Appendix 1: The Flowering Desert Creative Process
AP 1.1 Cycle 1: Jan-April 2020
AP 1.2 Cycle 1: Short Story - The Flowering Desert
AP 1.3 Cycle 1: Online Workshops and Outcomes April 2020-February 2021
AP 1.4 Cycle 1: Exploration through Performance and Film: March - June 2021
AP 1.5 Cycle 2: Leading to the Performances in May 2022
Appendix 1 - The Flowering Desert Creative Process
In this appendix I have chosen materials, reflections or transcriptions from key pieces of work, or workshops, that were carried out during the creative and performative process of developing the opera The Flowering Desert.
AP 1.5 Cycle 2: Leading to the performances in May 2022
During this cycle we worked with A/V artist Leon Trimble and Birmingham School of Art (BSA) students to create the projections from the dome. We also liaised with University of Birmingham to become part of their Commonwealth Games programme which provided the funding for the final work to be completed. This culminated in two performances at the ThinkTank Planetarium during May 2022. We worked in collaboration with Colin Hutcheson, the planetarium lead, to enable the work to be performed in this unusual performance venue/space.
AP 1.5.a Below find extracts of the work created with the BSA students.
- A design which was used in various forms throughout the work, from the tabard to the projections. This design was based on the chrysanthemum flower which flowers in the Atacaman desert during the desierto florido. Footage of wood cut out here is below.
3. A short animation created by myself of 64 frames to be used as an input for modular synthesis. Based on designs by Amy Bradley below.
Figure 3 Flowered side of tabard (top left), mountain side of tabard (top right) and chrysanthemum pattern (bottom) by Amy Bradley. Source: Infinite Opera
AP 1.5.b Footage from the performance
Below you can find 1 (top) - an edited selection of the videos with Leon Trimble created for the Planetarium performance in May 2022, and 2 (bottom) -an excerpt of the recording from the performances in May 2022. This includes scene 4 and mélodrame 4.
AP 1.5.d Performance feedback
One key outcome from this research was the feedback collected in response to the performance. As we had two nights of shows this meant that we were able to collect a larger amount of feedback than for other productions. The responses to the questionnaires can be found below.
The results of this first set of performances was very positive and showed a general trend towards a successful outcome of embedding the science into the operatic form in a way which imaginatively engaged the audience with the subject matter. We could see that for most of the audience who responded to the questionnaire this was not the first time they had attended an opera, and that roughly two thirds attended at least one scientific event every year.
Interestingly those three participants who had not attended opera before also did not attend scientific events in the year (10% of responses). This brings up the question of how they had heard of this event, and why in this case they decided to attend something that they had shown no prior active interest in for this year. All these three participants described their experience of the opera as being “satisfactory” with one leaving a detailed comment on what specific elements of the production they would like to see developed. This same participant agreed that the show helped them to empathise with the concepts of planets and astrophysics presented, but the other two were neutral to this.
There was one response which disagreed about the show enabling them to empathise with the subject. This responded also commented that they felt they needed some more rest throughout the opera and that there could have been a ‘break in the pattern of the opera’. I speculate that this refers to the dual timelines (the use of the scenes and mélodrames) and that perhaps this audience member felt that this was becoming repetitive. I also received feedback about this as element which could be potentially boring. Overall however the average response to the audience’s increased ability to empathise with the subject was positive, with an average of 2.2 (“agree”). Out of the 29 participants who responded to this question: 8 strongly agreed; 9 agreed; 1 were neutral; and 1 disagreed. Despite the fact that the majority of opinions were either to agree or strongly agree, the 11 neutral showed that there was plenty of room for improvement in this area. One of the key elements of feedback which I felt would make a huge difference to this was the lack of subtitles. We had provided the libretto in the programme, however we had run out of time to make videos which included subtitles. Ultimately this would provide the audience with a much greater understanding of what is being said, especially by the Measurer, and so provide that final element towards having that hyper-immersive experience we were looking for. There were also some elements of the projections that people did not enjoy and which we could focus on changing, such as the rotating text in the overture.
In general, we could also see that the performance helped to increase people’s interest in, and understanding of, science and opera, with an average score over 3 (neutral) for all of these questions. According to the data the show was more successful at increasing people’s interest in opera than in astrophysics; however, the fact that the performance took place in a planetarium, and so was playing to an audience that was most likely already very interested in astrophysics, may have had an impact on this. Also, we can see from the responses that those who were already aware of the scientific information presented were many of the responses for whom it did not also increase their interest. Interestingly, however, these participants reported either agreeing or feeling neutral about the ability of the show to help them empathise with the concepts, with most of them stating they agreed, showing that this embodied performance of the subject can have an impact even on those who are already deeply engaged with it. It is also likely that much of the audience for these performances were made up of people from the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire as we had discussed the event with many of our colleagues there.
I also gathered feedback from the director/costume designer Alexander Kaniewski on his reflections about the piece and the process. He was generally happy and positive about the production and our outcomes. He had understood the aims of the production to be about creating a show for the ThinkTank Planetarium which utilises all the unique aspects of what a planetarium has to offer, as well as to take a topic which is not particularly narrative driven and to explore and convey various aspects of it through music and theatre. He felt that we:
were successful in translating the material into the medium and I think we were also successful at utilising the planetarium space, whether that the story or the nature of the material was conveyed to an audience without needing the program notes is another. (Kaniewski, 2022)
He did, however, go on to say that he particularly likes theatre which is not so clear and obvious in how it will be received, stating that:
the making of this theatre had its influences in these areas and was on a journey. We created the piece from that stimulus. But what was received at the end was again open to interpretation and an own take of it. . . if anything, things are more interesting to me, if there it isn't straight down the line, this is what I just watched. I totally understand it. If there's an air of ohh I can sort of understand that bit and or I can piece it together. Or maybe if I watch it again I might get a little bit more about it or something else might speak to me or I think it's about this but you think it's about that. (Kaniewski, 2022)
Alexander said that he had found it a shame that there was such limited space for action in the planetarium, and that really the singers’ movements had to become a periphery to the dome, at which the audience’s seats are angled for better viewing. Another element he felt had detracted from the movement and created a more static environment was the limited lighting, as we only had 2 spots where we could shine lights on the performers.
When asked about working with the various other participants he said that he felt the bulk of the work had really been done at the beginning with Tadas, and that we had succeeded in creating costume and visuals which felt like a unified work and matched the narrative and concepts behind the piece. He did, however, feel that a lot of the work produced by the art students in this round was unnecessary, and that the costume element used to express the crash of Xoe at the end was not large or bold enough to show this. We both felt that instead of relying on costume to show this moment we should also consider making better use of the dome. Daniel had also shared the view that this moment was not impactful enough and so was something we should reconsider in our next version of the work.
See results of audience feedback below.
