of site-specific practice(these might include Station House Operaand London Bubble); and from live art prac-titioners to theatre companies producingscripted plays. Nine work as solo artists, andin the case of the companies the make-up isgenerally small. Almost all follow the patternof having a core group of permanent mem-bers (four on average) and then drawing ona pool of (an average of 15) associates, col-laborators, and freelancers on a project-by-project basis.

Though this survey is concerned parti-cularly with site-specific work, it should benoted that less than a third of the respon-dents work solely with this mode; the restproduce some theatre-based work as well,though it is impossible to summarize the site-specific/non-site-specific ratio as the pro-portions vary enormously. These facts arenot irrelevant to this study, as they outlinethe context within which site-specific workis created. For those practitioners workingboth in theatre buildings and in and fromother sites, a relationship between the twomodes is forged; an example of this is givenby Theresa Heskins, artistic director of Pent-abus, when she notes that site-specific work‘allows us to review and experiment withdynamics that are dictated by modern theatrebuildings, especially the relationship betweenperformer and audience and performer andvenue’.2

How far do the responses to the surveysituate site-specific performance in a parti-cular era? Of the 41 respondents for whom Ihave a founding date (three solo artists didnot give dates of starting to perform), the

average (median) date of founding is 1993.Of these:

1 (Out of the Blue) was founded in 2000;24 were founded in the 1990s;9 in the 1980s;5 in the 1970s;2 (Welfare State, Moving Being) in 1968.

It may, of course, be that these figures simplyreflect the short life-span of performancecompanies of all kinds, making it obviousthat I would find far more details of com-panies founded in the past decade or so. Itdoes seem to be the case, however, that theterm ‘site-specific’ only really began to havecurrency in theatrical (rather than sculp-tural) terms in the mid- to late-1980s, withcompanies such as the influential Welsh-based Brith Gof popularizing the form. Andit is only in the last four years or so thatnewspaper reviewers (particularly in TheGuardian and Observer) have begun to usethe term to describe theatre and performanceworks (the London International Festival ofTheatre has, together with companies suchas Edinburgh’s Grid Iron, been instrumentalin bringing such work to the attention ofreviewers).

Locating

We can, perhaps, move further towardsplotting the geographical patterns of site-specific performance, using the survey resultsto ask where in Britain such work is beingproduced. This question has two com-ponents: firstly discerning the pattern acrossdifferent areas of the country; and secondlyidentifying the types of site that site-specificperformance chooses. I will return to thislatter component shortly.

On the former, though, we might makesome observations which approach a hypo-thesis. Just under a third of the respondentsare based in London; many of these tend tofall into the live art/performance art bracket.The majority of the artists, then, are basedoutside London and the south-east, in ruralas well as urban areas: for example, in Scot-land, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Devon, and Wales.

141

Is there something in these places that attractspractitioners to their sites? Is an ideologicalpositioning in opposition to theatre-basedwork allied to a positioning against London?Does this work spring from a lack of theatreauditoria outside the main metropolitancentres?

Wales has only a limited range of theatre audi-toria. Experimental theatre has always sought

other venues. This is not solely through expedi-ency, but to challenge the notion that the audi-torium is a neutral vessel of representation, andsee it rather as the spatial machine of a dominantdiscourse which distances spectators from spec-tacle and literally ‘keeps them in their place’, inthe dark, sitting in rows, discouraging eye contactand interaction. (Pearson, 1997, p. 94–5)

Echoing Pearson’s words, Cornish companyKneehigh note that ‘Cornwall is very low on

142

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Site-Specific Performance in BritainQuestionnaire for companies/practitioners

The ‘Site-Specific Performance in Britain’survey is being conducted as part of PhDresearch at the University of Surrey. Its aim isto produce meaningful statistics regarding aperformance form that is little documentedand whose practitioners are often working inisolation from a sense of the wider contextwithin Britain. While I realize that most peopleworking in performance are always overworked,I would greatly appreciate your taking the timeto complete and return this questionnaire andhope that the results may prove to be of benefitto your work. Please number your answerson a separate page, or create space for youranswers between the questions below if youprefer. The fuller your answers, the betterrepresented your company will be in the finalreport. You may feel that some questions donot apply to you; please answer only thosequestions relevant to your group. If your grouphas been disbanded or no longer producessite-specific performance, please indicate thisand go on to answer the relevant questions inthe past tense.

General• In what year was your group founded?• Is your group operational at this time? If

not, when did the group disband and forwhat reasons?

Terminology• How would you define ‘site-specific

performance’ in the context of your work?• According to this definition, roughly what

proportion of your work fits the category‘site-specific’?

• In what year did you produce your first site-specific performance?

• Would you use the term ‘site-specific’ whendescribing your work:• to someone within the performance

profession?• to someone outside of the performance

profession?• on a funding application?

• If not, what other terms would you use todescribe this sort of work, and why?

PracticalitiesHow is your work funded?• By whom (e.g. Arts Council, Regional Arts

Board, sponsorship, workshops andeducation projects)?

• On what basis (per project, or for thecompany over a specified period)?

• Are you funded differently for site-specificand non-site-specific projects?

• Have you ever been commissioned toproduce a particular site-specificperformance by the controllers of thatsite? If so:• who commissioned the work?• for which site?• in which month and year?• please give the name, and any further

details if possible, of the resultingperformance.

• What are your reasons for producing site-specific performance? (Please expand onyour answer and choose more than onecategory if appropriate.)• financial• political

conventional performance spaces – the Hallfor Cornwall, the only venue in Cornwallwhich has a middle-scale capacity, onlyopened in 1997’. This fact informed the com-pany’s progression from working with uncon-ventional spaces to developing its ‘almostfilmic form of site-specific performance’,Landscape Theatre.

I am suggesting, then, that site-specificwork often involves a (more or less explicit)

political decision to work against the domi-nant discourse of London, its theatre build-ings, and its theatre tradition. This might beparticularly true in Wales, Scotland, andCornwall, which have variously sought theirindependence from a ‘Great Britain’ or‘United Kingdom’ that would tie thempolitically and socially to the English capital.There is a strong positive correlationbetween being based outside London and

143

• aesthetic• challenge/experiment• reaching a wider audience• other (please specify)

Material• What proportion of your site-specific work

would you class as ‘local’ to the area inwhich you are based? Is a sense ofimmediate locality important to your work?

• Does your site-specific performance tour? Ifso, do you feel that this affects the ‘site-specificity’ of the work? In what ways?

• What proportion of your site-specificperformance takes place:• indoors?• outdoors?

• What proportion of your site-specificperformance takes place:• in real space?• in cyberspace (e.g. on the Internet;

on CD ROM)?• Is the majority of your performance work:

• text-based?• non-text-based?

• Does this differ for your site-specificperformance – i.e. is the majority of yoursite-specific work:• text-based?• non-text-based?

• In your work, does the site tend to influencethe performance in terms of:• form (the physical aspects of the

performance)?

• content (narratives and stories inspired by the site)?

• both of the above?• other (please specify)?

Membership• How many members does your group

have? (Indicate both permanent membersand associates regularly worked with ifapplicable.)

• Have any of your group members been (orare they currently) involved with othercompanies producing site-specificperformance? Please give details(e.g. who? which other companies?on which projects? when?).

• Have you ever collaborated with othercompanies or individuals to make site-specific performance? If so:• please give details (e.g. who? on

which projects? when?).• for what reasons was the collaboration

instigated?

Other Information• Please name (and give details of if

possible) any other British companies orpractitioners you know of who produce site-specific theatre/performance and shouldtherefore be included in this survey.

