WHAT DO WE DO AS SPECTATORS?
“The collective dimension of theater is essential because the present of the Idea is experienced and investigated through the presence of the public.” (Badiou 2007:25)
An essay about the ”essence of the theatre”?
Artistic work can be described as the materialization of ones ideas within a certain framework of aesthetics which is regulated by it apparatus, e.g. by being in a theatre, gallery or museum. The work in the theatre is not hermetic, it does not exist in a vacuum. However it is possible to advocate the idea of theatricality only through the use of the form of theatre (as a device for visual staging a piece), and then through the conceptual ”work” (that the audience does) one can go beyond the framework of the theatre and reveal a performance.(which differs in content to traditional theatre by being interested in this framing).
My artistic research is presented in the theatre as a way of framing its existence: it emerges as a piece through its context within the theatre. Certain artistic strategies convey a set of prerequisites that go beyond the subjectivity of the spectator as merely 'the person perceiving the piece' and the maker as 'framer' of the issues to be considered. For instance, during the theatrical event one could establish a set of rules functioning within 'real time' that equally accommodate; the parameters at stake, knowledge of the action on stage and the audience's perception of the space and time. If the theatre is an examination and exploration of the here and now, I question whether work that advocates the making of the piece within 'real time', and even if it comprises of certain operative modes that are previously prepared such as rules or scores, whether it can also be presented and perceived as unfolding and occurring in the present moment.
By asking what is it that we do as spectators? My intention is to sense how far the theatrical device is encapsulating and regulating the experience both for the performance maker and the audience and to ask: how restrictive is the apparatus of the theatre?
In order to do so, I will scrutinize the space that separates, the Maker, the Work and the Audience and the expectations and desires that each one, has of each other.
AUDIENCE
“Theater is an art and art will always be a site divided between subversion and institution, contemplative passivity and active rupture, the State and the crowd, creation and the market. An important work displaces these frontiers but it cannot abolish them.” (Badiou 2007: 22)
The theatre is a complex dialectic environment. As a device, it accomplishes what no other art form does: the ephemeral gathering (I am referring strictly to artistic works, and not to any other form of public events) of seemingly independent people to hold a one off event in a certain space and within a certain time frame. The theatre, where “apparently” everything is real, is a pre-set state of affairs, which accommodates a specific set of rules for realising of one's intentions, where the maker, the piece and audience are entities intrinsically linked by the 'live experience' of the performance. This relationship - maker---work---audience, establishes categorically the conditions for making theatre, containing, in my opinion, the most intricate paradigm of artistic creation. In the theatre, a “performance event “ involves other individuals to attend at an arranged time and place in order to engage in an activity, which is of common interest to all present. This set of actions/conditions poses the question, as to whether performance and spectator can be separated? Given that a performance is only fully substantiated when it is in front of an audience. The analytical process of the spectator, in theory, constructs the performance as much as the performer. The co-dependency of these condition means that the audience and the performance are intrinsically linked in order to generate meaning, which shows the extent to which performance making is a complex collective action.
I don’t like the theatre, in terms of pretending that the action presented is 'real', but the lure of playing with a fictional setting fascinates me. Theatrical space and time are relational: causing an affect upon a complex set of individuals (spectators).
Spectatorship, as form of behaviour within the theatre apparatus- is according to Agamben “a set of strategies of the relations of forces supporting, and supported by, certain types of knowledge” (Agamben 2009:2), which determine the live event in its entirety.
