Acting Accordingly: Discussing the Disruption of
Expectations within the Theatre
Master’s Thesis
MA Comparative and Cultural Analysis
University of Amsterdam
Joris Bastiaan
10367357
joris.bastiaan@student.uva.nl
Supervisor: Dr. B. Noordenbos
19-6-2017
Word Count: 20100
2
Table of Contents
I: Prologue
3
II: Theatrical Theory: Stages of Understanding
8
Interactivity
11
Spectatorship
16
Theatricality
23
III: Throwing the stick: discussing the Disruption of Expectations within
the Theatre
27
Going to the Dogs
28
Why keep a dog and bark yourself?
33
IV: Define It Yourself: Rimini Protokoll’s Situation Rooms
39
Situation Rooms
40
Performativity of theatre
45
Ignorance of the puppet
47
V: Smashing Expectations: Theatricality and Violation of the Street in
The Eric André Show
50
The breaching experiment and the street skit
50
Cop Car Smash
54
Distance of the spectator
58
VI: Epilogue
61
VII: Bibliography
65
3
I
Prologue
Without iterating Shakespearean quotes: there is a reciprocal relationship between the theatre and the life surrounding it. According to anthropologist Victor Turner, there are many ‘genres of cultural performance’ to be found, but “theatre is perhaps the most forceful, active” one. As a comparer of different cultures, he states that theatrical values are found in all societies:
“No society is without some mode of metacommentary -Geertz’s illuminating phrase for a ‘story a group tells itself about itself’ or in the case of theatre, a play a society acts about itself- not only a reading of its experience but an interpretive reenactment of its experience” (Turner 104).
A performance performed by oneself about oneself: this might be perceived as narcissistic, even egocentric. Yet, the performance is not performed before oneself. There is an ‘other’ here, someone who identifies with the performer. There is someone who sees this performer as part of the whole but does not perform him- or herself, at least not on the stage. Theatre might be one of the most active genres of art forms that exist, but it depends on the passive counterbalance. This is the ‘other’; the spectator; the observer; the receiver. Famous playwright Antonin Artaud, who was active during the period of spectacularization of culture (i.e. the birth of cinema), realised that this counterbalance must be kept in its place. His Theatre of Cruelty competed with the cinema by ‘attacking the sensibilities of the spectator’ in the most sublime manner. His spectacular theatre would therefore spread “its visual and sonorous outbursts over the entire mass of the spectators” which would lead to the fusion of the stage and auditorium that used to be “two closed worlds” (Artaud 86).
4 The two closed worlds that Artaud wanted to fuse together, do exist in their own closed atmosphere. Together, the stage and auditorium create a space and atmosphere known as the theatre. It has a certain autonomy, in the sense that theatre is separated from the lifeworld, as a closed social space where art is produced and distributed from (Edelman et al. 26). In this thesis, theatre is not seen merely as “a particular building, institution, practice or act of theatre making, but rather as a larger social field that draws them together with some level of coherence” (ibid. 27). Because of this autonomy, theatre is seen as a fruitful subject for critical analysis, particularly on the relationship between art worlds and society. The aim of this thesis is to search for channels that lie between theatre and society. Without determining a particular purpose of theatre production, the thesis tends to figure out how theatre products (i.e. plays and performances) can reveal elements of the social
structure.1 To formulate this all in a question: how do the specific features of theatre allow its participants to acquire a social-critical consciousness?