• Any further details you could provide ofyour company and your site-specificperformance would be greatly appreciated. Forinstance, a list of your site-specificperformances with date and site informationwould be extremely useful in compiling thesurvey report. Any publicity or press materialwould also be very useful.

prioritizing a sense of locality in the work:few of the London-based artists are especi-ally concerned with immediate locality,many taking their work outside London on aregular basis, while the social, cultural, andpolitical resonances of their bases areparticularly important to companies such asWelfare State International (Cumbria),Cotton Grass Theatre Company (PeakDistrict), Moving Being (Cardiff), KneehighTheatre (Cornwall), Wrights & Sites (Exeter),and Storm Theatre Company (Coventry).

For 19 of the 44 artists I surveyed, thedecision to move out of the theatre buildingis an explicitly political one, ‘engender[ing]ideas of place and community’ (Lone Twin)and ‘renegotiating what a space has cometo mean’ (Storm Theatre) in spaces that arevariously controlled, accessed, and inhabited.

What Kind of Site?

And what of the other component of spatialpatterning: the type of site that site-specificperformance chooses?

Certain spaces act as sites for the performance ofidentity. (Hetherington, 1998, p. 105)

If, as Richard Schechner has suggested,‘theatre places are maps of the cultureswhere they exist’ (Schechner, 1988, p. 161),the search for alternative venues in which tostage performance is a means of encoun-tering and creating other maps of the cul-tural space. The survey results reveal certainsimilarities and possibilities for categoriz-ation, and the most popular sites can bedelineated as follows:

parks/playgrounds: London Bubble’sGulliver’s Travels;3 Grid Iron’s Decky Doesa Bronco.4

work buildings/sites (e.g., factories,disused offices, former mines): Kneehigh’sHell’s Mouth;5 Creation Theatre’s Hamlet.6

churches: Kate Lawrence’s St Catherine’sChapel Performance;7 Bobby Baker’s BoxStory.8

galleries/theatre building environs:The Olimpias’ Landscaping;9 Jude Kerr’sConundrum.10

museums and grounds: Hester Reeve’sFrom Trees to Houses;11 Brith Gof’s FromMemory.12

beaches: IOU’s A Drop in the Ocean;13

Red Earth’s Meeting Ground.14

tunnels (recurrent images in Freudianpsychoanalysis), shopping centres,hospitals, and castles are alsopopular.

What are the implications of these sites?What associations does each carry into thesite-specific process? Parks and playgroundsmight be grouped with beaches in theirstatus as public spaces; such sites are, asHanon Reznikov notes in interview withCindy Rosenthal, ‘homo ludens’ spaces, playspaces (in Cohen-Cruz, 1998, p. 157). Thoughoperating differently from the street, thesespaces allow performance to utilize one ofthe ideas behind street theatre: hoping, asSophia Lycouris of Kunstwerk-Blend notes,‘to attract the passers-by’. The park, alongwith the beach and, indeed, the shoppingcentre, is suggestive of ‘public inhabitability’(Bloomer and Moore, 1977, p. 84) and there-fore is a factor in enabling artists ‘to makethe work accessible’ (London Bubble).

The appeal of sites such as museums,galleries, and theatre buildings (but not thetraditional stage area) is, it seems, somewhatdifferent. It is here that performance forgesan intervention into cultural spaces, ‘reflect-ing or inverting its own habitat’ (Jude Kerr).Churches, too, are privileged cultural spaces,but it is perhaps more significant that theyare associated with heightened emotionsand, frequently, with evocative architecture.

Work sites, on the other hand, bring withthem a different dynamic, and one that isessentially quotidian, placing the perform-ance in the context of the everyday. Dep-ending partly on the type of work site, itsstatus (operational or disused), and the tim-ing of the event (during or outside workinghours), site-specific performance might choose

144

to expose political or social issues surround-ing the site to those outside or to engagewith those for whom the site is a workplace.

An example of the former approach mightbe found in Brith Gof’s 1998 Gododdin which,spurred by the impetus of Thatcherism andwhat it had left behind, was ‘conceived,constructed, and initially presented . . . in theengine-shop of the enormous, disused Rovercar factory in Cardiff, itself a potent symbolof economic decline and industrial decay’(Pearson and Shanks, 2001, p. 103). The latterapproach was a concern of Sue Palmer’s inall stages of her Hair Raising project (per-formed in GJ’s hair salon in Shepton Mallet,February 2001). Palmer recalls that:

With Hair Raising the thing that excited me wasthat this place I had chosen was peopled, it was aworking everyday environment. It wasn’t aban-doned, or derelict. . . . So for me it’s not just abouta place, but the people who normally inhabit anduse that place. For it wouldn’t exist without them.

Though performed in the evenings, after thesalon had closed, the work extended into

the everyday life of the salon in a number ofways. As well as (eventually) encouragingsome of the salon staff and customers toattend the performances, Palmer made in-stallations for the salon and placed booklets(featuring stories about hair) among themagazines. These installations and booklets,along with the project website featuringaudio files of hair-related recordings, be-come a further form of performance, mani-festations of non-traditional disseminatingstrategies that can be experienced alongsideor independently of the live performance. Itis also significant that such ‘extras’ can benamed as project ‘deliverables’ for the pur-poses of attracting funding, functioning totake the work to a wider public than the liveevent itself could reach.

A further point to make about the siteschosen by practitioners might be drawn fromMarvin Carlson’s research on Places of Perfor-mance. Carlson suggests that,

generally speaking, the populist directors whohave utilized the streets and other non-traditional

145

Sue Palmer and Vic Llewellyn, Hair Raising, performed at GJ’s Hair Salon, Shepton Mallet, February 2001, as partof the Year of the Artist. Photo: Piers Rawson.

urban locations during the past twenty yearshave not wished to repeat performances in aspecific space, but have on the contrary soughtnew spaces for each production, spaces whosealready existing semiotics would provide animportant element of the performance.

(Carlson, 1989, p. 34)

This trend reflects the work of the majorityof practitioners in this study, who con-tinually seek out new sites to provide freshperformance dynamics. Creation TheatreCompany, however, persist in re-using thesame site for more than one performanceunder the label ‘site-specific’. Thus, with theexception of their15 recent productions ofHamlet and Macbeth at the BMW factory inOxford, Creation’s performances have allbeen sited within the grounds of Oxford’sMagdalen College School.

This work differs from the popular ‘alfresco Shakespeare’ category of performancethrough the re-engagement with the physi-cal aspects of the site that informs each pro-duction; as a recent article in The Guardianstated, ‘Creation takes the notion of open-airtheatre extremely seriously, arguing that toomuch of it fails to exploit properly thepossibilities presented by the environmentin which it is performed.’16 Repeatedly ex-ploring the same space enables the company,as Carlson suggests, to ‘draw upon the sameenvironmental semiotics and indeed developnew codes out of an accumulated perform-ance experience’ (1989, p. 36).

In all cases, though, the site-specific workof these practitioners is located in real space.Despite web terminology which talks interms of sites and visits, the tendency is notto approach cyberspace as part of the samemode of practice. Cyberspace, of course, hasfeatures specific to it when compared withother modes of communication, but unlike‘real’ spaces it is broadly non-specific in itsreplicability and vastness; that is, one partof cyberspace behaves and looks very muchlike any other.

The tendency not to define its use as site-specific does, however, raise questions of howa site can be defined and where its boun-daries might be drawn. Where cyberspacefeatures in the work of the artists surveyed,

its role is generally in the fields of documen-tation, promotion, or education; alternat-ively, as in the case of The Olimpias, ‘cyber’movement is woven into the performancesites in order to explore the two orders ofspace ‘in relation to each other and as theyimpinge on each other’.

