092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
Whose Cloud is it Anyway: A Dramaturgy of Devices and the Director Debunked Abstract An approach to performance where storytelling is actively supported by a sequence of improvised moments in turn sustained by a series of performed devices. Has emerged in the theatre making of debunked. These devices are encountered by the company and ultimately the audience and developed through workshops led by a director, who has the extended but not utterly new task of drawing dramaturgical purpose to the material as generated in performance by the devices he facilitates in rehearsal. The work of Whose Cloud is it Anyway? is in the facilitation of narrative by the company, drawn from audience biographies and performers improvising from a training through workshops lead by a director. This writing is an attempt to move through the central concern of a dramaturgy of these devices, provided by a director as a means to prepare a company to tell stories through improvised performance. Where the work exists for the director and at which points in the process his role is shifting will be the further explored leading to a consideration of the debunking of the director.
1
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
Whose Cloud is it Anyway? Preparing a company for Improvised Performance ‘For me, the performance too was a living organism and I had to distinguish not only its parts, but also its levels of organisation and, later, their mutual relationships. Dramaturgy, then, was a term similar to anatomy. It was a practical way of working not only on the organism in its totality, but on its different organs and layers’ (BARBA 2010, p.9)
Taking the definition of anatomy from the Greek for ‘cutting up’ builds a pertinent field for understanding the role of the director throughout the process of making Whose Cloud is it Anyway? As Barba explores in his writing, understanding performance as similar to a complex physiological system that must be anatomised by the director usefully connects with a notion of dramaturgy as the seeing of performance as constituting multiple layers. These layers, break the seeing of performance by the director into useful and manageable elements, part of a whole but utterly important in isolation. The work of preparing the company for a performance, which was improvised but grounded in detailed work as an ensemble, required a certain directorial control and yet such control threatened the agency of the remaining company to shape the work independently during performance. For many weeks I was unsure as to what it was the work could be in rehearsal. What should we be engaging with in order to prepare for a wholly improvised performance, what role could we each play? I was able to prepare the company, as the work was something to do with complicity, with play and with the generation of ideas and storytelling. However, my taste is for drama that has a structure, a recognisable drive and varying pace, tensions and objectives and so I was in a quandary as to how to imbue the work of the company with these concerns whilst maintaining spontaneity of approach to the stimuli. To solve this, or at least attempt a solution I began introducing devices, across a range that built towards a toolkit, or palette of improvisation based work, which could be drawn from in performance. One of these key devices was the re‐imagining of ‘up‐scaling’, a method used in retail environments to convince customers who may be seeking a particular product to invest in something more expensive but crucially offering more features. Here then I introduced an exercise whereby a performer would perform a simple movement, extended over several minutes. The rest of the company, using found objects, live and recorded sound, video and any available light would contextualise the movement, changing it, shifting audience focus. What happened on numerous occasions was the collective creation of whole narratives, made of simple moments, up‐scaled each time, built to a crescendo whereby whole scenes, later titled, for example; ‘ The Race’, ‘A Jewish Wedding’ and ‘At Sea in a Storm’ emerged. The abstraction of movement, speech, object manipulation and technological devices at times merged into clear and specific theatrical moments, all through improvised play1. However, where the work in the rehearsal room finished and the signifiers for the start of a performance began was a concern and a tricky concept to unravel. The beginning of the
1
For further examples of devices employed in the workshop and rehearsal process please see Appendix I
2
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
work was certainly the meeting of the company in a rehearsal room, a space demanding specific action, that of rehearsal. It is certainly something to do with the reliance in the rehearsal room on amplified sound and projected images, with the digital and the online that lead to a performance with an aesthetic of the mediated image and organisation of digital technologies. Something about my insistence on using YouTube as a sort of stimulus, a sort of beginning and then the conversations that existed around the creative and collaborative web demanded our audience would similarly be involved in these particular sites during the performance. There is a closer truth in that the work began to grow out of our own context, the so‐called social web that we as individuals of a specific generational experience invest in. But what of this concern with the boundary between rehearsal and performance, for what was being rehearsed and what does the introduction of an audience do to the work? These two forums of performance and rehearsal have two crucial differences, the lack and then introduction of an audience who contribute the content of the improvised, fragmented narratives and the moving from the rehearsal space to the performance space. Part three of this writing addresses the opposition of a model of rehearsal for performance of a narrative by a new means of preparation by a director as facilitator, introducing improvisation devices that open up possibilities for narrative to begin and end at the performance, rather than the performance be the culmination of rehearsed material. There was crucial evolution in the work when trialling an adaptation of E.M.Forster’s The Machine Stops for a work in progress showing, the company faced with an audience, were aware for the first time of the misleading direction we had travelled in. In an effort to make the work about something, something more than the Internet, or at least something more than a performance about the Internet and its impact upon our lives, we thought the context of a weighty literary text, an adaptation debunked was a useful metaphor. Crucially it was not, in performance, this new iteration of the work was confused, lacking direction, purpose or personality. We had stepped away from a live, improvised performance and imposed strict rules, holding back from taking a risk and attempting to balance the bold and live with the constructed and safe.