In order to grasp the concept of spectatorship within modern theatre, it is necessary to consider some aspects in the evolution of the social sphere within which it exists. For instance, within the advent of technology and how politics displays its power and responsibility in our communities. Italo Calvino described in his essay on Multiplicity, published in Six Memos for the next Millennium, that: The development of transports such as the car or the aeroplane, transformed the relationship of body with (their) experience of time and space, determining the rhythm of life and consequently the notion of attention and the economy of time. Television, computers, emails and cell phones increase the speed at which we experience and accomplish things and consequently affect the way in which we perceive them. The Internet definitely became the most fluid and fast means to access all sort of information at the touch of a button. Empowered by the readiness of information we have drastically modified our approach to everyday life, which dictates new possibilities that previously one could only dream of. If theatre exists in relationship to the time and space of viewer who is experiencing the live event, then inevitably one's daily habits and preconceived ideas become the means of perceiving what one experiences there. However, what the theatrical experience can provide, through abstract ideas and the imagination, of both the spectator and the maker, is a context for the emergence of multiple methods of constructing thoughts and the body.
In my experience the audience often procrastinates, by delaying their reaction to the piece, possibly as response to preconceived ideas of authority and hierarchy (the potentially powerful, yet vulnerable, position of the performer who actively 'shows' something and the audience potentially in a position of passivity by being in the position of being 'quiet in the dark’) or as a rebellion against external demands.
Saying that I am not dismissing their intellectual or censorial ability of the audience, who can achieve the same kind of transformation that occurs in the performer during the performance. On the contrary, I acknowledge that the positioning of the audience as 'consumers' of action rather than active members of the piece as 'normal' behaviour in traditional theatre.
In the “reformed theatre ”we can see that in theory, the audience is not perceived as being in a position of passivity but rather is implicated in what's being shown on stage. Either by looking for the connections between what it is "to be" a spectator and the 'live moment' on stage, or by searching for meaning through ones own devices and knowledge, or by “abdicating the very position of viewer for being in possession of all vital energies.” (Ranciére 2008: 2).
Nevertheless the term spectatorship creates a separation between performer and audience: still there are clear boundaries between them. However, I sense that there are many possibilities for making theatre, if the work (the vehicle that activates the community of spectators) puts into question spectatorship through the sharing of the responsibility for achieving the 'here and now moment' within the performance.
I am referring to, how one could enable the audience and performers to look for the here and now whenever unpredictable moments arise, and the unknown is embraced both by the audience and the performers. Then the theatre becomes less of a structure of control, and of controlling both audience and performers, and becomes a context were responsibility for the making of the experience is shared. Therefore in order for the “IT” to happen the responsibility for the distribution of the power amongst both parties is shared.
But how can one distribute the responsibility when the knowledge of the piece is unequal? As the maker has prior knowledge through the process of making, and therefore the responsibility for the performance may not be immediately shared with the audience, but rather only through the engagement of the experience of the live event, and its resonance over time, can the audience subsequently take responsibility for the performance.
Can the theatre undertake a strategy for a shared and common pursuit of the making of the piece? Not in the sense of the experience per se (as there will always be a different dynamic and experience between the performer presenting and the spectator watching), but rather through the togetherness of the quest for the “IT” aspect which exists in the here and now of the theatre.
WORK
“Performance is about the present, it is not about the past that did happen, and it is not about the future that didn’t happen”. (Abramovic 2011: Keynote Lecture)
I was pleased, while reading The Emancipated Spectator by Rancière, to notice that the author dedicates his critical thinking and appreciation to Pedro Costa, a filmmaker that I deeply admire. In his book Rancière discusses his understanding of Costa´s filmography, referring him as an example of a filmmaker that 'does not ignore the fact that cinema is no longer what it was once hoped it would be. The power structures of contemporaneity framed the world without partition of the sensible in which equality must disappear.' (Rancierre 2008:81). Pedro Costa is a slow artist, he doesn't fear boredom: he takes time and space to develop his projects. By doing so he creates, what I consider to be a special quality that is present in his profound sense of attention and caring for his subject. I was pleased, because besides the fact that I deeply identify with his sensibility, his work was still a revelation, through showing me a specific way of dealing with length and duration, are which determining factors for my artistic creations.“If the display organizes the evident primacy of time over space, one has “theater.”(Badiou 2007:23).