This thesis is divided in four chapters. Each chapter discusses the subject matter separately, but all chapters together form a coherent whole that leads to a concluding discussion. Chapter II is a theoretical walkthrough as preparation for the following chapters. Three concepts are put forth that prove to be helpful analytical tools for the other chapters. The first concept, interactivity, initiates a more sociological understanding of theatre. The concept elaborates on relationships and norms that prevail in theatre-like atmospheres. Interactivity has the capacity to reveal theatre’s social implications. The concept offers an understanding of theatre with the relationship between actor and spectator as its main focus. Spectatorship, the second concept, harbours the relationship between the observed and the observer. It connects the objects of presentation in the analytical chapters with a wider perspective. The act of spectating inherently contains three elements. These are: an
observed actor, a passive spectator and a distanciated relationship between these two. This
1
Such revelation is obligatory for social change to happen. Social change is understood here as something that is initiated when certain forms of oppression become noticeable; a Marxist
consciousness that becomes clear after a comfortable bubble is burst. Yet, it is not the purpose of this thesis to enter a political discourse. It rather tends to explain which properties fields of cultural
5 triangular framework is applicable on lots of different situations. It contains certain fluidity: the roles and distance are interchangeable. Next to this, these elements are constructed: they are fixed in mental and physical constructions. Such fixation allows the establishment of a power relation. It grants the power to determine what is seen but also who is allowed to see. The third concept, theatricality, relies heavily upon the prototype of theatre. This is understood in the sense that theatricality deals with particular characteristics of theatre. These characteristics can be recognised as defining features of theatre in its broadest sense. Theatricality and spectatorship as concept are easily applied on relationships between two units. The two concepts work as a ‘frame’; a way of seeing. The application of the concept on situations outside of its original context reveals how elements might have been taken for granted in these situations. Oppressive forces and weak spots become highlighted. The first chapter elaborates on this applicability, and how this relationality interacts with the concepts. How do these three main concepts work, and how do they interrelate and communicate?
After the theoretical discussion, three chapters present an object of performance each. Chapter III starts off with Going to the Dogs as object. This theatrical performance was set in a classic setting in the Stadsschouwburg in Amsterdam, in the late 20th century. This performance was produced by Dutch artist Wim T. Schippers, known for making
controversial art. Going to the Dogs, contextualised as a theatrical play, distinguishes itself by the replacement of a vital element of the performance. The cast of actors and actresses consisted of German Shepherds instead of human performers. This deviancy of the standard form of theatre performance had to be incorporated into the play, but most of the structural elements of the theatre remained in their place. A narrative, decor, and a tribune still were there. The play was recognised as a theatre performance by the audience. The performance existed within the sphere of the theatre instead of in the dog shelter. The absence of humans on the stage reveals the dependency of the theatre on the stage performer. Yet, the
substitutes (the dogs) have their own qualities that adjust the performance too. How does an audience respond to a performance that merely puts animals on the stage instead of
6 humans? The chapter asks the question what happens when important elements of classical theatre fade away.
Chapter IV is centred around a more contemporary work of performance art. In 2013, the Berlin-based theatre group Rimini Protokoll presented Situation Rooms. This artwork is best described as a hybrid between theatre, storytelling and interactive real-life video gaming. Situation Rooms exemplifies how the classical architecture of theatre, which is based on a stage and a tribune, can be altered. The performance expects its participants to actively engage with the performance narrative that is presented to them. One might even doubt about the existence of a division between actor and spectator since the live
participants are pulled out of their passive position. At the start of the performance, each participant is equipped with a tablet screen and a headset, providing sight and hearing. Next to this, a clear cut playthrough of the performance demands obedience of the actions of the participants. Although the performance convincingly brings forth an emancipatory objective, there are hints that exclusion has not been prevented completely. The chapter and its analysis describe the influence of digital media on performance and to what extent such influence improves the chances of acquiring a breach in the social division between actor and spectator.
The last analysis includes an object positioned outside of a classical theatre environment. Chapter V presents a street performance which was broadcasted as part of The Eric André Show, which airs on television network Adult Swim. Comedians Eric André and Hannibal Buress surprise pedestrians with a riot act. The whole scene is captured by candid cameras. The performance, called Cop Car Smash, raises questions about the expectations that are commonly held in the everyday street environment. The scene contains a violent act of vandalism by André and a portrayal of an authority of the public order by Buress. Such scene is assumed to follow the rules of the police state. Yet, a satirical change of events creates an uncomfortable confusion. It is here that a space
emerges where one is able to realise what the circumstances really are. The chapter takes a similar perspective such as those used during the other two analyses. However, the object
7 touches the concept of spectatorship in a peculiar manner. Since the performance is done without announcement, the audience is not aware of their spectatorship. The object defies the expectations on the street by performing the unexpected. The ‘performance of the street’, commonly seen as normal and banal, suddenly becomes vulnerable to critique. The analysis focuses on this vulnerability, and how it allows the observers to raise questions. How does Cop Car Smash show the possibility of criticizing the situation by its performance outside of the theatre atmosphere?