3
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
Taking Control The Destabilised collective as a means to an end Today for me, the director is rather the expert of the theatre’s subatomic reality, a man or a woman who experiments with ways of overturning the obvious links between the different components of a performance. (BARBA 2010, xviii)
Barba’s suggestion of a director who overturns, who makes the obvious links less and less obvious and encourages the active removal, re‐writing and distrust of established ideas is appealing as a frame for my memory of preparing the performers for Whose Cloud is it Anyway? The welcoming of improvisation as a creative impulse, as a dramaturgical device and production aesthetic at first felt like a limitation on rehearsal. As previously mentioned, if the content of the work was unknown to us all, what was there to rehearse? I quickly established a rehearsal room whereby less material was rehearsed but an awareness of editing, detail and spontaneity was cultivated. Introducing, body storming as a device2 allowed the performers to activate storytelling impulses through physical action, whilst the director as observer imposed a structure of edits based on key phrases such as backwards, forwards, refresh, stop, close up, return. This is the first overturning, my first imposition and decision, to believe that a performance can be dramaturgically strong and have both narrative form and content whilst still existing in the space between participant and performer and grounded in extensive research of the online presence of our collected audience. There is no assumption that through participation, the performance is more live but an assumption that the quality of liveness in this specific context allows creative freedoms in the moment of performance for improvisation. The second overturning is very much within myself, in that to prepare the production for performance, I myself had to see the benefit to a strong and stable collective rather than a dictated dramaturgy or singular narrative like the work with Forster and The Machine Stops. First, participation occurred at those points where the play stopped being a play and became a social event – when spectators felt that they were free to enter the performance as equals…letting people into the play to do as the performers were doing, to ‘join the story’. (Schechner 1973, 44)
It was very much the manifestation of the production at The People Show that supported our belief in the work and its form, crucially as Schechner highlights, the inclusion of our audience in the play, the freedom to join in the storytelling aided the action of the performers and the dramaturgical attempt. With the audience comes the completion of our performance circuit, as without them the work simply does not exist. The liminal space between audience and spectator ‘created by [the] interface of body and technology’, here manifest as projected Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Flickr pages in the performance space located the audience on the ‘threshold of the physical and virtual’ (Broadhurst 2007, 1) However, with this comes the problem of preparation once again, if our audience complete the work, how do we prepare to meet with them through rehearsal? Unlike Improbable’s
2 See Appendix II for notes on Body Storming
4
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
Lifegame where one audience member is interviewed for their life stories and then these are performed in front of the remaining audience, we must research without the participants’ prior knowledge. Similar to Lifegame here though, we ‘are asking questions which will yield…the most dramatic material, the most dramatic moments’ (McDermott, 2005). There is, with this work a risk for the theatre makers that the performance may lack all the qualities possible when a process of rehearsing material for performance is embarked upon. However, the opportunities to pursue live, improvised performance greatly outweighed this risk when the audience encountered purely theatrical moments inspired by their own life stories.
Figure 1. Whose Cloud is it Anyway? The shared space becomes a platform for play and improvisation, with vital participation from the audience whose online presence forms the content of the performance.
