Digesting Spectacle; "The library is pissed"

There have already been a number comments on our library spectacle (is there a title for the performance piece?) so I won't say much except that it was really exciting. I had some ideas on the direction I wanted the piece to follow, but because we recruited outside artist/actors to help I knew that anything could happen. And it did. And I love that things started to get out of hand.

I never actually thought authority figured would show up and put an end to the performance but now I realize that was really the perfect way for the spectacle to end...otherwise I suppose we would have stopped once all the books had been torn apart.

In terms of our choice of place and time. We were spot on. The purpose was to create an anti-atmosphere in the library. To put stress on the library's normal functions and the way people act within the environment. The fact that it took place during mid-terms is even more appropriate in accentuating that stress (what if it had taken place on reading day during finals?). As with the title line given to me by pub safe: it was no one angry person putting an end to the art--it was the library as an entity.

My experience with my own spectacle and seeing others' is: what determines a successful spectacle? Is it the creation of enough friction to cause an active response--even if it's against the performers themselves? Does a spectacle have to be destructive in nature? And what is the role of identity/character creation. In the library, I think everyone participating took on a character to direct their actions and performance patterns, and I think this is essential to create an authentic, believable spectacle. You cannot act as your everyday self. It's a performance and necessitates a break from normal functioning. Even if you must break from yourself to perform yourself.

If anyone wants a constructive comment on our spectacle from a third party, read the letter from the editor in this week's Mess newspaper. Also admire the graphics.