Chapter 1
1.3.c.i Stage 1
During this first step I spent a large amount of time personally exploring and developing my connection to the chosen material. Due to the nature of the research questions it was vital to do this to understand the various different representations of the topic. I found that exploring of the cultural, spiritual and artistic representation of a topic was necessary to not ignore the ways in which humans have understood, carried and related to this knowledge throughout history. This builds on the work and theories of anthropophagic’ theatre:
anthropophagic theatricality is . . . a transformation that results in the meeting of two philosophical thinkings about life: the indigenous . . . and the European . . . Out of this encounter came the idea of mixing influences and ‘devouring’: taking over the properties of a source’s arts or culture and making them your own. The theatre of anthropophagy is simultaneously both processes of an intercultural appropriation and collaborative creative creation. (Dundjerović & Ramos, 2019: 81-82)
The work above is exploring anthropophagic theatre in the context of Brazil, where there is a divide between the indigenous and Western cultural forces. The work involved in this research project does not explore such a type of cultural divide but looks to the different forms of knowledge generation. In particular this work seeks to 'appropriate' knowledge systems based on scientific method (in particular work published in English), blending the culture of scientific and artistic research. When talking about the role of practice as research, Barret explains that 'the exegesis' of practice as research 'illuminates particular knowledge and data derived from interacting with the environment (material and social) and then discusses it in relation to what is already presented in theory and general domains of knowledge' (2010: 163). In this practice research I 'interacted with my environment' by endeavouring to not only 'devour' a subject but devour and empathise with it at the same time. The aim of this was to create a mutualistic relationship with the subject, allowing it to act as a collaborator which provides me with the fertile soils for creativity and imagination, whilst I as the practitioner give back by providing a space in which it may have a renewed existence through a new empathic representation. Through this process I and my collaborators could expose and explore more of the potential overlaps, interactions and entanglements experienced between the subject and the human experience, allowing us to get closer to the ontology and experienced existence of the subject. This process involved researching recent scientific publications and speaking with specialists (scientists) from the field to access knowledge and insight built up over lifetimes. Discussing the subject with scientists also gave insight into the emotional impact it has on the people who work with it. By sharing this stage with the other creative participants in the collaboration we generated a deepened perception of the subject’s relevance, gaining insight not only into the factual levels of the topic but also into the history of its development and the way current research can shape the future.
Alongside these group discussions around the subject with the scientists, it was also explored through conversation, action, creative work and reflection with the creative collaborators. It was ideal to be working with multiple collaborators when doing this to help develop a language on the subject, and also to avoid an egocentric approach to the work. Creating an artistic ecosystem around the work, and letting the subject sit in the inbetween space between the minds of myself and my collaborators, helped me to let go of preconceptions and allow the subject to speak more for itself, seeing it both from the position of my relation to it and my independence from it. As we cannot physically ask these subjects to speak for themselves, and so have no access to the primary source, it was vital to allow for the input from as many secondary sources as possible in this initial stage. Through grappling with bolder, broader and more timeless ideas of the philosophy and methods which surround both the human understanding of the subject, and also an attempt to access the phenomenology of the more-than-human or non-human subject matter I found it easier to extract myself from my own positioning in relation to the subject and build a narrative structure based around these other woven layers of knowledge that are encountered along the way.
This approach develops a stronger empathy towards, and understanding of, the subject from the participants and collaborators involved in the production stage. In order to successfully embody and engage with the text and music it was important for the performers to really understand the subject of the piece and get to grips with what they are representing.
One performer from the second case study wrote the below testimony, expressing how working with the topic through performance encouraged them to explore the topic further:
Working on Lipote made me deeply curious about the science of trees and the communication that takes place under our feet through fungal networks and tree roots. I read books on the subject to learn more and it changed the way I think about not only commuciton between nature and myself but also within the opera as a performer interacting with my fellow musicians in a more interconnected way. (Performer testimony, 2023: personal communication)
Before writing anything I began by creating a word list related to the subject from which to begin accessing the contemporary literary sound-world surrounding the topic. This became a substrate from which I could build my own language and was a valuable resource from which I could draw on and return to whenever the writing became difficult or felt like it was steering off course or away from the topic.