Artists, then, might be interested in theimplications that cyberspace holds for ourunderstanding of ‘real’ spaces, but wouldnot usually use the ‘site-specific’ label forweb-based projects. As Impossible Theatreargue, ‘the thing is, real “sites” already havea presence, a history, an identity which addsto the work – not really true in the same wayof cyberspace’.

Funding

The economic context of current perform-ance, particularly site-specific performance,is of interest to this project because it notonly helps to decide who creates perform-ance work and where this work will be seen,but also, significantly, impacts upon thetypes of work that can be made.

Leaving aside the differences in types ofsite, does the choice of a non-theatre venuein itself affect the way the work is funded(and therefore the way in which it is pro-duced)? Ten of the 31 respondents who alsoproduce non-site-specific work feel that theyare funded differently for their site-specificpractice, though this can have positive aswell as negative connotations:

‘In my experience it’s easier to convince a com-pany to give you cash for a venue-based work’(Justin Mckeown).

‘I believe that YOTA17 only funded the projectbecause it was site-specific’ (Sue Palmer).

‘I was able to (and needed to) raise a lot more insponsorship and in kind donations than I havein the past for non site-specific projects’ (KateLawrence).

Those responding to the survey reportedwidely differing experiences of the econo-mics of producing site-specific performance.For Emergency Exit Arts, it can be ‘costly,risky, and challenging’; similarly, Helena

146

Goldwater suggests that ‘it is a very hardchoice to make over the luxury and ease of atheatre booking’, and therefore the site ischosen ‘because it is right for the idea’ ratherthan for financial reasons. Others point tothe expense of bringing in appropriateresources, including sometimes electricity, aswell as to the one-off nature of much site-specific work, making it less financially viablethan performance that can enjoy a long runat one venue or tour to a succession of artscentres and theatres.

On the other hand, non-theatre sites mayoffer cheap or free performance and rehear-sal space (Bill Aitchison, for example, statesthat ‘it is certainly true that I never pay forthe use of a space. As my work is not fundedI can continue to work independently byusing the types of spaces that I do’) andmight provide naturally rich or spectacularsettings and ‘effects’. As Rotozaza maintain,‘it’s often been a way of producing work ofmaximum impact on a minimum budget’.

Most of the practitioners in the survey(36) receive some funding through the ArtsCouncils or Regional Arts Boards;18 of these,all but five rely on other sources of fundingas well (for example, lottery grants, work-shops and education projects, sponsorship,commissions, festivals, and box-office split).Almost two-thirds of the respondents haveto seek funding separately for each project;a third supplement some revenue fundingwith project funding, while only two arefully revenue-supported.

Categorization

One area of dissatisfaction that emergesfrom the survey is the issue of categorizationfor the purposes of funding. The Arts Coun-cils and RABs are divided into departments,but responsibilities are liable to be redis-tributed and departments re-named, there isno uniform division across the fundingbodies, and artists often find themselvesfunded through different departments fromproject to project.

Julian Maynard Smith, of the London-based performance art company StationHouse Opera, expresses dissatisfaction with

the way performance has to be categorizedin this country. He explains that, becausecontinental funders are not as interested inlabels, ‘over the years it has been Europeanwork that’s sustained us’.

The Whalley Range All Stars echo thefeelings of many when they state, ‘Our workdoesn’t fit easily into convenient “boxes”,’when it comes to funding. ‘Site-specific’ doesnot operate as a category in itself in this con-text: instead, such work has been variouslyfunded under the banners of ‘visual arts’,‘combined arts’, ‘performing arts’, ‘drama’,‘multidisciplinary arts’, ‘dance’, ‘collaborativearts’, and ‘theatre’. In some recent instances,though, it has helped to work across cate-gories and between disciplines.

Southern Arts, for instance, ‘operate a cross-artform “new work” fund which includes“temporary and site-specific work” in its listof eligible projects’.19 And Moving BeingTheatre Company have found that workingsite-specifically has enabled them to targetcertain alternative pockets of funding, parti-cularly those that are interested in promot-ing a cross-over between the categories of artand science. Here, the cross-over can beachieved not only through performance con-tent but also by working in, and from, scien-tific institutions (in Moving Being’s case anexample has been the National Botanic Lib-rary of Wales).

IOU’s feeling that ‘there is more interestin site-specific work at the moment’ might bereinforced by the recent Year of the Artistscheme, run by Arts 2000 through theRegional Arts Boards between June 2000 andMay 2001. The scheme invited proposals for‘innovative new work for spaces and placesthroughout the UK, focusing on everydayareas where artistic activities don’t usuallyhappen or appear’,20 and was open to artistsworking in any form or discipline.

Ten of the companies and solo artists rep-resented in this survey created work as partof the Year of the Artist.21 Sue Palmer, whoseHair Raising project was one such commis-sion, comments that completing the appli-cation for funding was ‘for the first time anenjoyable experience, one where the idea fitsthe project guidelines without compromise’.

147

In some instances the means of fundingfor site-specific performance has been dif-ferent because it has focused on differentaspects of the work: its intervention intoeveryday spaces has meant that its effectmight be harnessed and put into the serviceof social and political concerns and issues ofcommunity. An example of one aspect of thisshift in focus is drawn from the work ofKneehigh:

The Landscape Theatre shows are not in them-selves pieces of community theatre – the maincast, direction, design, are professional Kneehighartists – but they will be strongly influenced bythe culture, concerns, characteristics of the com-munity in which they take place. The shows serveas a public platform for a broad programme oftraining and work in the community, and as suchreceive funding through trusts and funding bodieswho support training young people, communityrejuvenation, the environment. Funding securedfor the site-specific work therefore tends to be lessabout funding the art itself, and more about thevast process behind it.

The survey highlights one avenue of funding(and therefore an opportunity for creatingwork) that presents itself only in terms ofsite-specific performance. Many artists receivecommissions from site-owners or controllers:that is, by people who would not normallycommission theatre work, for spaces thatwould not normally see this work. Morethan two-thirds (30) of the 44 respondentshave been commissioned in this way, usuallyon more than one occasion, and one furthercompany is currently in negotiations to takeon such a commission.

The majority of commissions have comefrom councils (of towns, cities, and ruralareas), but commissioners have also includedorganizations such as English Heritage, theNational Trust, universities, and retail chains.Performance is thereby used as a vehicle forsite promotion. Not all respondents, how-ever, have had this experience of creatingwork, and they report differing experiencesof negotiating space:

Kneehigh: ‘If anything, the company tends tohave to fight for the right to use a site, point-ing out the mutual benefits to the controller.’

Storm Theatre Company: ‘We usually approacha site/site controller and negotiate with them.They are usually delighted to have their spaceused and are invariably very helpful.’

It is worth noting, also, that the fundingavenue provided by such commissions maynot be altogether a good thing. It may be thatArts Councils and Arts Boards will prioritizeother work over site-specific performance,assuming that the latter has access to alter-native sources of funding. This wouldheighten the effect of Cerberus Theatre Com-pany’s assertion that ‘there is an awkwardbalance between arts-specific funding andcommunity/local authority funding that be-comes more of an issue with site-specificwork’.

Site-specific performance has, it seems,been located at the intersection of a numberof territories (those of, for instance, tourism,town planning, art, community, and socialcontrol) and therefore has provoked newquestions about how and by whom the workshould be funded. These questions will findnew answers as the territory of the site-specific continues to be re-defined.

Naming

‘A real location . . . ’

‘Found spaces . . . ’

‘In tune with a site . . . ’

‘Made to measure . . . ’

‘Listening to the space . . . ’

‘Once-off, time-based, and non-theatrical . . . ’

‘A spirit of place that exists beyond and beforethe event’ . . . 22

What do performance-makers mean by ‘site’?How specific is site-specific?