I would now kindly ask, if by chance you have a computer with an Internet connection nearby to watch the following youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnFdSRqorHE.
In the video, you see Jeanne Balibard, a French actress and singer, to whom Costa devoted his l latest work, Je ne change rien, (Don’t change anything: 2009) rehearsing. Against expectations, Balibards demonstrates serious difficulties in getting the rhythm of the song, and putting the lyrics to the correct tune. At the same film Costa shows another rehearsal session, where the singer tries her best again to sing that same song without succeeding.
What do we do as a spectator with these images?
We witness a lack of an essential skill for a professional singer. I dare to say that a substantial amount of spectators would be able to sing the lyrics correctly at least quicker than Balibards does. Nevertheless we follow her with a slight feeling of frustration and wondering; Why is she taking so long? However, it is through repeating the fact that 'If the display organizes the evident primacy of time over space, one has Theater' (Badiou 2007:23), which Costa evokes in the scene, shows that his precise timing as a film maker enables us as viewers to witness the learning process that Balibard goes through, and consequently we are permitted to succeed together with her. We simultaneously and truly experience it with her.
In the theatre, the maker of the performance must sense the reaction of the audience: it is essential to balance the space that separates the work and it beholder, otherwise both parties risk losing the potential “IT” moment of the live experience. It is necessary to be certain, assertive, clear, precise, logical, critical and imaginative but not too much in order not to become illustrative. So what are we asking for from the audience, and what are they asking of performance makers?
The idea of “freedom” in creating artistic works is potentially a plethora of misunderstandings, seizures, dizziness and frustration.
One's creative process, emerges from the negotiation between the interests and curiosities determined by one's surroundings, which creates a set of factors which are more or less conscious decisions, and are constantly operating in the mind of the maker.
The artist investigates their context, their medium, encountering both restrictions and opportunities. Though their research they find gaps, such “black holes” become intriguing and fascinating: Can they represent a new spectrum of possibilities for 'one's own discourse as an artist'?
At the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, physicist Stephen Hawking presented a new series of highly complex calculations that suggest that black holes can not just cease to exist, but are able to return its contents, so disfigured, allowing it reappearance in some specific way. The information swallowed remains in our universe, contradicting a theory of 80 years, according to which black holes could provide gateways to other universes.
I choose to use black holes as a metaphor to account for my process of making work.
In my theatrical events, I try to show the experience of what is already known by gradually constructing narratives that attempt to rephrase the content as new material. In my last project Crystal, I used the sound of the heartbeat as the input to draw a dance score. The heartbeat which is normally seen as the sign of being alive was displayed just as another source of sound generation (an instrument). I did not put emphasis in the symbolic meaning of HEART although, I was aware of the emotional dimension. By playing with shared symbols and motifs, and with the previous knowledge of events witnessed by all those present at the performance, I tried to construct a common experience for the makers and the audience, requiring both parties to invest in 'potential' either for failure or success. Through the division of the labour with the audience in the performance, the overall responsibility of the piece, which usually is only owned by the makers of the performance, is shared. If one of the parties (audience or performers) are not able or prepared to partake (in theory) in the proposition of the performance, the work does not happen, and the shared moment does not exist and I don’t deem the piece to be successful. In order for the ‘IT (work)' to happen one cannot rely on a unidirectional relationship, as it is unequal and unbalanced and ultimately a monologue rather than the intended dialogue.
I must clarify that when I say 'common experience', I don’t mean, one equally meaningfully experience for both performers and audience, as I cannot predict the extraneous parameters of such a social gathering such as; taste, desire, intentions or mood, or one's intellectual or physical condition and background. Instead, I intended to create a state of awareness for the here and the now which has a diverse emotional and intellectual impact according to the subjectivity of each person (both as performer and an audience member).