The chapters all have particular elements and contexts. Yet together, they construct a whole that explains to what extent theatrical situations rely on certain predetermined social norms and cultural understandings. The discussion presented here does not wish to explain how these norms have been acquired, or how these understandings came to be. It is rather tries to explain that these norms and understandings require exposure before they can be changed adequately. This thesis focuses on how these norms and understandings can be exposed with tools that have been crafted in cultural atmospheres such as the theatre. In this way, theatre has the potential to become a vehicle for a socio-cultural critique. By being a vehicle however, theatre is not exploited here. Theatre, as a part of society, brings along its own goods and values. It hosts the analysis of a common social process, but hosts ‘according to its own terms’ (Bal 8). The following chapters improve the understanding of both concepts and objects in the process of answering the research questions. One last premise needs to be stated here. By analysing objects of performance, some might see the investigation as a performance study. This is not the case entirely since the objects are not approached merely through a frame of performance studies. By providing the analysis with diverse theories and interdisciplinary perspectives, any defining label becomes invalid. By shifting, adjusting and comparing several conceptual frames, the object of analysis in question is addressed in diverse and different manners. In some sense the object therefore provides its own incentives of research, or in cultural analyst Mieke Bal’s words: the object is dealt with ‘in its own terms’ (ibid.).
8
II
Theatrical Theory: Stages of Understanding
For the forthcoming analyses in the following chapters, a clear theoretical framework will be put forth here. This chapter elaborates on the three concepts that were introduced above. Furthermore, it explains how these concepts are applicable in relation to the research objective. Before digging into the concepts, some ideas on the theatre shall be stated first. In particular, the ideas of Thiong’o and Rancière are of relevance. To clarify: the focus does not specifically lie on the institution of theatre, but some words on its social implications are necessary. Theatre is based on a particular social structure. This structure is comparable with the structures of multiple other social situations. Comparing such situations to theatral situations provides ground for understanding both differently. The two authors elaborate on these ideas. Lastly, there is space in this chapter for critique on these theories.
The roles of the acting and spectating parties, the performance space, and the position of the form of art within its cultural and public field have changed significantly over time. The existence of an active performance cast juxtaposed with a passive audience however is still quite prevalent in theatre. This is especially the case when the performance location is designed for it. Going to the dogs, the object of analysis in the following chapter, exemplifies this. This play was performed in the Stadsschouwburg in Amsterdam. The theatre building has a heightened stage, opposed to fixed seats for the spectators. The performance space has a lot of influence on the play and its reception, as shall be seen in Chapter III. Kenyan writer and academic Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o elaborates on performance space in relation to postcolonial power structures. In his analysis on space, Thiong’o highlights that one can see it as ‘a self-contained field of internal relations’:
“[It is an] interplay between actors and props and light and shadows -the mise-en-scène- and between the mise-en-scène as a whole and the audience. The outer
9 boundaries of this space are defined by a wall, material or immaterial. The material could be stone or wood or natural hedges. The immaterial is the outline formed by the audience in what is otherwise an open space.” (“Enactments” 39)
This space can be moulded into different forms by directors, scenario writers, etcetera, to create guidance for the performance to follow. According to Thiong’o, the structural forces of performance space always exist in relationship with the audience. This relationship creates tension and conflict. He continues:
“This is the real magic and power of performance. it incorporates the architectural space of material and immaterial walls into itself and becomes a magic sphere made still by its own motion, but it is potentially explosive, or rather, it is poised to explode.” (“Enactments” 40)
Thiong’o argues that the performance space is always interrelated with other fields and institutions in society which influence and become influenced by the performance. The focus on the explosiveness of this ‘magic’ atmosphere has significance for Thiong’o. His argument relates to the overcoming of oppressive powers at work in postcolonial societies, especially within theatre.2 The point which is relevant for this chapter is the element of activation. A critical mass which flows out of the performance space into broader societal atmospheres is in demand here. In oppressive societies, such activation of a collective can be seen as very hostile in the eyes of the state. Thiong’o for instance shows the interventions made by authorities within the development of theatre in Nairobi (“Enactments” 43). Such an atmosphere that facilitates social movement can be used as a political tool but is also
2
Thiong’o produces his own plays, some of which negate the oppressive educational forms of theatre imposed by Western imperialism. One of his theatre plays, Ngaahika Ndeenda, defied Western theatre in creating a communal performance. “Theatre became what it had always been: part of a collective festival” (Thiong’o, ‘Language’ 243). The Kenyan authorities, that were still holding up the colonial power structure, saw the initiative as a threat and banned the theatre form. Thiong’o was arrested and detained for his actions.