The only generalization that can be drawnfrom the attempts within the questionnaireto define site-specific performance is that it isconcerned with issues of place and the realspaces of performance. Whether or not this isits primary concern is a point of debate.

148

Within these broad parameters, the generalfeeling is that we are dealing exclusively withnon-theatre spaces (and Sophia Lycouris ofKunstwerk-Blend – who uses the term forwork within theatre spaces because ‘I takeinto account the nature of those spaces in arather major way’ – recognizes that this isnot the usual understanding of the term andwould not use this description ‘without clari-fying the character of my site-specificity’).

Brighton-based performance and installa-tion company Red Earth manage to encap-sulate the essence of the majority of thedefinitions when they suggest that site-specific performance is ‘inspired by anddesigned to integrate with the physical andnon-physical aspects of a specific location’.The main features of site-specific perform-ance that recur throughout the responsesmight be summarized as follows:

Use of non-theatre locations (‘found spaces’).

Influence of site in the creation of the perfor-mance.

Notion of ‘fit’ – that the performance ‘fit’ thesite and vice versa. It is important to note,however, that the ‘fit’ may not be a comfort-able merging with the resonances of the sitebut might be a reaction against them.

Site-Specific or Site-Generic?

The overriding issue of contention arisingfrom the survey turns around the question,‘Can site-specific performance tour?’ This isa question that might more explicitly bephrased, ‘Does “site-specific” imply “site-ex-clusive”?’ The responses to this are dividedalmost exactly between those who believethat site-specific performance can tour (oftenwith qualifications (Impossible Theatre, forinstance, believe that ‘it can – with care.Obviously it loses something, but also canperhaps carry something else away with it’)and those for whom the notion of touringsuch work is a contradiction. It seems thatthere are two ways of dealing with this. Thefirst is to draw distinctions between levels ofsite-specificity:

Some projects are completely site-specific, i.e.,they could not take place anywhere else withoutlosing a strong thread of meaning and connection;while other more flexible projects may workaround a certain sense of place, i.e., the spirit orconcept at the heart of the project would work inseveral – but not all – locations.

(Red Earth)

Bill Aitchison and the Whalley Range AllStars are respondents who also offer twodefinitions in this way. And similarly, JustinMckeown distinguishes between the site-specificity of up to half of his work (which is‘directly derived from a chosen site’) and themore general way in which all of his work‘takes into account the inherent meaningswithin the site’.

Paul Pinson, artistic director of Scottishcompany Boilerhouse, agrees; he too makesa distinction between types or levels of en-gagement with the performance space. Andwhile Boilerhouse work does sometimestour, as Pinson points out,

that’s not pure site-specificity. You can recreate awork in response to a number of differing sites,which is totally valid in itself and is an element ofsite-specificity but is different from making apiece of work in response to one specific site.

This raises the issue of ‘purity’: can we distila pure model of site-specificity, with whichother, related, practices might also be illumi-nated? Such an approach would recognizethe validity of each performative responseto place while acknowledging the ways inwhich it differs from the ‘pure model’, asHelena Goldwater argues:

To make a truly site-specific piece means it sitswholly in that site in both its content and form,otherwise, if movable, it becomes more about thesite as a vehicle/vessel. I don’t think this mattersbut it must be considered.

The second way of dealing with the comp-lexities arising from the issue of touring is tocreate a new terminology. Wrights & Sites,for example, propose a possible continuum,which is illustrated in the diagram overleaf,within which to locate a variety of theatrepractices in terms of their relationships toplace:23

149

This scale reserves the label ‘site-specific’only for performances in which a profoundengagement with one site is absolutelycentral to both the creation and execution ofthe work (these performances work withand from one site, do not tour, and do notperform pre-existing scripts), and suggestsnew labels to distinguish other theatricalexperiments with non-theatre spaces.

This still leaves the question of what to dowith those performances that seem to fallsomewhere between the ‘site-generic’24 and‘site-specific’ points on the scale. I am refer-ring to that set of work which is not so muchtoured as re-located, that is, re-worked to fiteach new site. Many of the practitioners inthe survey produce work in this manner.Gregg Whelan, of the live art partnershipLone Twin, argues that their work does nottour ‘in a “repeating’ way” but rather that ‘theconcerns of the work are recontextualized fora particular environment’. And Bill Aitchisoncomments on moving a show to differentsites: ‘Each rendition was different but theyall were most intimate with the sites. I wouldnot unleash a performance indiscriminatelyupon a site ignoring what could arise fromthe meeting of these two strangers’.

For some, this kind of touring or relocat-ing has an enriching effect on the work: it‘radically expands concepts’ of site-specificity

(Bobby Baker) and ‘allows for a constantlychanging dynamic in the performance’(Theatre Nomad). Further questions ensuefrom this discussion. If a performance is re-worked, to what extent can it then be said tobe the ‘same’ performance? And, perhapsmore importantly, at which stage would weagree that a performance has been adaptedenough to retain the label ‘site-specific’?

This last question resonates also on a prag-matic level, as there are important issues offunding, and therefore of time, involved inhow much each performance is able to beworked and re-worked for a particular space.IOU discuss this problem in relation to arecent production:

Cure is touring, we wanted to have a core perfor-mance element that could be taken to and in-formed by new sites; in practice this has beenvery difficult – impossible really, as there simplyis not enough money to re-work shows in relationto the specific site. There are very few promoterswho can pay the costs of creating work on thatscale.

As a postscript to this discussion of touring,I want to point to Manchester-based com-pany Walk the Plank, whose practice compli-cates the issue still further. Their work mightbe divided into two categories: celebratoryperformance that is commissioned indivi-

150

• • • • •In theatre building Outside theatre Site-sympathetic Site-generic Site-specific

e.g. Shakespeare existing performance performancein the park performance text generated for a specifically

physicalized in a series of like sites generated from/forselected site (e.g. car parks, one selected site

swimming pools)

layers of the site are revealed through reference to:• historical documentation • site usage (past and present) • found text, objects, actions,

sounds, etc • anecdotal guidance • personal association • half-truths and lies • site morphology (physical and

vocal explorations of site)

dually for each site and community; and per-formances created on board the company’sship, making use of its physical features aswell as the stories it might inspire.25 In thelatter category, ‘our site can tour, in effect’.The company write that

the ship tours, and we like the fact that we canexercise some control over the site (we can controlwhat happens on board, but the environment inwhich the ship is berthed changes from seasideharbour to working dock).

Walk the Plank are keenly aware of the rami-fications of the waterfront regeneration pro-jects of the ’eighties and ’nineties and feelthat ‘as artists we should be working inplaces of change and the biggest transfor-mations have been happening in watersidelocations – with derelict docks being re-claimed, etc’. Where, in this case, do we drawthe boundaries marking the performancesite? Is the site wholly contained in the ship,or is it extended differently and with freshimplications with each new berth?

Given the level of debate surrounding itsapplication, how useful is the term ‘site-specific’? Despite Grid Iron’s assertion that‘there does seem to be a general increase inthe public awareness of what site-specifictheatre is’, many answers implied that theterm ‘site-specific’ might be explained, orreplaced with something more appropriate,when describing the work to those outsidethe performance profession, particularly audi-ences.26 This aims to ‘reduce uneasiness aboutwhat [spectators] will experience’ (IOU), oftenbecause, as Lone Twin point out, ‘site is aword that sits a little oddly outside perfor-mance discourse’.