There is work that occurs in front of the audience, and is established by the time and rhythm of the piece such as the shared aspect of making theatre- the essential (live factor) that makes the theatre Theatre. Performance exists that necessitates audience interaction, in terms of participation, by playing with the variables pre-established by the performance; and that is work that is made and materialized in front of the audience, that uses the circumstances of the theatre and proposes a different relation to power, control and knowledge, often called in practice and also perceived as improvisation. The choice of a 'mode of operation', defines the aesthetics as well the politics of an artist.
MAKER
'You can blame the excessive ambition of purposes in many fields of activity but not in literature. Literature lives only if proposing rambling objectives, even beyond any possibility of fulfilment.' (Calvino 1988 :134)
Art claims space in the public sphere for discourse and reflection on thoughts and ideas about the world, so art is political either by talking about art as a subject matter, often called 'political art' or by (re) defining its terms for/of making art. My work is political, not because it talks about politics but because in order to make it, I proceed according to certain beliefs that question how artistic strategies are made. That is my way of making, and that is my politics as an artist, and that is the politics I try to implement in the theatre when I am operating within it.
In Crystal, developed during my MA SODA, I decided to think through my work, and the implication of the meaning of what constitutes a Solo, Authorship and consequently Dance. SODA does not impose a unique mode of operation, but rather asks one to question these notions as canonized by art history. The idea of one author and a solo performance is not addressed in my work at this point, neither formally nor theoretically, but rather my concerns are with the non-hierarchical structure within a creative process, and the questioning of concentration of power with the figure of 'solely one person'. So in Crystal, I adopted the position of what I deemed to be a promoter. A promoter is not a director. It is important to explain here that the promoter is not the absolute decision maker in the creative process. As the initiator of a proposal their focus is to facilitate the flow of ideas. By adopting this position I reconfigured the power structures within the work. I was not attempting to be political but I tried to make my politics of making political. 'How do I work?' is more relevant to me than 'what is my theme or subject that I am creating?'. And how are of the production of meanings being created both by the audience and the performers?
In Crystal I started alone in the studio, delving into what I call a “bag” of abstract ideas that became something only in relation to each other. By repeatedly experiencing certain things again and again I came to understand what it is that the work is about. The process of making is my subject. During my research I deliberately choose modes, of what I called 'processes of translations of the heart beat', that I had no expertise in. I initiated a collaborative process with my co-makers, sharing intentions and directions so they could make the ideas come into being.
In my previous research project, in collaboration with another maker, we presented an Event where we developed the parameters of it through the process of making it; we did not have the final production of it set. We constructed and communicated a linguistic and kinaesthetic vocabulary, but the piece was unknown until the point of its presentation.
As a maker and performer I understand through the research process of both, Crystal and Event that the less certain I am about what it is that I am doing, the more aware and able I am of perceiving what I have in front of me. I also see this as essential to art production. The less I know about my next step, the more available I am for the next thing to happen and more aware I am of it extraneous and external conditions. I am not operating from the safety of fully knowing, but I am working with what I know and what is in front of me in the certain set time frame. The event happens by being permeable to the factors at stake. Hence the collective dimension of the theatre: I am an active audience at my own event. In this way I intent to fulfil the gap in between Maker or Performer and the Audience, and allow the work to happen at the same time for both.
What I am demanding from my co-makers in Crystal or in Event, I am also demanding of my audience. Therefore the work is demanding everything; from the audience, the makers and me. So I am just as responsible for the piece, as my co-makers and my audience are. I am not in the position any more of being simply certain, assertive, clear, precise, logical, critical and imaginative. I am only present in a place were I am working and sharing a common space for something to occur. In order for that to happen, we (myself, co-workers and audience) have let go of desires about what will be or could be shown, otherwise those desires will engulf what is shown, hence the complex dimension of what is there? . That, is what I call the research(er): there is no audience and maker, there is work, and we are all working on it.