New possibilities for perception by our audience at the performance are explored through a reading of Deleuze. Although there is little time to excavate his full theories on perception, there is something of use in his notion of re‐organisation. The fragmentation, or re‐ organisation of narrative structure in Whose Cloud is it Anyway? is in line with Deleuze’s notion of the creation of new affects yielding new possibilities for perception. The audience must follow fragmented structures, improvised anecdotes, sections of scenes, created live in front of them and as a result, these are the affects that shift perception from following a narrative arc and instead pursuing the attempt of the storytellers rather than the stories they tell (Deleuze 1986, 18). This is connected to the dramaturgy of devices as used by the company to foreground the active attempt at storytelling. The devices are sometimes obvious, a melodramatic moment of action, a one on one improvised performance behind a
5
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
screen, a whole audience activity, or an improvised debate on a recently reported event but nonetheless it is important the audience recognise them as a means to communicate story and this results in reading the attempt of storytelling as part of the overall, if convoluted and confusing narrative structure. The design of the attempt, which at times includes the audience themselves attempting to tell their own stories draws from commentary on the social web that the performance cites as its theoretical starting point and political concern. Clay Shirky writes clearly and candidly about the social web and believes that ‘we are living in the middle of a remarkable increase in our ability to share, to cooperate with one another, and to take collective action, all outside the framework of traditional institutions and organizations’ (Shirky, 2008, location 354). Despite our position as one of these institutions, we are extending the opportunity to come close to the centre of the attempt of storytelling through theatre an some of our dramaturgical devices rely exclusively on the participation of non performer bodies, our audience. There is a dilemma in this approach. Will the performance make its point to all of the audience and are those who are not used as stimuli for dramatic action as engaged? How bold are we being? Speaking after the work, there were those who wanted more from us, more boundary pushing and more invasion, the reading of a telephone number, the sharing of near nude pictures, the admission that some of us sit up late at night looking at pictures of old lovers who have gotten fat and enjoy it. What are the ethics of this, how free are we to push the work in this direction?
6
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
A Dramaturgy of Devices When is the director of most use to the making of performance? ‘People respond to incentives. If you give them more of a reason to do something, they will do more of it, and if you make it easier to do more of something they are already inclined to do, they will also do more of it’ (Shirky 2008, location 325)
If there is a model of performance making that can be described as, rehearsing to a point whereby what is performed is rehearsed material, then I was directing a very different process throughout Whose Cloud is it Anyway? I propose that the model, which had formed early on in the process but only really embraced in the final weeks, was one whereby a dramaturgy of devices was prepared in rehearsal to facilitate the content of the performance to be improvised. These devices, some of which have been discussed and the outlines of which are included in the Appendices were a means to allow material to be improvised in front of the audience throughout the performance. There is a further question or definition of this model, which asks what relation, is there between the performance devices and performers. Furthermore, the question of what use the director is to the company of performers and in this particular case non performers also arises and becomes vital as a response to the learning throughout the project. The director’s sphere of influence grew so far as to include the audience; the feedback loop was to be organized and controlled. (Fishcher‐Lichte 2008, 39)
The performance required a model of preparation, the priming of the company for improvised encounters with an audience especially as the content or material of the work is imbued with transiency. How though can the director maintain a grasp of the dramaturgy in order to structure a performance with clarity? The notion of a feedback loop between audience and performer, growing out of the material of the performance which was the biography of the audience researched online existed and yet as a result could not be practiced in the rehearsal room. The presence of the director then in rehearsal room and performance does not substitute but becomes subsumed with the audience, allowing the company to improvise from a strong base, developed in rehearsal. Moving away from the rehearsal of material I was aware of there being something in the action