The next step for myself as a librettist was to focus on generating the characters themselves. This occurs as an emergent property of the research and frequent conversations around the subject, alongside research into relevant archetypal models or myth. The development of the characters for libretti includes not only the archetypal qualities of each character, and the contexts that inform their particular situations, but also the sound and voice of the character. I also attempted to allow the voice type of the characters to be informed by their discovered qualities. In doing so this stage of creation also becomes performative as it is through the use of recording and gathering feedback that the style of text, and voice type can begin to be generated.
Once this initial exploration of character had occurred it was then possible to begin building the story or narrative. Again, this was in relation to the other collaborators, including the scientists which have been interviewed during the initial stages. In order to ensure objectivity and keep the narrative in line with scientific facts, it was important to be in contact with the scientific collaborators as I developed the concept and narrative. I found during this research that their input at this stage helped to either steer me away from previously decided narratives, or to deeper understand the purpose and trajectory of the narratives I was creating. Initially I had long discussions with my creative collaborators about how to reconcile the problem that the work we are doing is not purely experimental. It does not simply take the data or science and translate it directly into text and music but uses the science as a structure or voice through which to make choices, and offers a joint language, goal or entry point to the work. In this respect there is a point at which the work can stop being just a representation of the science and becomes a more creative endeavour. Science is merely one of the tools, not the only tool, and it is likely to be more personal creative choices which will define how the work emerges.
In order to develop a personal understanding of the narrative of the piece prior to writing the script I wrote it out as a short story first. This generated larger descriptive sections of text which could be referred back to later in the process. I shared it with my collaborators, including the scientists, and even asked potential performers to read it. The feedback received at this stage helped to guide the work in the right direction before the text was set as a script for music.
Once the characters, and part of the story, had been uncovered it was also important to work with the artistic collaborators to produce some initial materials which expressed my understanding of these things and can also provide inspiration for the future of the work. These included short compositions, films, paintings, texts, performances etc. Much of this stage occurred during the pandemic, so for this project the artefacts created at this stage were of digital form. I do not know what difference it would have made had I been able to gather 4 or 5 different artists into the same space to create at this point. However, as soon as restrictions were lifted we made sure to collaborate together in the same space and not just on Zoom or Teams calls.
In all works the collaborative creative processes engaged with at this stage helped to build a functioning artistic understanding between all creative roles in the project. In practice this has had different outcomes, leading to very different sounding, looking and feeling productions. This really highlights how much the personal creative choices of the collaborators will shape the final work. It was however vital that, as a librettist who is seeking to embed their chosen subject wholly in the work produced, I spent time with my collaborators building this joint understanding and language.
1.3.c An Emergent Methodology and Methods for ‘Librettising’ Science
Having looked back on the PhD I can see that the creation of each work has undergone three clear stages. The first of these is that in which the core research and experimental material is gathered for the creation of a joint language between all collaborators. The next is the creation of the main body of the work (libretto and composer’s score) involving reflective performance practice, and the third is the production of the first complete performance. This results in further developments towards future performances with a constant reflection, edit and adaptation of the work, whilst in conversation with collaborators. The overall outcome resulted in a methodology based in an interdisciplinary interaction over the various forms of knowledge we have about the subjects of scientific research. A conscientious and wide-ranging exploration of the chosen topic is necessary, uncovering and creating a broad range of sources to explore with collaborators and generate work in methods that involve cyclical patterns of creation and reflection. This approach seeks to engage with the complex assemblage of how the subject’s experience of existence interacts with our experience of the subject’s existence.
1.3.ii Stage 2
This next step was to produce the main bulk of the creative work, through solitary work and group workshops. As a librettist it involved a process of writing and reflective collaborative practice. Maintaining the process of the first stage was important, regularly checking in with my different collaborators, and continuing to draw inspiration from the source material and its surrounding scientific and artistic representations.