10 prevalent in performances with a non-manifested political goal. The ‘magic’, this mystique, this collective reification holds the social relationality that causes movement. It implies that theatre is based on a socially constructed set of norms and rules, a script that is mostly taken-for-granted, played unconsciously, but can be revealed when boundaries are broken.
Thiong'o speaks of an immaterial boundary in the phenomenon of theatre. An ‘outline in what is otherwise an open space'. A comparable boundary is spoken of by another
important author. In his work The Emancipated Spectator, philosopher Jacques Rancière discusses the ambivalent boundary between the actor and the spectator. In his view, the mediation that takes place between an audience and a performance relies on a division of power. Rancière juxtaposes this boundary with the educational division of knowledge. Both hold a division between ones that know, and ones who need to know. Rancière seeks for the blurring of this boundary. He aspires that stultification (the constant reaffirmation of the inequality of knowledge) will be replaced with an emancipatory alternative in which the division of knowledge dissolves (Rancière, “Emancipated” 13-14). This is a very ideal typical way of analysing the case: Rancière is well aware of that. Yet again, what is most
noteworthy here is that this mediation -the third dimension between actor and spectator- is more latent than one thinks:
“Today, [artists] deny using the stage to dictate a lesson or convey a message. They simply wish to produce a form of consciousness, an intensity of feeling, an energy for action. But they always assume that what will be perceived, felt, understood is what they have put into their dramatic art or performance. They always presuppose an identity between cause and effect.” (“Emancipated” 14)
Even if a performance does not have an obvious intention to tell the audience what to think, it still obliges the audience to be respectfully quiet. The ‘third’ dimension -the mediation- relies on a division of an active and a passive party. Rancière discusses possible forms of resistance against the stultifying mechanism within performance. The first relates to the
11 constant shifting of roles in performance, turning audiences into acting parties and actors into audiences. But this is not addressing the root of the division, according to Rancière. In his idea, the solution to the problem must depend on participants that are being both actor and spectator, instead of being either one or the other. An emancipated theatre community “requires spectators who play the role of active interpreters, who develop their own
translation in order to appropriate the ‘story’ and make it their own story” (Rancière, “Emancipated” 22). As an example, Thiong’o notes that a community of performance that reeks of revolution has the ability to break through the boundaries that have been drawn around the performance space. Such case would make spectators active, and work towards a more equal society. In defence, Rancière would claim that this activism is still based on a power division, of ones who know what should be done and ones that should follow.3
Rancière’s call for emancipation is hopeful but not pragmatic: it is ideal-typical. It requires the agency of multiple individuals. And above all, their visions have to be set towards the same direction, and their awareness of the ‘third’ is presupposed. Rancière ironically tells theatre performers that their acts are telling audiences what to do. It forces the question: how do collectives come to the point of the ‘denial of unequal mediation’ and emancipate without being told do so? These thoughts will help to see the analysis from a more activist perspective. But for the analyses, more conceptual perspectives are needed. As stated, the chapter shall continue with the elaboration of the thesis’ three main concepts.
Interactivity
Above, the premise that theatre and its performance rely on a social mechanism which involves different parties (divided by power or not), has been put forth. To continue this strain of thought, it is necessary to understand how this mediation between spectator
3
These statements require some nuance. The banned theatre of Thiong’o was in fact very
emancipatory since it was in fact ‘a process of demystifying knowledge and hence reality’ (‘Language’ 242). The production was in a constant interaction with its audience. The latter responded and intervened repeatedly, causing the theatre to become a communal practice.