of the attempt that was key. The audience in being made aware of the attempt to perform through improvisation are encouraged to consider in close detail their active involvement in the work. In my mind, this was an attempt in itself to balance the meeting between performer and audience in order to allow greater freedom for the company when dramatising the lives of the audience as researched online. Crucially I have discovered that what is most important is the preparedness of the company to work together and shape a performance that plays by some of the same rules the audience will be entering with full awareness of. A complex dramaturgy of devices is employed in the work, whereby several weeks have been spent improvising, playing, using multiple starting points and constructing layers. To return to Barba’s use of anatomy and dramaturgy I propose an extension. It is the anatomy of the performance the director must perform, isolating the layers and organs that play key roles and examining in close detail the pathology of the performance. This pathology, or disease is considered as anything that threatens the complicity of audience and performer, or allows a gap in the action of the
7
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
attempt where the audience begin to consider the performance as less a dramaturgy of devices exploring collected stories from their online presence and more a failing attempt whereby even fragmented stories do not entice or excite engagement. Take charge Take ownership Don’t argue You are in this together Say yes Think of your audience The audience don’t always want to watch you do nothing Figure 2. Notes from first performance given before second, from Director’s notebook
This is all grounded in the revelation during the second performance at The People Show, whereby I moved from the edge of the room to aid in the working of Google Earth. I fulfilled a function based on: ‘I know how to do this thing and therefore I will do it, as if I don’t I will have to watch you fail at the attempt’, I was most present to the company and audience as director here, imposing my ability to solve and facilitate and move the drama forwards. An interesting and minute moment, of only perhaps thirty seconds, but utterly the foundation of my learning throughout this process. To direct is to problem solve, to employ sight and hearing to the work of performers, who you can encourage, discourage, shape and adjust their action, voice and tasks on behalf of the audience. In this moment it became, for the first time that the director must improvise too, he must support the performers not only in the rehearsal of the devices but introduce them in performance, provide more of the analysis, dissect the anatomy in front of the audience and relieve some of the burden of creation as previously shouldered by performers. Unable now to step away from the performance once the rehearsal of devices has been achieved, the director must stay present as facilitator, editor and conduct the action of the attempt for both company and audience. Crucially for Whose Cloud is it Anyway? without this active directing, this problem solving through ad hoc direction, there is little safety valve ensuring that a dramaturgy of devices is the best approach to tell the fragments of audience stories. For if storytelling through the action of the attempt is the ambition of debunked’s theatre making and here the stories are brought to the audience, who complete an hermeneutic circuit of perception, interpreting narrative from the action of the attempt. The director, who has facilitated a strong structure based in rehearsal of devices, as mentioned which build to a dramaturgical intervention in the performance must not remove himself from the action of the attempt. Instead, performing the anatomy of the work for the audience and company is vital to understand the pathology of the work, what is potentially dying and at risk when the improvisations are not perfected.
8
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
In conclusion, a prepared dramaturgical design constructed from devices encountered in the rehearsal room has the potential to ensure, (so long as the director performs an anatomy at all times) company, performer and audience engagement in the work itself. I now have a further interest, which is emerging from this reflection and the wider learning. I wish to explore and begin to understand the emerging autopietic audience (Fischer‐Lichte 2008, 41) as part of a feedback loop in the work including the performers and as a structuring device for the narrative. I wish to unpick notions such as ‘the bodily co‐presence of actors and spectators’ (32) and explore the performance as an event that is “not fixed or transferable, but ephemeral and transient” (33) as key concerns of improvised performance that foregrounds an active attempt at theatre making. The audience constantly supported the structure and function of the narrative in the work and I seek to explore how the audience and performers exist within a unique system, specific to improvised performance constructed out of a dramaturgy of devices.
