There is no documentation of this performative conference presentation, which took place during the very first Performance as Research Working Party meeting at the International Federation of Theatre Research conference (FIRT 2004). By highlighting its ephemeral liveness, this of course points to the central dilemma of the presentation of practice-led research in performance.

In the absence of a video, photographs, a script, or even an abstract, we asked the following question to each other and to others who attended: "What do you remember of our presentation in St Petersburg two years ago?"

We leave it up to you to piece together and imagine what may have happened on that day. Interestingly, we remember discussing the need to video the presentation during the question session following the presentation itself. But there is no reason to trust any of our memories.

Memories of those who participated in the presentation
(offered in alphabetical order)

Baz Kershaw:
The M(other) Project contributed a terrific workshop to the Performance as Research Working Group of FIRT in St Petersburg. It was a rare privilege to see work that was so genuinely interdisciplinary presented with such sensitivity, openness and absolute honesty. In a very short time participants were deeply engaged in some crucial creative problem solving processes. Direction, dance and writing were exposed as permeable boundaries across which exploration of complex ethical and aesthetic issues could be brilliantly conducted.

Roberta Mock:
I remember thinking that we were presenting something that could (and probably would) fail miserably. We wanted to show rather than tell - and furthermore, we wanted to somehow present (and represent) a dynamic rather than a product. I had been very influenced by Franc Chamberlain's 'Interruptions' at the PARIP conference the year before. He performed a kind of cumulative physical performance text that had been evolving over a period of time; sometimes he reproduced performances he had seen or read about or had presented himself and then he'd interrupt this with commentary. It felt like watching layers of time and this was something I wanted to evoke in St Petersburg.

The spatial arrangement of our presentation was very important. We wanted the audience to join us around a table, in close proximity, to get a sense that they were essential to the next layer in our research process. They needed to be able to share the objects we felt were significant. These included our new St Petersburg teacups (not just to replace the cups which took up so much of our attention while blocking M(other)1 but also to indicate this newly located practice) and my silver high heeled shoes. We agreed that these shoes - which I was desperate to keep in M(other)1 as they represented my creative starting point but which the others were equally desperate to get rid of - were symbolic of the challenges of our collaboration together. Finally, our audience had to be close to us so they could be caught in the 'web' I created around them. The 35 metres of green spangly material stayed at home in England so instead, at the start of the presentation, I removed my tights (American tan) and stretched and wound these to simulate my actions in M(other)1.

Besides showing video clips of M(other)1, as part of the presentation we revisited and performed some of its scenes and written text. What surprised me were the deeper levels of subtlety, the richness, and the nuances we found when we returned to these scenes, even in a totally different context. In some ways, they were much better than they were in Athens. For me, the least successful aspect of the presentation was when we restaged real conversations we have had (for instance, discussions in which we each had different memories of the same event). Strangely, while our fictional narrative became more 'authentic', our 'real' one became less so in performance.

The discussion session after the presentation was illuminating. It was clear that the audience didn't know quite what was being performed: was this all new? was it all restaged? how much of each? I learned that audiences for these types of presentations would probably engage more fully if they were armed in advance with an abstract that outlined the aims and context of both the presentation and the research that led to it. Despite best efforts, research questions and findings are not necessarily (and perhaps cannot be) transparently obvious without formally expressing them in words. On the other hand, leaving space for a subjective response to the presentation (rather than being told what it all meant) was always one of our goals. In the next M(other)2 presentation, we used these understandings in an attempt to get the balance just right.

Angela Piccini:
Tucked into the upper reaches of the theatre, a select few gathered in what might have been a rehearsal space or dressing room. I remember a good deal of confusion and tense waiting for one of the Russian helpers to unlock the doors and turn on the bare lightbulbs and the electricity. I also remember sitting behind you, at the back of the performance space. I was performing the role of PARIP-ette and technician so sat by the computer. I had to pick up on your cues to trigger the video footage. I remember a table, with you three moving around it, dipping in and out of your own memories of the performance in Exeter, which was displaced onto the Russian screen. You would sit, then stand, then walk. But the table and the teacups anchored you in that very strange, very specific, yet unimportant space. I remember Nigel Stewart asking you what your research questions were. And I remember the margaritas afterwards. So a lot of temporal-spatial - followed by drunken - weaving going on. What troubles me is that while I can remember all of that, I can't remember the name of the theatre, such was its invisibility in the face of all those international theatre scholars. Seemed somehow to mirror the Maybelline ads in the metro.

Christine Roberts:
The cups! The tea cups had been an essential symbol in M(other)1. Not only were they a significant indicator of the mother's memory and the last traces of her hold on her past, they also epitomised the collaborative interdependence of us as creators of the performance. Where would we be without those cups? Our moves were literally dictated by them.

So the decision to buy cups in St. Petersburg and use them in our attempts to communicate the collaborative process was crucial. I remember how carefully we chose our particular designs - mine had a sepia impression of a St. Petersburg long since gone. But the key moment came when the shop assistant delicately dangled each cup by the handle and, to check for cracks, pinged it with her pen. As a different note came from each cup, we simultaneously looked at each other. Ping! We had a beginning to our presentation.

Back in our hotel room dinner was put on hold, as we diligently worked through a format, struggling with the challenge of how to show a collaborative process in performance. When we eventually had something we were all satisfied with, we left the hotel room in search of our reward, a Margarita. The cups wrapped and ready for the following day's performance.

I have it still...

Ruth Way:
As our first attempt to structure words, the experiential and the physical to evidence our diffferent insights and embodied understandings, one might think we would be nervous but my memory is of the implicit trust we had in each other and that this set of skills would lead us to understanding and the creation of a seamless form. How well these understandings/findings would be received and regarded as having research value is another discussion. For me it was like dipping my toes into the water and I remember that we framed it as such and made a decision to experiment and put ourselves in a vulnerable position where we were not going to rely on only the words and the articulated theories but rather expose ourselves as practical scholars and inhabit this space, this time, this interaction with our audience to speak of these connections through the practice.

It was wonderful performing in such an intimate space and in a space so embedded with history. The moment when an audience member was asked to tie the stocking to the chair and this stocking served to connect our audience was 'one of those defining moments' as it changed our relationship to them and their audience positioning, and we were all vulnerable and part of this defined circle and condition. Perhaps this is where the sharing took place.

You?
If you attended this presentation and would like to share your memory, please contact us. We would very much like to add it to this page.