The phrases replacing ‘site-specific’ inthese situations tend to be either a moredetailed description of that company’s parti-cular approach – ‘live animation of objectswithin a site’ (PickleHerring Theatre)27 – or away of playing on the novelty of the site-specific encounter as a popular selling point:‘Wrap up warm and join us on an unforget-table journey as the magnificent LudlowCastle tells its story of love and betrayal’(Pentabus Theatre).28 Other terms which areused include:

Context-sensitive

Environmental art

Outdoor performance

Interactive

Landscape theatre

Installation

Season-specific

Public

Promenade

Contextually reactive

Street theatre

Place-orientated work

Square pegs in square holes

One-off specially commissioned performance

Made specially for . . .

Sue Palmer makes an important point whenshe suggests that ‘by using other words youhelp to define the thing for yourself and tostretch and understand its meaning on manylevels’.

Witnessing

Discussing street theatre, Bim Mason hasargued that ‘the purpose of doing theatreon the streets is to reach people who areunfamiliar with theatre’; he goes on to notethat ‘the vast majority of outdoor theatre isintended to be attractive and accessible to anaudience far wider than those who visitindoor theatres’ (Mason, 1992, p. 13). Whileit is important to remember that the catego-ries of ‘street theatre’ and ‘site-specific theatre’overlap but are by no means synonymous,and that we are discussing indoor as wellas outdoor non-theatre venues, Mason doestouch here on an area of interest to manysite-specific practitioners. More than two-thirds of the companies and solo artists sur-veyed identified ‘reaching a wider audience’as a reason for working in the site-specificmode.29

For some, it is in fact the primary reason.London Bubble’s artistic policy, for example,states that their ‘main objective is to attract

151

new users to theatre and to provide appro-priate entry points for this to happen’. Theyaim ‘to work particularly with and forpeople who do not normally have access totheatre for geographical, financial, or culturalreasons’.30 Similarly, Theatre Nomad ‘arepolitically committed to the development ofnew audiences and to reaching as wide anaudience as possible’. Theatre Nomad’sbelief that ‘it is easier to do this outside of atraditional theatre environment’ is shared bymany.

‘Do you go to the theatre often?’ That many havenever gone, and that those who have, even incountries with established theatre traditions, aregoing elsewhere or, with cable and VCRs, stayinghome, is also a theatrical fact, a datum of practice.

(Blau, 1992, p. 76)

In the context of site-specific performance,Blau’s question, ‘Do you go to the theatreoften?’ becomes blurred. One no longerneeds to ‘go to the theatre’ (in terms of thetheatre building, together with all the cul-tural implications of the process of ‘going tothe theatre’) in order to see or even becomepart of a theatrical performance. Does thespectator, who may have happened upon aperformance in a public space, even put thetwo experiences in the same category?

So site-specific performance may createan audience that doesn’t know it is one, that‘has no idea there is going to be art there andcome[s] across it by accident’ (Miriam Keye).Its sought-after ‘wider audience’ might alter-natively plan to attend the event, attractedprecisely by the removal of the theatre build-ing, and simultaneously the ‘preconceptionabout what type of people “theatre-goers”are’ (Grid Iron), along with the ‘red curtains,spotlights, blank verse, laughter, darkness’that Peter Brook found ‘confusedly super-imposed’ on the image of theatre (Brook,1996, p. 9). But to what extent is this wideraudience actually found? In 1993 Alan Readfelt that the mounting interest in site-specificperformance had not in fact engendered anew audience for the work:

Currently there is renewed experiment interna-tionally with ‘non-theatre’ spaces, significantly thearchitecture of the industrial period, reconditioned

for a ‘new theatre to meet a new public’. Newtheatre there may well be, but the identity of theaudience continues to confirm the suspicion thatthe ‘old public’ is simply willing to travel furtherto see what it has always wanted – good theatre.

(Read, 1993, p. 4–5)

What Spectators Experience

This introduces the sense of a collective audi-ence identity (the ‘old public’), a knowingaudience that constructs itself appropriatelyas an interpretative body via a cumulativeframework of contemporary performanceexperiences. A series of questions followsfrom this notion. How is an audience’s senseof its identity and role created? What are thepossibilities for this identity to be altered?And how might new and multiple audienceidentities be accommodated?

Later in the decade Jan Cohen-Cruz alsoquestioned whether the removal of thetheatre building, this time in the context ofstreet theatre, really does open the work upto a new public:

Space is always controlled by someone and existssomewhere, so is inevitably marked by a particularclass or race and not equally accessible to everyone.. . . While the mobility of much street performancefacilitates the seeking out of diverse audiences,one must question if access to a broader audiencereally is a difference between performance in thestreet and in theatre buildings.

(Cohen-Cruz, 1998, p. 2)

Clearly, whether the site-specific mode canindeed reach the wider audience that manyof its practitioners seek will depend on thetype of site used, on issues of accessibility, oncultural and social positioning, and on theterms in which the experience is couched

London-based theatre company The Lion’sPart aim to ‘escape from the bureaucracy ofthe theatre building’ by ensuring that theirsites ‘are free in access’; in monetary terms,too, ‘our events are free. Theatre is a part ofthe event, and the sites part of the pleasureas they bring new and unsuspecting audi-ences!’ This use of the description ‘event’ isindicative of a trend across the field of site-specific performance and reflected in thesurvey responses. The notion of the event

152

moves away from the highbrow associationsof the theatre and closer to reaching a publicwell-versed in the popular culture of gigs,festivals, and celebrations. It emphasizes thesignificance of the spatial encounter and isconceived as a whole experience for thespectator.

While the term ‘event’ is widely used, TheLion’s Part’s experience of accessibility can-not apply to all site-specific performance.Each site, whether outdoors or indoors, hasdiffering practicalities of either restricting orencouraging access. In some cases there maybe two separate audiences: the paying,knowing audience, and the unsuspecting,accidental audience that, for Bill Aitchison,‘adds to the complexity of the event’.

Grid Iron’s Decky Does a Bronco, forinstance, was performed in a series of play-grounds; although audiences paid admis-sion, director Ben Harrison remarks that thechildren who had claimed each playgroundas territory were not shut out from orcharged admission to the public space. Herecalls that, in groups, they would approachthe performance area intermittently, when

things looked interesting, retreating to otherparts of the park during ‘the boring bits’.Grid Iron’s experience in general has been‘that we do get a new audience, people that,for one reason or another, haven’t gone tothe theatre before’. Kneehigh, too, find that thesite-specific process creates a new audience:

The work in the community behind the Land-scape Theatre really does take the theatre to a newaudience, whether their involvement has been asaudience only, steward, making, technical, music,or performance. The Clay District is economicallypoor, and theatre would not normally be a majorconcern for the majority of the village commu-nities there. In Hell’s Mouth last summer, bikersfrom the area performed the English/Cornishskirmishes in the Mad-Max style Cornwall of thefuture. This, and the sort of involvement previ-ously listed and reasonable ticket prices, encour-aged a strong local percentage of audience, whowould not normally see the company’s work ortheatre of any sort.

Here, the encounter with a new audienceseems to be linked to the fact that, forKneehigh, ‘a sense of the immediate locality,culture, concerns, and character is inherentin the work’.

153

Exeter Quayside: one of the sites for The Quay Thing by Wrights & Sites, Summer 2000.

This leads us on to a related discussion,which has to do with the community of asite. The practice of the performance companyThe Olimpias is frequently concerned withpolitical issues of site ownership and re-interpretation, particularly dealing with dis-ability. For Petra Kuppers, artistic director ofThe Olimpias, site-specific performance is‘attentive to the local community and itsways of inhabiting its environment’. Thecompany ‘work with the community to takenew forms of ownership of site, re-interpretthe site, keep its history and presence alive’.

The work of Wrights & Sites, similarly, is‘above all . . . interested in the place and in thepeople who meet us in that place’.31 Fittinglyfor a practice that has roots in communitytheatre (as well as in sculpture and the eco-nomies of place that it explores), site-specificperformance often approaches its sites aslived spaces, working to a greater or lesserextent with or for those who inhabit them.