9
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
Appendix I A selection of some of the rehearsal room devices used in the making of Whose Cloud is it Anyway? These are representative of some of the work of the director and give a sense of how the devices were useful at focussing the company for improvised performance. Body Storming The nature of body storming, which takes its name from the board room practice of brain storming (now considered politically incorrect) is essentially one of improvisation over an extended period of time and works best in a devising environment or the earliest stages of text based exploration. Although there is no lower or upper limit to the perfect amount of bodies involved in the exercise, several performing bodies are best so as to clearly map the effective moments throughout the work. Body storming is a way of working with impulses and gesture, voice, insight, intuition and other often‐intangible performative skills to explore the ideas that surround a starting point. Collaborators are exposed to a starting point which is usually quite a robust stimulus, something like a text or a story, image or sound, film or otherwise and then a threshold is established so as to clearly mark a performative and audience divide. I then find it useful to establish a soundscape as a backdrop, which is not invasive, and usually a simple drone based sound, simply to focus the action and provide a landscape for which the improvisation sits. Then working on impulse the performers move in and out of the performance space and body storm through action and voice moments that seem strong or rich from the starting point. The key is to establish complicity, which builds and facilitates the coming together of bodies in space at certain moments so that there is a sense of vignettes or scene, episodes, parts or moments coming in and out of focus. The work is necessarily quick and discussion is kept out of the room. The key is to look for this focus and re‐focus, to encourage discovery the performers must build a sense of when certain moments have their life and then when they are gone. Body storming accommodates the individual and the group but works brilliantly when these two elements 10
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
are co‐existing. Anything in the performance space can be used in the exercise, outside elements can be introduced and played with at all times. It is also important to encourage the crossing over the threshold so that there is a constant rotating audience but also crucially that there is a stable observer who may notice this focus and re‐focus that I have already mentioned. Possible Directions for This Work If what I have described above is the building block for a devising process, I would also like to share an extension of the exercise, which has its foundations in notions of evolution and Darwinism. I shall lead with an example from a rehearsal to illustrate how body storming a stimulus can generate a wealth of material. The description that follows is indeed another process, in relation to but also different to the body storming methods. From the body storming work it is incredibly easy to lift moments, or sections as I define them from the wider whole and to write a description of these for the participants. So to illustrate, one section may be: Performer 1, eating plum centre of the space. Performer 2 and 3 up stage and right with a projection of African children playing on their bodies. Performer 4 at the laptop changing the projected images on performers 2 and 3. This is an example from a recent body storming session and became the basis for beautiful work over the course of an afternoon. This becomes a section and now begins the work in unpicking and extending whatever may have been happening in that section as part of a wider body storming session. Important to establish is this mindset of evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest. This work will seem frustrating to those directors, composers of facilitators (or whatever we call ourselves) who are searching for material that can be easily manipulated and controlled, repeated and rehearsed with a perfect symmetry. However, I propose that 11
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
by working in this way, with the possibilities that I propose, the work will gain a beauty, sincerity, unexpectedly delightful quality that will encourage an audience to remain active and focussed for much longer. So, working with this notion of survival of the fittest, the collaborators must admit from the beginning that although the objective may be to precisely re perform this section, the reality is that a mis performance will occur. The memory will jump through the highlights, the stages it has selected in the short term memory and the presentation will resemble closely but not exactly the original action. This is what is desired. So, the section is repeated, 3 times, maybe 5, maybe 100 times and the observers notice the shifts, the natural progression and evolution of the section. From here, introduce the notion of teaching, learning perhaps. Ask the collaborators to teach their part in the section to another, watch this and work quickly. I impose 1 minute 30 seconds on the work and usually provide music tracks from random searches on spotify that are this length to provide a soundscape backdrop again. Possible evolutions include: Teach another your role Do the opposite Do the opposite backwards Switch However, of course there are many more which will produce new results. I cannot stress how important it is to encourage the mis performance and try and avoid the discussion, we all have the mindset in rehearsal that there is a goal to reach, a perfect representation – here we are inviting the chaos and waiting until the beauty is revealed. In my experience it is captivating to watch a thing that has an order but it is one that is almost impossible to decipher.
