Interview with Jess Haugh, of The Fanny Waterman Collective

Last year Jess and her outfit, The Fanny Waterman Collective performed their show, The Cohabitation Project, Part One: Urban Sacrifices at Cross Street Studios.

Rachel Ruckstuhl-Mann asked Jess a few questions about the show.


CSS: How did the subject matter of your performance come about?

JH: The subject matter was secondary to the form of the show, as the original idea show originated from a performance band I was involved in. We wanted to explore how the use of music, sound and images could be used to create a bodily experience for the audience, create feelings rather than thoughts. The subject matter developed from these ideas, as we thought ideas of living in a city were often a visceral experience, the idea of a forced co-habitation and the experiences that arise from that.

CSS: Why did you use the forms of performance you used to communicate your ideas.

JH: As I said above the forms of performance were a means to explore different ways that music, movement and images could come together or not together to create a bodily experience for the viewer. As the idea of the show was to portray a surface of cohesiveness as what we thought of as a city but when you delve deeper there is only disorder and disconnectedness. The use of the various forms of performance was an attempt to rub different forms up against each other to portray the disconectedness and disorder of
the city we were trying to portray.

CSS: Why did you choose Cross Street Studios as your performance venue?

JH: For few reasons, it was within the budget for our show. Also I had a positive experience previously with a show I was involved in. Also it was an open space that allowed flexibility in how it was used.

CSS: Do you think this venue adds/changes the way your show is understood?

JH: It did have an impact in how the show was understood, as it allowed a more improvisational feel to the show. There was also a proximity with the audience, they felt much more involved, the lines between audience and performer were not so formal. Also as stated above one of the aims for the show was to create a feeling of disorder a kinda jumble of performance and the openess of Cross St allowed this

CSS: Could this piece have been performed in a theatre?

JH: Yes but it would have been different as it would make the division between audience and performer much more distinct. There would be higher expectations of the performance, so we may have lost some of the improvisational, jumbled feel that we were aiming for in the Cross St space.

CSS: Who was your performance aimed at, who was your audience?

JH: We didnt really think in terms of audience as we felt it was important to
create something different, so were unsure who would like it.

CSS: What kinds of reactions did you think they would have to the performance? We were aiming to create moments of visceral entertainment which would end up confusing and sometimes distressing as parts of the performance would lead to things that did not make sense.

CSS: Can you explain how the dance sections related to the rest of the piece as a whole.

JH: The dance sections were trying to portray versions of the community, an expression of biological and temporal commonality that when brought together could become ridiculous but also disturbing and destructive.

CSS: Where does the name Fannywaterman come from?

JH: It actually comes from a series of piano books that Fanny Waterman wrote in the 70s which I am currently using to learn piano.

CSS: What are the backgrounds of the performers?

JH: There is a huge range, from some having being trained professionally at
Unitec, to some doing workshops and others just learning from being
involved in prior shows.