PRFM1603 Chap.6 Why Make Site-Specific Performance?
Why Make Site-Specific Performance?
A maker should be able to explain why performance is needed here, now and in this form. This chapter turns that question into a selection method. A site carries material affordances, public functions, histories and uneven power. Performance may disclose a relation, create an encounter or test a different use, but it can also aestheticise harm or burden people who already have less control over the place.
Site specificity therefore requires necessity and proportionality. The project should identify a relation that performance can investigate better than description alone, and the scale of intervention should match the evidence, permission and likely consequences. A decision matrix helps compare promising sites without confusing visual appeal with ethical or dramaturgical strength.
What this chapter covers
- 01
A reason to perform here
- 02
Site affordance and material constraint
- 03
Power asymmetry among site users
- 04
Necessity compared with visual appeal
- 05
Proportionality of intervention
- 06
A defensible site selection matrix
Worked example · free
Choose between two possible sites
- 1Compare evidence access, authority, ordinary function, public impact, safety and the relation that performance could disclose.
- 1Identify who carries risk if the intervention fails, including workers, mourners, visitors and people responsible for maintenance.
- 1Ask whether embodied action adds knowledge that a photograph, essay or guided walk would not provide.
- 1Choose the site with reasons, limits and a condition that would cause the group to withdraw.
Key terms
- Site affordance
- A possibility for action created through the relation between an environment and a particular body or practice.
- Intervention necessity
- A reason performance is specifically capable of investigating the chosen relation in the chosen place.
- Power asymmetry
- An unequal distribution of authority, exposure, mobility, resources or capacity to refuse.
- Proportionality
- Matching the scale and risk of an intervention to its evidence, permission and likely benefit.
- Withdrawal condition
- A specified circumstance under which a project pauses, relocates or stops rather than forcing completion.
Why Make Site-Specific Performance? FAQ
Must a site-specific work address trauma or conflict?
No. A work can investigate rhythm, labour, play, ecology, access, memory or ordinary encounter. What matters is that the site relation is researched and consequential. Choosing an overtly traumatic subject does not make a project more serious, and it may intensify obligations that a student group lacks the authority or relationships to meet.
How can two sites be compared fairly?
Use criteria tied to the project purpose: evidence, authority, public function, access, safety, encounter and formal possibility. Visit at relevant times and identify who would bear disruption. A matrix supports judgement but cannot calculate away ethical questions. Record why each criterion matters and which uncertainty could reverse the decision.
What does performance add to site research?
Performance can test spatial relations through bodies, duration, attention and audience encounter. It can make effort, waiting or conflicting routes perceptible in ways a static account may not. That contribution must be specific. If the project merely illustrates information that a sign or essay communicates more responsibly, performance may not be necessary.
Assessment move
Shortlist two contrasting sites and write a one-sentence relation for each. Visit both under comparable conditions. Score neither with numbers at first; instead, write evidence under authority, function, bodily demand, audience encounter and public risk. Then rank the criteria according to the inquiry rather than adding them mechanically.
Draft a necessity statement beginning, “Performance is required because bodies and duration can reveal...” If the sentence remains generic, the site has not yet shaped the work. Finish with a proportionality check and a withdrawal condition. This exercise prepares both the project proposal and an exegesis paragraph that can defend why the selected site and form belong together.
After selecting a provisional site, prepare a one-page refusal case arguing that the project should not happen there. Use the strongest evidence about authority, public impact, labour, safety and representational risk. Answer that case only with verified conditions, not enthusiasm. This adversarial exercise exposes when visual attraction or urgency has replaced necessity.
If the proposal survives, state what performance can reveal through bodies, duration or encounter that another medium cannot, and scale the action to that purpose. Rehearse a minimal version before adding objects or audience movement. Record which site relation actually became perceptible and which remained an explanation delivered by the artist.
The final rationale should include the withdrawal condition and a more responsible alternative, showing that site selection remains revisable throughout making. Revisit necessity after each major addition, since an accumulating production can quietly detach from the precise site relation that originally made intervention defensible.