One of the first companies to use thisprocess, Welfare State International have al-ways prioritized ‘a commitment to drawingin local energies and leaving behind a resi-due of skills and confidence after the com-pany’s withdrawal’ (Coult and Kershaw,1983, p. 9), and in 1983 they extended thiswork when they settled permanently inUlverston, Cumbria. The company popular-ized the idea of celebratory performance,a mode also practised by some of the otherartists in the survey, including EmergencyExit Arts, The Lion’s Part, and Walk the Plank.Bim Mason writes of Welfare State that

their shows could be said to be audience-specificas well as site-specific. They devise their perfor-mances from the local culture, both historical andcontemporary. . . . All the ingredients aredesigned to be appropriate to the particular site,the whole area, and the specific audience.

(Mason, 1992, p. 137)

The development of the artistic residency,which ‘blossomed in the 1970s and ’80s’(Stephens, 2000, p. 14), might also be said tocreate ‘audience-specific’ work. The Year ofthe Artist scheme, referred to above, estab-lished 980 residencies in everyday sitesacross England, defining residency as ‘an

artist, or group of artists, in any art form,working in, or responding to, a particularplace or context’ (Capaldi and Chadbourn,2001, p. 33). These residencies took place insites such as work places and retail settings,heritage sites and city parks, schools andhospitals, airports and train stations, and inmany cases the creative process was as much‘the work’ as any final outcome.

The notion of process also gains new im-portance in much site-specific performance.Escaping the theatre building often meansescaping the rehearsal room, and, if a per-formance is to be created from and in a pub-lic place, a fluid and provisional audience isformed. As Carolyn Deby, of the dance com-pany Sirens Crossing, finds: ‘a by-product ofhaving your creation process exposed topassers-by is that they feel empowered tocomment, to ask questions, to have an opi-nion . . . and, ultimately, to attend the actualperformances’.

Deby also reminds us that the challenge insite-specific work is not only to attract awider audience but to enable this audienceto have a ‘radically different relationship’ tothe performance. Potential new relationshipsmight be explored through ‘degrees of scale,intimacy, proximity . . . the possibility of theaudience member moving through or pastthe performance . . . the lack of usual theat-rical conventions . . . the challenge to focusthe viewer’s eye without the usual tricks . . . ’.

Shaping

So what does site-specific performance looklike? What might it contain?

The survey results suggest that it is al-most twice as likely to take place outdoors asindoors: the average proportion of outdoorto indoor performance is 64:36 per cent.Eight of the practitioners produce 100 percent outdoor productions, compared to threeproducing 100 per cent indoor work, and 12respondents reporting that the proportion intheir work is roughly 50:50. But, as GastonBachelard reminds us, outside and inside areunstable categories, ‘always ready to bereversed’ (Bachelard, 1994, p. 218). Some ofthe practitioners felt unable to answer this

154

question, because they frequently movebetween outdoor and indoor spaces in oneproduction.

Another category that appears unstable inmuch current performance work is that oftext. How are we to define this, in the contextof ‘text-based performance’? This questionbecomes especially significant when dealingwith work which ‘include[s] song lyric astext’, ‘has a created text but utilizes non-textual work also’, includes text but is ‘nottext led’, or ‘may have words, music, orpoetry within [it]’. In the questionnaire I hadused the phrase ‘text-based performance’ toindicate scripted work, but, as Lone Twinpoint out, ‘work that has no readable page-based writing in it could be understood asbeing textually driven’.

This discussion raises a number of ques-tions. Are we looking for text used as astarting point or text that is utilized in otherways and at other stages of the work? Doestext need to have been written/printed priorto its use in performance? The scripting ornon-scripting of performance text is an im-portant issue that continues to gain signi-ficance in contemporary performance; thatis, do spoken words count as text? Doessong?

And site-specific performance finds itsown texts. The issue is therefore complicatedfurther when practitioners begin to refer tothe ‘texts’ of a place (see, for example,Etchells, 1999). New texts might also mergewith a place as a result of performance. TheOlimpias, for example, create a text throughtheir work that ‘becomes part of the site (chalkon roads, leaflets on the ground, traces inclay . . . )’. Part of this issue has to do with theevolution of the term ‘performance text’from metaphor to its current literal use (justas modern scholarly usage allows us to talkof ‘reading’ an image, a movement, or a soundin the same way as we might read a book),making it difficult to pinpoint the connota-tions of the word ‘text’ with clarity.32

The various relationships between text,site, and performance that are represented inthe survey results have less to do with issuesof site-specificity than with the mode ofwork itself: scripted plays, devised work,

dance, performance art. In the few caseswhere the relationship differs from thetheatre-based to the site-specific work of onepractitioner, the site-specific work is ‘per-haps less likely to be text-based’ (ImpossibleTheatre). The reasons given for this refer tothe practicalities of performing in the openair or in a site with the distractions of theeveryday. Kneehigh, for instance, report thattheir ‘Landscape Theatre form uses text spar-ingly – words do not travel over distances orin strong winds’.

The responses to the survey begin to builda picture of how a performance of place isconstructed and which tools might be mostsignificant to this construction. In the vastmajority of cases (36 of 44) the site-specificprocess allows the site to inform both theform and content of the work, though thediscussion surrounding this area suggeststhat a very broad generalization might bemade, asserting that live art and dancepractices are more likely to draw on a site fortheir form and theatre practices for theircontent. In many cases, a thematic engage-ment is deemed less necessary (or, in one ortwo instances, less desirable) than a geometricor structural one in order for a piece to betermed site-specific.

We attempt to respond to the physical qualities ofthe site. The work includes a large proportion ofmovement, dance, and physical theatre, so thistends to develop in this way. The influence oncontent is far less direct and not even througheach piece. In general we try to ‘dream’ the siterather than interpret it literally.

(Storm Theatre)

There are, of course, many different waysof responding to a site’s physical aspects.Dance practitioners may derive a new‘movement language’ from the sites inwhich they work, but the nature of theirwork often means that practical consider-ations are paramount: certain types of move-ment become impossible if, for example, asite presents unsprung floors. Such physicalrestrictions also affect performance in otherdisciplines: Station House Opera, for in-stance, often fly performers into and aroundthe space, and so they seek out sites whichhave the height to enable this movement.

155

Adjustment

Performance form may develop, then, as ameans of dealing with the perceived short-comings of a site. Alternatively, the physic-ality of the site might offer ‘different stimulielements’ to the creation process as ‘experi-mentation with playing spaces and the dif-ferent audience interaction elements thatsuit each space provide fresh perspectivesfor working’ (Riptide). A number of thecompanies producing scripted performance(including Cotton Grass Theatre Companyand Pentabus Theatre Company) commis-sion the script for a particular location, thusallowing the space into the foundations ofthe work. This might involve the perform-ative use of a site’s natural rhythms, asPentabus found when preparing for theirperformance of Shot Through the Heart atLudlow Castle:

Discussions began with the scenographer, whotalked about natural lighting, and specifically themovement from daylight through dusk to night.This corresponded to space in the castle. The largeopen grassy outer space seemed ideal for day-time. . . . As dusk fell, act two began and theaudience and the captured tribes were led into thecastle by a bunch of mercenary soldiers. As theaudience entered the castle a threatening drum-ming replaced the melodies of the first act – herethe castle was used as a sound box, its acousticscreating resonance. . . . Act three was text-based,again using the natural acoustic of the castle. . . .Here the text was complex too, and drew muchinspiration from the replacement of melody byrhythm in the new culture of the story, and fromthe natural darkness by which we were sur-rounded.