My work in the last two years has been mainly influenced by methodological practices such as; “Real Time Composition”, strategies of shared composition as the ones developed by the Artistwin Deufert & Plischke or the now disbanded Performance Group Goat Island, the body practices developed by Deborah Hay, Merce Cunnigham and Trisha Brown, the unique footage of Pedro Costa and the film “Russian Ark” of Alexander Sokurov, the paintings of Mark Rothko and the work of Jimmie Durham the words of Giorgio Agamben and Italo Calvino, and the music of Mike Patton the sound of Fred Frith, John Cage and Stockhausen.
AND…
Performance is a time based art, one has to be there, in the space where it happens. Performance cannot be without a public, they give the necessary energy for it to happen. Performance is a mental and physical construction that one creates in space and time. When you leave the theatre space, the memory and emotional impact are left with you. Whatever happens in that very specific moment becomes part of the piece.
Work is artistic if it fulfils its conceptual purpose within the mode of aesthetic regulated by its apparatus (here I return again to my initial statement). In order to do this, the maker virtuously juggles different intentions and politics, dealing also with the idiosyncrasies of the theatrical spaces and by revealing the theatres strategies and modes of operation, which may suddenly be perceived as a cage that allows you to both see into but not reach into, as well trigger new issues, thoughts or problems. An artist's work is also to find other possibilities, new ideas that they perceive as hypotheses. They know therefore their medium but must push its borders in order to find potential for new openings. I see the theatre as an environment for enquiry, which embraces the world in all its different components. A world that becomes more aware of itself in a unique space where people pay attention to each other. My artistic intentions are exposed in the theatrical frame, but truly come into being with the live moment of the theatre and the shared work required of the performers and audience members. In saying that I can not conclude that I can always necessarily succeed in fulfilling my intention within the theatrical frame but I can definitely conclude that its modes of operation does invigorate my body and my mind both as a performance maker and audience member.
Ana Trincão
Berlin, 2012
Bibliography
Abramovic, Marina (2011) SCAD : Keynote Lecture, Viewed January 20 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldw488zpw7U
Agamben, Giorgio(2009) What Is an Apparatus? and Other Essays, Translated by David Kishik and Stefan Pedatella,Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.
Badiou, Alain and During, Elie (2007) A Theatre of Operations, A Discussion between Alain Badiou and Elie During in A Theater Without Theater Barcelona: Actar Produccions, MACBA
Borja, Manuel J; Villel, Patricia; Falguieres, Blistene Bernard( 2007)A Theater Without Theater Barcelona: Actar Productions, MACBA
Calvino, Italo (1988) Six Memos for the Next Millennium /The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures, Translated by Patrick
Creagh, New York: Vintage International Vintage Books
Ranciére Jacques (2008) The Emancipated Spectator, Translated by Gregory Elliot, London: Verso
Hawking unveils new thinking on black holes (2004): Msnbc.com Viewed January 17 2012 holes/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5473323/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/hawking-unveils-new-thinking-black-holes/
The reformers of the theatre (according to Jacques Ranciére), Brecht´s (Epic Theatre) and Artaud´s (Theatre of Cruelty) “have reformulated Plato’s opposition between choros and theatre… as one between the truth of the theatre and the simulacrum of spectacle. They have made the theatre the place were the passive audience of spectators must be transformed into its opposite: the active body of a community enacting its living principle.” (Ranciére2008:5)
“IT”, is an event/experience accomplished within the course of the performance in the time and space of the theatrical frame designated by here and now.
Comment based on the article “Hawking unveils new thinking on black holes”, Msnbc.com 2004
What is there?, is an ontological questions which I work with as a procedural and conceptual approach to the creative act. In it one comprehends one’s understanding of space and time and the use of that spectrum of information to develop one’s work. What is there? Is an attempt, a call of attention to the act of revealing apparently imperceptible relationships such as the audience performer relationship.
Definition based on the description of “What is performance” by Marina Abramovic at SCAD : Keynote Lecture 2011