Lesson Report:
Title
Constraint-based site-specific performances and designing an 8-minute poetry showcase
Students staged four short, site-specific performances under strict language constraints (seven-word lexicons vs. no spoken language), then reflected on how those rules shaped creative decisions. The class closed by co-designing an integrated, audience-facing “shared reading� program that combines original poems, live acting, projected images, and on-the-spot judging within an eight-minute slot.
Attendance
– Absences mentioned: 0 (all four groups participated; no absences noted)
Topics covered (chronological)
– Staging and run-of-show logistics
– Reconfirmed four groups and their chosen performance locations; sequenced by proximity for flow:
– Group C: second-floor sofas (closest)
– Group A: second floor near Denver Bank
– Group B: outside, in front of the doors
– Group D: outside near the stairs/auditorium (furthest)
– Clarified stage space needs at each site and reminded audience to take observation notes for a later writing activity.
– Time expectation: up to ~3 minutes per performance; allowed groups to use phones as prompters for their seven-word lists if needed.
– Site-specific performances under constraints
– Constraint sets (paired “oppositeâ€� groups worked with the same prompt under different rules):
– Some groups: seven-word vocabulary only (high repetition risk; lexical play required).
– Other groups: no spoken language (pantomime and gesture only).
– Instructor feedback highlights:
– “Seven-wordâ€� pieces showed creative, insistent use of limited lexicon; noted risk of repetitiveness if overused.
– Silent pieces relied on amplified gesture, pacing, and physical interaction to sustain narrative over three minutes; effective use of space and “location supportâ€� (e.g., turning spaces into a hospital or mountain).
– A philosophically themed piece (“life has a point/routineâ€�) sparked genuine debate within constraints.
– One group attempted an abstract Sisyphus/Camus adaptation—acknowledged as ambitious and difficult to convey even with language; applauded the effort despite minimal props.
– Guided reflection: decision-making under constraint
– Prompts:
– How did language limits (or the absence of language) shape planning, blocking, and storytelling?
– What became easier due to the constraints? What became harder or impossible?
– Reported insights (from multiple groups):
– Silent constraint pushed clearer physical storytelling; gestures had to be exaggerated and beats elongated to cue audience understanding; helped fill full three-minute runtime.
– Seven-word constraint limited variety, tempted filler repetition, and demanded careful sentence recombination to maintain meaning and avoid dragging pacing.
– Preparation time and performance time were both significant constraints that narrowed concept scope.
– Abstract themes (e.g., Sisyphus) are hard to render without explicit verbal scaffolding; prop scarcity amplified the challenge (e.g., “horsesâ€� would have clarified movement intent).
– Strategic use of setting enhanced clarity (e.g., environmental cues created “hospitalâ€� or “mountainâ€� without telling).
– Peer-to-peer critique with “opposite groupâ€� lens
– Students acknowledged counterpart challenges (e.g., seven-word teams must “play with wordsâ€� creatively; silent teams must add more action to avoid stagnation).
– Suggestions included: increase action density, diversify beats to reduce repetition, and consider location features as narrative assists.
– Observed effective character work and small physical details (e.g., “smokingâ€� gesture) that enriched silent narratives.
– Transition to afternoon “shared readingâ€� planning (2:20 PM, room 410)
– Constraints and goals:
– Eight total minutes on stage.
– Must incorporate writing (readings), not purely performance.
– Aim for a cohesive, engaging set rather than isolated notebook readings.
– Venue/tech:
– Room 410 likely has a screen/smart board; plan to arrive early for setup and testing.
– Option to project images from the prior “Living Sculptureâ€� project to create thematic backdrops for poems.
– Idea generation (not mutually exclusive; can be combined):
– Poem readings by student authors.
– Live, silent acting that interprets each poem as it is read.
– Projected images that resonate with each poem’s theme.
– Onstage judging: 3 judges score each poem+performance and briefly justify scores; optional playful accents/characters for host/judges; possible audience involvement as guest judges (decision pending).
– Proposed show arc (draft):
– Host introduction; judges enter as distinct characters and explain the “Best Poetry Teamâ€� competition.
– 4–5 poems (class settled on 5 as the target), each with:
– One reader (author), 2–3 silent actors, and an image projected behind them (where thematically appropriate).
– Judges quickly score and offer one-sentence rationale after each piece.
– Closing:
– Judges announce an overall winner.
– Entire group delivers one short, shared line/reading in unison.
– Group bow and exit.
– Role assignments and initial decisions:
– Host: Adukia (announcer/MC).
– Judges: three volunteers confirmed.
– Performers/readers: to be finalized; estimate five poem readers with dedicated acting teams.
– Decision on audience judges: defer until after run-through; prioritize a fully scripted baseline plan.
– Dismissal and next steps
– Ended at noon for lunch; reconvene one hour later to select texts, finalize roles, rehearse, and test tech before the 2:20 performance.
Actionable items
– Immediate (before 2:20 shared reading)
– Confirm room 410 and screen access; arrive early for tech setup.
– Build a single slide deck of 5 selected Living Sculpture photos (one per poem); assign an operator.
– Select 5 poems (diverse topics/tones); place texts in one shared document for the host.
– Assign: 5 readers (authors), 2–3 silent actors per poem, 3 judges, 1 host (Adukia), 1 timekeeper/stage manager, 1 slide operator.
– Time each segment to fit 8 minutes total:
– ~60–75 seconds per poem reading
– ~15–20 seconds of judging remarks per poem
– ~20–30 seconds total for opening + ~20–30 seconds for final winner + 10–15 seconds for group line/bow
– Draft brief scripts:
– Host opening, judge intros (optional accents), judging criteria and 1-sentence feedback formats.
– Prepare judges’ score cards (visible, quick to hold up).
– Decide today whether to include any audience judges; if yes, prepare simple instruction cards.
– Rehearse transitions: entrances/exits, mic handoffs, where actors stand, slide changes on cue.
– High priority (rehearsal hour)
– Run a full timed rehearsal; adjust poem order for tonal progression and logistics (actor/space needs).
– Verify projection visibility and audio audibility in room 410; confirm backup plan if tech fails (run without images).
– Confirm minimal prop needs (only what is readily available); ensure they don’t slow transitions.
– Nice-to-have (if time allows)
– Light character work for judges (consistent accents, brief quirks) that doesn’t add time.
– Simple, repeatable final line for the whole group to read in unison.
– After the event (follow-up)
– Debrief what worked (timing, clarity, audience engagement) and capture notes to refine future showcases and writing-to-performance bridges.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript only describes in-class performances and planning for a same-day shared reading (“we’re going to be using what you see later on for a little bit of a writing activityâ€� and “at 2:20 today… each group will be performing for eight minutesâ€�), concluding with “we will have time to get this done and practice it beforehand,â€� with no take-home tasks assigned.