Place has tended to exert a different kind ofinfluence on the development of perform-ance content, an influence more often abstractand imaginative than purely literal. A sitebrings its own historical, cultural, or politicalimplications, which are then interwoven withother concerns and aesthetics into the finalpiece. This process may be either explicit, asin Bobby Baker’s Kitchen Show,33 or implicit,as for Fragments and Monuments, who

bring their own stories to the site. The site is usedin an abstract way and not as an illustration of anarrative. We look for spaces that can be trans-formed into something unexpected. We projectour own reality onto the locations.

What are the politics of ‘projecting’ onto asite, either metaphorically, as here, or liter-ally, as in Pentabus’s Shot Through the Heart(in which video was ‘projected directly on tothe massive castle walls’)?

There is some thinking that you cannot importanything into a site-specific work that is not in thesite already. Yet you import yourself, your imagi-nation, your senses, ideas, so I think you can im-port other objects. However, a site can easily pushaway objects that are imported and attentionmust always be paid to the intention behind theimportation. This is part of the very fine line thatmakes a production or performance able to betransient and to exist away from the site.

(Sue Palmer)

This sets up a debate between what isbrought into a site and what is already there,representing a choice that will begin to

156

Through the picture frame. Another of the sites onExeter Quayside for The Quay Thing by Wrights & Sites, Summer 2000.

establish a particular relationship betweenthe performance and the site. Cathy Turnerof Wrights & Sites finds that ‘a work can bemore or less aggressive in its assertion ofitself within the space’ and prefers to workwith an idea of performance that ‘may be nomore than a set of footprints in the sand’.The notion of ‘building into’ or ‘dressing’ aspace, adding to it as part of a performance,might be an attempt to create a stage envir-onment within the location, so reducing thephysical aspects of that location available tobe worked with, but it might alternativelyoffer ‘an interesting way of responding toand interrogating the space’ (Storm).

The Variety of Work

So, to return to the question that opened thissection: what does site-specific performancelook like? It is a question that can only beanswered with reference to what it has lookedlike in its various manifestations. In recentyears it has looked like . . .

iou’s Island (1996). Commissioned as part ofCopenhagen ’96, Europe’s City of Culturecelebrations, this show explored the themeof earth and was presented within the oldcity ramparts and moat.

sirens crossing’s Trace and Flight (2000). Atwo-part piece exploring two very differentpublic sites (Abney Park Cemetery in StokeNewington and the Royal Festival Hall onthe South Bank) through choreography andlive, original music, each part linked concep-tually and leading the audience on a journeythrough the spaces.

wrights & sites’ The Quay Thing (1998).A season of six performances presented atdifferent locations on Exeter Quayside. Thelocations ranged from public to private, fromopen access to closed and inaccessible: theformer municipal power station, the emptymaritime museum, a medieval bridge, acondemned boatyard.34

157

Sirens Crossing, Trace and Flight: 1, performed as part of the Stoke Newington Festival in June 2000 at AbneyPark Cemetery, London N16 (choreographer: Carolyn Deby; dancer: Pia Nordin). Photo: Mattias Ek.

anne-marie culhane’s Night Sky (1997).A visual arts work commissioned for andmade in response to Rothwell Colliery, in-volving the posting of the work throughevery tenth letter box on the site: ‘We neverknew what the impact was.’

the whalley range all stars’ Day of theDummy (1999). Commissioned by Marks andSpencer for a store in Covent Garden, thispiece involved six living mannequins anim-ating the shop floor and streets outsidethroughout one day.

kneehigh’s Roger Salmon – Cornish Detective:the Case of the Uncertain Woman (2001). A per-formance in Geevor Mine, Pendeen, Corn-wall, in which, the advertising leaflet tells us,‘the walls whisper their own memories. Asthe audience descends through the old minebuildings they and the journey itself unravelthis seemingly impossible case.’

Site-specific performance engages with siteas symbol, site as story-teller, site as struc-ture. As performance continues to find newways of engaging with its sites, new reasonsfor moving out of the theatre building, andnew ways of forging relationships withits audiences, the map created here will bere-drawn, its boundaries reassessed and itsmeanings renegotiated.

BibliographyBachelard, G., The Poetics of Space. trans. Maria Jolas

(Boston: Beacon Press, 1994).Blau, H., To All Appearances: Ideology and Performance

(London: Routledge, 1992).Bloomer, K., and Moore, C., Body, Memory, and Archi-

tecture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977).Brook, P., The Empty Space (New York: Touchstone,

1996).Capaldi, N., and Chadbourn, D., ed., Breaking the

Barriers: Year of the Artist June 2000–May 2001(Sheffield: Arts 2000, 2001).

Carlson, M., Places of Performance: the Semiotics of TheatreArchitecture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989).

Cohen-Cruz, J., ed., Radical Street Performance (London:Routledge, 1998).

Coult, T., and Kershaw, B., ed. Engineers of the Imagina-tion: the Welfare State Handbook (London: Methuen,1983).

Etchells, T., Certain Fragments: Contemporary Performanceand Forced Entertainment (London: Routledge, 1999).

Hetherington, K., Expressions of Identity: Space, Perfor-mance, Politics (London: Sage, 1998).

Mason, B., Street Theatre and Other Outdoor Performance(London: Routledge, 1992).

Ong, W., Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of theWord (London: Methuen, 1982).

Pearson, M., ‘Special Worlds, Secret Maps: a Poetics ofPerformance’, in Taylor, A., ed., Staging Wales: WelshTheatre 1979–1997 (Cardiff: University of Wales Press,1997), p. 85–99.

Pearson, M., and Shanks, M., Theatre/Archaeology (London:Routledge, 2001).

Read, A., Theatre and Everyday Life (London: Routledge,1993).

Schechner, R., Performance Theory (New York: Routledge,1988).

Stephens, K., The Concept of Residency: a Historical Survey.An occasional paper published by the University ofNorthumbria, 2000, and available online through theYear of the Artist website: www.yota.org.uk.

Wrights & Sites, ‘Site-Specific: The Quay Thing Docu-mented’, Studies in Theatre and Performance Supple-ment 5, August 2000.

Notes and References1. On this point, an interesting remark was made in

the questionnaire response of Rotozaza, a company thathas produced work in Italy as well as Britain. Corecompany member Anthony Hampton writes that ‘theterm “site-specific” doesn’t exist in Italy yet. No one Ispoke to knows of a term to be used for what I under-stand it to mean.’

2. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations aretaken from questionnaire responses or telephone con-versations, with permission given for use within thisarticle.

3. Tour of six London parks, July–August 2001.4. Tour of children’s playgrounds, Scotland 2000,

England 2001.5. Hendra Pit (claypit), Nanpea, Cornwall, Summer

2000.6. BMW group plant, Oxford, February–March

2001.7. St Catherine’s Chapel, Guildford, April 2001.8. St Luke’s Church, Holloway, June 2001.9. Stairwells of Chisenhale Dance Space, London,

April 2001.10. 291 Gallery, London, November 2000.11. Grounds of Chelmsford and Essex Museum, 1992.12. Trilogy of performances at Welsh Folk Museum,

Cardiff, 1991–95.13. Brighton beach, May 1984.14. Brighton beach, 1997.15. For the purposes of clarity and consistency, I

have tended throughout this survey to go with commonrather than grammatical usage by using the plural andnot the singular form to refer to a group or company.This fits with the tendency of the majority of surveyrespondents.

16. Mick Martin, ‘Romeo and Juliet: Oxford’, TheGuardian, 30 June 2001.

17. The Year of the Artist scheme funded throughthe Regional Arts Boards (see Note 18, below).

18. The Arts Councils provide arts funding withmonies from the government, though they are non-political and operate independently. There are threeBritish councils: the Arts Council of England, theScottish Arts Council, and the Arts Council of Wales.

