My focus on the teaching body invokes Parker-Starbuck & Mock’s (2011) and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett’s (2005) observation of the body as materially, culturally and historically specific and iconographic of their identities. It also incorporates the body as actively sensing, knowing and doing as discussed in Chapter 2 (Archer 2000; Shevtsova 2003; Blumenthal 1984; Boyette and Zarrilli 2007; Liberman 2011). In other words, I examined how theatre artists embody their identities as artists and educators, and express them as separate from other teachers within the school context. Accordingly, in the observation, I noted features of dressing, footwear as well as the presentation of both body and gestures as iconic of their hyphenated artist-educator selves.
Beyond the assertion of their ‘otherness’, as discussed in Chapter 4, their attire symbolised an association with the ‘workshop’ condition inherent in the rehearsal- room culture of theatre making (Monk, et al. 2011). Along with such an association, it further signaled a disposition of ease and adherence to a different propriety and rule of engagement. These include their freedom to be mobile in open spaces, comfortable with their presence in and around the students, breaking with the codes of conduct involving touch and proximity, and an establishment of a ‘friend’ relationship rather than the teacher-student hierarchy typically experienced in school (Galton 2008). All of which invoked a different practice of the body. Their bodily performance suggests receptivity to a
multi-sensorial form of learning. 4.3. Spatial transformation
In chapter 4, I discussed the theatre artists’ transformation of the conventional space as a disruption, appropriation and as a consequent, a representation of their creative identities. Beyond that, I suggest that the spatial transformation enacts a formulation of a distinctive system of knowledge, one which highlights the disciplined and heightened awareness of ‘self’+‘space/environment’+artefacts/objects as foundational in the theatre making discipline. This idea is consonant with theatre practices in both studio-based training and rehearsal-based explorations as explicated in Chapter 2, section 3.5.1, page 51 (Blumenthal 1984; Shevtsova 2003; Boyette & Zarrilli 2007).
In the observations, the theatre artists and students work with a tacit understanding of the permeability and malleability of space. Within the teaching process, four recursive patterns of spatial formations emerged. Each theatre artist used the four formations differently.
It is difficult to pin point with exactitude the different moments these formations occur. I propose instead to understand the spatial formations as a system of (re)structuring movement symbolic of balancing cohesion/all/being together with dispersion/each/a-part, or what Olivia describes as the ‘individual’ and the ‘unit’ (DS160111) in ensemble-building. The balancing of the individual and the unit is reflective of my discussion of Bogart’s (1995) notion of the ensemble as ‘snowflakes’. It connotes the presence of difference within the collective (Chapter 2, section 3.4.1, p. 49–50). Viewing the spatial formation as such may offer a different perspective to consider space as a necessary element in the construction of the ensemble.
Inferring from my proposal, the circle engenders cohesion, and the coming together as an ‘all’. In that respect, the appearance of the circle at the start and end of the class suggests a bringing together of the disparate energies. But the circle is not binding; the space opens up depending on the tasks and the activities offered. This is played out in the appearance of the multiple circles and scatter plot. Here the togetherness is intercepted by the possibilities of ‘each’ and ‘being a-part’ as necessary for the exploration of varied perspectives and ideas. Swinging between these formations the students as well as the theatre artists are offered opportunities to interact with different people and in different group sizes. In so doing, they experience different working styles and approaches.
However it is worth noting that while the scatter plot and multiple circles appear in all the projects, the circle is used more frequently in the in-curriculum projects. Perhaps, the circle is employed to structure and formalise a ritual of starting the engagement on an equal footing. This is observed in Sandra’s work where she begins either standing apart from or seated as part of the circle, discussing the successes and challenges of the previous week before highlighting the goals of the day. The circle is then re-organised at the end of the session to recapitulate the lessons learnt. For the drama club, Sandra once again employed the circle to get the students organised before they break up to work on individual or group tasks.
Throughout Olivia and Joan’s observations, the circle was used sparingly. In Olivia’s case, it was employed at the beginning phase of her work with School A and
subsequently the circle is not returned to. Joan employed the circle as a structure for a game with the junior members of the drama club in School D. Both Olivia and Joan employed the gathering as a more predominant formalised structure for reflections, discussions as well as instruction. Symbolic that these formations are to the discussion of the ensemble, there is also the consideration of practicality. The research data suggests that as the rehearsals intensified and the production dates drew nearer, the students and the theatre artists were more concerned with meeting the production needs. The circle as a formation, in spite of being at the heart of a theatre education ethos, gave way to the gathering in the face of constraints of time and fit for purpose practicalities.