The early drafts of the libretto had detailed accounts of musical inspiration, reflections on the science, descriptive imagery of the scene and concept. These did not need be adhered to by the composer, designer or director, but they were helpful to provide this foundation of concept in order to successfully communicate and have detailed discussions about the work. This text and background was removed from the final libretto after further discussions with the collaborators.
In relation to the Halprin cycles, I used the materials generated in step one as the resource for the development of the score (the libretto) which underwent trial performances and evaluations. These trial performances were key to developing a further understanding of the subject with the fellow artists, and performers I was working with. They helped us to get to grips with the physical, musical and textual materials we were working with, how they respond to the subject (if they are successfully conveying it) and the ways in which they interface and interact with the subject matter. It is also a stage to gather some critical and vital feedback from audience and participants to edit, rework and develop the piece moving forwards.
These trial performances ranged from creating recordings of the music to develop an understanding of the efficacy of the sound-world, and ease of performance, again creating filmed versions of the work, or holding open rehearsals in which audience members are invited to comment on their understanding and appreciation of the work. During this research myself and my collaborators created full recordings of the works, experimental films of selected scenes with design and costume elements, held open rehearsals and gathered feedback from audiences, participants and each other. For a more detailed account of this stage see appendices AP 1.3.h, 1.4.b, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.
There are many elements being brought together in these kinds of creative projects: the subject, the style of the music, the design and the narrative. All of these will require testing and reworking in order to be moved to a point in which they are playing with each other harmoniously.
1.3.c.iii Stage 3
The last stage towards creating a completed work is that of the production itself. I found there are several key considerations which will go into this. Firstly, it was important to thoroughly consider the performance venue, especially in relation to my subject matter. The venue itself can act as a collaborator on the work, providing an atmosphere and scenery which is potentially connected to the subject matter, and making it site specific. This will allow for the audience to begin to feel immersed in the subject without having even experienced the performance itself. It may also be important that the venue is supportive of other key decisions made during the creation of the piece, such as design or lighting decisions which will help to promote conceptual and symbolic parts of the work.
The rehearsal process also occurs during this stage. In this PhD I worked with the performers to develop the collaborative language relating to the subject matter, describing the reflections and inspirations which led to the development of their characters, so that they might better embody the music and text. This was also to enable them to perform with an element of improvisation, especially in the earlier stages and performances. None of the directions were prescriptive, as we focused on developing movement through the creation of a joint language and knowledge between all participants. This involved rehearsals in which we discussed and explored the subject being presented through dramatic exercises and improvisations. With opera it is necessary allow sufficient time for the performers to become accustomed to the new sound world they are working within, and personal work on the music. I was also participating as a performer during this PhD in order to gain an understanding of the work of embodying scientific objects and concepts from within, experiencing the dramaturgy in order to better edit the final product.
The many threads left hanging in the production process are pulled together in this final stage. Through reflecting on the artefacts produced in step 1 and the results of the trial performances in step 2, the movement, costume, scenery, and programme presentation is developed in a collaborative process of creation, rehearsal, feedback and editing. The performance of the work then becomes the outcome of the research.
The role of production and audience
Ultimately the aim is that in the development of the production process and bringing the work to stage, the subjects, having been initially anthropomorphised, are able to have an impact on the audience to complete the anthropomorphic cycle as the on-stage performers become “astromorphised”, or “arboromorphised” in full view of the audience.
During each stage that involved some kind of audience I also distributed questionnaires so that I could gather feedback and understand whether or not the production elements we were working on were successful in conveying the subject and encouraging an empathetic engagement with it. This, alongside gathering reflections from the participants and creative team, was very useful in helping to understand the efficacy of our approach towards the work. The work towards the production itself also allowed me the opportunity to understand the ways in which the libretto worked with the music, performance and design of the production. It allowed me to make further changes, based on a fully realised exploration of the true performativity of the work, and meant that I could ensure that each piece presented in this research is able to be brought into reality and to some extent to fulfil the research aims and objectives.
The methodology which emerged during the PhD involved a process of integration in a collaboratively unfolding creative output, making use of methods of reflective and active performance practice, in order to test and understand the efficacy of the produced work in achieving its aims.