158

159

Companies and Solo Artists Participating in the SurveyName Based Website

1028 Glasgow www.x1028.org Bill Aitchison London Bobby Baker London www.invisible.gq.nu/index7.htmlBlaize (formerly Charivari) West Yorkshire Boilerhouse Edinburgh www.boilerhouse.org.uk Cerberus Theatre Company Edinburgh www.cerberustheatre.co.uk The Common Players Exeter, Devon www.common-players.org.uk Cotton Grass Theatre Co Peak District www.cottongrass.mirai.co.uk Creation Theatre Co Oxford www.creationtheatre.co.uk Anne-Marie Culhane Edinburgh Emergency Exit Arts London www.eea.org.uk Fragments and Monuments London Helena Goldwater London Grid Iron Theatre Company Edinburgh Horse + Bamboo Lancashire www.horseandbamboo.org Impossible Theatre Yorkshire homepages.poptel.org.uk/impossible IOU West Yorkshire www.ioutheatre.org Jude Kerr London Miriam Keye/Strandlooper Leicester Kneehigh Theatre Cornwall www.kneehigh.co.uk Kunstwerk-Blend

interdisciplinary company London www.kunstwerk-blend.co.ukKate Lawrence Surrey www.artform.demon.co.uk/stcatherines.htm The Lion’s Part London www.thelionspart.co.uk London Bubble London www.londonbubble.org.uk Lone Twin London Justin Mckeown Preston www.justinmckeown.20m.com Moving Being Theatre Company Cardiff The Olimpias Wales www.olimpias.net Out of the Blue Dance Company London Sue Palmer Somerset www.glastonburynetradio.co.uk/hairraisingPentabus Theatre Company West Midlands www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/pentabus PickleHerring Theatre Manchester Red Earth Brighton www.redearth.co.uk Hester Reeve LancasterRiptide Leicester www.riptide.force9.co.uk Rotozaza London www.rotozaza.co.uk Sirens Crossing London Station House Opera London www.stationhouseopera.com Storm Theatre Company Coventry Theatre Nomad London www.theatrenomad.com Walk the Plank Manchester www.walktheplank.co.uk Welfare State International Cumbria www.welfare-state.org Whalley Range All Stars Manchester www.good.co.uk/WR.ALLSTARS/ Wrights & Sites Exeter, Devon www.exeter.ac.uk/~shodge/ws.html

N.B. 45 additional practitioners have been contacted. I hope to include further responses in future work.

The Arts Council of England works in conjunction withten Regional Arts Boards, through which about 30 percent of its funding is delivered. These Regional ArtsBoards (RABs) are: Eastern Arts; East Midlands Arts;London Arts Board; Northern Arts; North West ArtsBoard; Southern Arts; South East Arts; South West Arts;West Midlands Arts; Yorkshire Arts.

19. Nicholas Young (Theatre Officer, Southern Arts),in response to my questions.

20. From the Year of the Artist website, accessible atwww.yota.org.uk.

21. These were:

Bobby Baker (live art performances at two TimeOut magazine award ceremonies: Food, Drink, andPerformance and Wearing the Christmas Dinner forthe Christmas awards, June 2000–January 2001);

Helena Goldwater (Gone Dark, guided walkscreated with the local community at Theatre RoyalMargate, March–May 2001, South East Arts).

Grid Iron’s Ben Harrison (Into Our Dreams, prom-enade performance with 40 young people, AlmeidaTheatre, June 2000, London Arts).

Miriam Keye (with Andy Reeves – Signal, dance/drama performance with Leicester Deaf Children’sSociety, Richard Attenborough Centre, LeicesterUniversity, July–September 2000, East MidlandsArts).

Kate Lawrence (with visual artist Janine Creaye –St Catherine’s Chapel Project, dance/theatre/visualart performance along the River Wey and at StCatherine’s Chapel, Guildford, January–April 2001,South East Arts).

Sue Palmer (with Vic Llewellyn – Hair Raising,performance and installations at GJ’s Hair Salon,Shepton Mallet, February 2001, South West Arts).

Red Earth (two projects for South East Arts: CaitlinEasterby – Hive, sculpture project in conjunctionwith Sussex Wildlife Trust, Woodfield NatureReserve, Henfield, West Sussex/Booth Museum,March–April 2001; and Simon Pascoe – Aquifer,walk, installations and events along underwateraquifer routes from North Downs to the sea atBrighton.

Riptide (two projects for East Midlands Arts:Who Let the Wolf In?, exhibition and performanceat Hayes and Borrajo Veterinary Surgeons,Leicester, November–December 2000; and TheHeART of Leicester, one of four sets of artistscreating work on the Leicester Mercury website,made in conjunction Leicester City Council andStayfree Multi-Media.

Welfare State’s John Fox (with Peter Moser) – CheapArt, songs, objects, and stories at outdoor marketsin Cumbria and Lancashire, April–May 2001,Northern Arts.

Wrights & Sites. The core members were involvedin three projects for South West Arts: StephenHodge – Exeter A-Z, scrolling LED signs on Exeterbuses, Stagecoach Devon Ltd, September 2000;

Simon Persighetti – Passages, performance eventsin Exeter’s underground passages, January–April2001; and Cathy Turner and Phil Smith – OuterSpace/Inner Space, research and writing of a playabout physics for secondary schools, University ofExeter School of Physics, February–March 2001.The company also created a Year of the Artistlaunch event for South West Arts: The Dig at ExeterPhoenix, June 2000.

Not all of the projects were site-specific. Further detailsof the projects and Year of the Artist in general can befound in Capaldi and Chadbourn, 2001.

22. These examples are drawn from practitioners’responses to the question: ‘How would you define “site-specific” performance in the context of your work?’

23. The continuum was proposed by companymember Stephen Hodge during a presentation given byWrights & Sites at the Performance of Place conference,University of Birmingham, May 2001.

24. A category referred to by Rotozaza as ‘multi-site-specific’.

25. For example, the company’s successful produc-tion of Moby Dick, touring to ports, quays, and harboursaround Britain in 2000 and 2001.

26. While 36 of the respondents would use the termto funders and those within the performance professionwithout further explanation, only 23 would use it in thesame way to those outside the performance profession.However, it is worth noting one response that providesan antithesis to the other answers: for Justin Mckeown,‘site-specific’ seems to be the more self-explanatory anduser-friendly term, and he would therefore use it tothose outside of the profession so as not to alienate thembut might use ‘terminology more specific to art actions’when speaking to someone more familiar with perfor-mance art.

27. Manchester-based puppet theatre company.28. Line used in advertising literature for Shot

Through the Heart, Summer 2000.29. Of the respondents, 31 chose this, making it the

second most popular choice after reasons of aesthetics(33). Artists could identify more than one reason forcreating their site-specific work.

30. The London Bubble artistic policy can be foundon the company website at www.londonbubble.org.uk.

31. Cathy Turner of Wrights & Sites, document sentwith the questionnaire response.

32. Walter Ong, objecting strongly to the ‘monstrousconcept’ of ‘oral literature’, writes:

In concert with the terms ‘oral literature’ and ‘preliter-ate’, we hear mention also of the ‘text’ of an oral utter-ance. ‘Text’, from a root meaning ‘to weave’, is, inabsolute terms, more compatible etymologically withoral utterance than is ‘literature’. . . . But in fact,when literates today use the term ‘text’ to refer to oralperformance, they are thinking of it by analogy withwriting. (1982, p. 13)

33. First performed in Baker’s own kitchen inLondon as part of LIFT ’91.

34. Each part of the project is very well documentedin Wrights & Sites, ‘Site-Specific: The Quay Thing Docu-mented’.

160