12
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
Also, the more complicated the work seems (although crucially it is only really necessary to invite as many tasks as are listed above) the more charged the work becomes. Try to avoid questions of what this is about and keep a note on where the material has been discovered from but perhaps it is no longer “about” that material. Of course this is work that is best in the early stages of devising and will yield exciting potential directions for performance. Do try and then focus the material, see what happens when impositions are placed on top of it – give the collaborators new tasks, use this as a constant and disrupt this. To condense all of what I have written above, I would like to finish by reminding you, the reader of how important it is to consider the notion of evolution and use a quote to outline what I am proposing as a vital new focus in the devising process: “Darwin ultimately generalized the observation from the finches that any population consists of individuals that are all slightly different from one another. Furthermore, individual organisms having a phenotype characteristic providing an advantage in staying alive to successfully reproduce will pass their phenotype traits more frequently to the next generation. Over time and generations the traits providing reproductive advantage become more common within the population. Darwin called this process “descent with modification”. Taken from: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/DarwinsFinches.htm MAKING CHOICES AND SHAPING ACTION The Numbers Game (Build‐ups) The hardest thing to learn about build‐ups is that ascending spiral of intensity. You’ve got to be able to identify the level you’re playing at the moment, and be prepared to take it that little step further. This is a game for a chorus. All you have to is to count from one to 15 or 20. The idea is that each number is an obscenity, so that one is slightly obscene, two is worse, but three, four 13
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
five and six are getting increasingly darling and disgusting to say in public. So the first person in the group looks at the others, and then at the audience and says: ‘One’. everybody giggles, then the next person does the same with the ‘Two’ and so on. It’s important to relish each number and enjoy the game of being obscene. The giggles are also important because if the build‐up is going to work you’ve all got to be at the same level of intensity and the giggles help you to identify what that level is. Once again the key is to be engaged. Each number must have an effect on you, and that effect must be amplified throughout the group; that amplification is expressed in movement so you have to copy each other and learn to keep together. You can play a build‐up with almost anything. The group could be trying to tell the audience that they’re going to die, or that they find them sexually attractive, or that touching the floor makes them feel euphoric. The ‘Do Less’ Game Three or four actors run as fast as they can around the playing space. On my cue, they stop and face the audience as if they haven’t been running at all and have just got out of bed. This is a game of letting go of the huge amount of physical intensity that you invested in the running, and trying to just stand there, and do nothing. This game takes practice, but is easy enough to repeat. I don’t know a better game for convincing us that less means more. We become more interesting when we use the appropriate amount of tension for the job in hand. Upscaling (Slow Motion) One performer is asked to leave the performance space and wait for an instruction to enter and ‘do something’ for 10 seconds, stopping and standing still at the point where she completes her action. Several other performers are waiting. The facilitator then plays a length of sound, which can be instrumental, sound effects, musical or otherwise but nonetheless something which imposes atmosphere. The length of this sound becomes the 14
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
length of the performance and the first performer must re‐enact her 10 seconds movement, stretched over this new timescale. Effectively this begins a slow motion physical performance. The remaining performers will use objects in the room, their own selves and all the tricks of the theatre to contextualise this movement. This improvisation is encouraged to be playful, free and to go wherever it needs to for the full length of the music or sound in the room and ends with the sound. See images below for examples.
Improvisation 1: At Sea In A Storm (Upscaling)
Improvisation 2: A Jewish Wedding (Upscaling)
15
092715 Rob Drummer Reflective Commentary Sustained Independent Project MAATP, 2009/10
Bibliography Barba, E. 2010. On Directing and Dramaturgy: Burning the House. Oxon, Routledge. Bartula, M & Schroer, S. 2003. On Improvisation: Nine Conversations with Roberto Ciulli. Brussels, P.I.E.‐Peter Lang. Broadhurst, S. 2007. Digital Practices: Aesthetic and Neuroaesthetic Approaches to Performance and Technology. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Deleuze, G. 1986. Cinema 1: The Movement Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. London, Athlone Press. Derrida, J & Stiegler, B. 2002. Echographies of Television. Trans. Jennifer Bajoreck. Cambridge, Polity Press. Fischer‐Lichte, E. 2008. The Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics. London, Routledge. Leadbetter, C. 2010. Cloud Culture: The Future of Global Cultural Relations. Open Access Publication, Counterpoint, British Council. Luckhurst, M. 2006. Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Schechner, R. 1973. Environmental Theatre. New York, Hawthorn Books. Schneider, R & Cody, G. 2003. Re:direction, a Theoretical and Practical Guide. London, Routledge. Whitmore, J. 2005. Directing Postmodern Theater. Michigan, University of Michigan Press. Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. London: Penguin (eBook). Whose Cloud is it Anyway, production website. www.whosecloudisitanyway.com [accessed 15th September 2010] Leadbetter, C. 2010. Cloud Culture: The Future of Global Cultural Relations. Open access publication, Counterpoint. www.counterpointonline.org/.../CloudCultureCharlesLeadbeater.pdf McDermott, P & McCaw, D. 2005. Space, Improvisation and Creativity. DVD Resource. Arts Archive, DVD Rom (114 Mins) ©Arts Documentation Unit. Exeter.
16