12 and performer is established in the first place. If one assumes that a performance in a
theatrical setting is in fact a social interaction, it is possible to investigate this mediation with the help of the basic conceptual structure of interactivity. Although it was not a new
development, sociologist Erving Goffman elaborated on interactivity in relation to minor social relationships. His work titled The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, he makes a parallel between performance in its typified form and standard social interaction. This is known as the dramaturgical perspective. By using ideal-typical theatre as an allegory for social interactivity, Goffman highlights the structure behind the everyday behaviour of individuals in the public sphere. The theorisation of Goffman provides an understanding of the ‘acts’ of the audience. In his paradigmatic view, individuals present themselves
according to the situation they are in, or they think they are in. Goffman is rationalistic in this sense. He assumes that all individuals have certain goals and objectives that they wish to achieve. Individuals always will act in ways to retrieve a response from a counteracting individual or group. This creates a certain social tension:
“When we allow that the individual projects a definition of the situation when he appears before others, we must also see that the others, however passive their role may seem to be, will themselves effectively project a definition of the situation by virtue of their response to the individual and by virtue of any lines of action they initiate to him”. (Goffman, 20)
Goffman assumes that individuals act in a manner that conveys an impression. An individual aspires that an encountered person receives this impression in a way that the initiating individual had intended. There is a division at work here, between a self and a presentation of self. One’s own intentions and desires (self) are never directly expressed in social situations. Individuals always try hard to present themselves according to the social
atmosphere (presentation of self). The self and the presentation of self are therefore never quite in line with each other. This should not be understood as fraudulent or deceitful
13 behaviour, as if an individual does not act in an authentic or meaningful way. It is rather the case that an individual tends to fit in the situation and repeat the unspoken rules that exist there.
It is helpful to bring these thoughts closer to practice. In everyday life, the layout of the day is mostly not decided yet. Persons might encounter a family member, or might accidentally bump into a stranger, or even get into a fight. This means that most interactions that persons will have cannot be written down and studied beforehand. So, to achieve some common ground to start with, certain ‘acting techniques’ are prevalent in an individual’s repertoire. Goffman relates to this with the following:
“In noting the tendency for a participant to accept the definitional claims made by the others present, we can appreciate the crucial importance of the information that the individual initially possesses or acquires concerning his fellow participants, for it is on the basis of this initial information that the individual starts to define the situation and starts to build up lines of responsive action. The individual’s initial projection commits him to what he is proposing to be and requires him to drop all pretences of being other things.” (Goffman 21-22)
Keeping up the presentation of oneself that was established in first instance is explained sociologically here. An individual wishes to maintain a coherent and continuous
performance. If one were to act in multiple different manners in a single performance, scepticism or disbelief might be aroused in the counteracting party. Goffman argues that interactions are able to endure when the interacting parties have a reciprocal respect. This is not only the case because both tend to fulfil the goals that they have in mind (to exchange information for example). Individuals also do not wish to betray the impression the opposing party has received in the process. In sum, Goffman offers the notion that performance in its basic form not only follows structural, externally imposed lines, forced upon an individual. The individuals associated with the performance rather will do their best to keep the
14 performance in its place, but choose their own position within this performance. They will always have significant influence on the unfolding of the performance.
The ‘defining of the situation’, as Goffman calls this influence, is done in front of the performance with the information provided by bystanders, the surroundings and one’s own cultural repertoire. The latter can be understood as the ‘history’ of an individual: the
experience one has with the form of interaction. This experience can be provided by
education or any other form of nurture in one’s social atmosphere. This repertoire is cleverly compared with a toolbox by sociologist Ann Swidler (276). All the situations someone finds oneself in provide knowledge and experience, and this accumulates over time. These experiences can be used in similar situations in the future since they offer generic answers to commonly encountered situations. Swidler sees these manifestations of information as ‘tools’ in a box that one carries with along. The comparison grants us the understanding that not every situation has a unique approach for interaction. It is more the case that the
approaches (the tools) are hybrid and adjustable, like a monkey wrench. Just to give a quick example: if someone were to meet an encountered person and had to greet in a fashionable manner, preliminary information in a normal case determines the first behavioural acts. If the person was a new colleague, a handshake would be fit. A family member one has not seen in years would probably expect a hug, but distant friend of a friend might like a more casual nodding of the head. The situations that have been unfolded before such interactions determine a person’s first acts. This example also shows the reason for keeping up one’s performance in the way it has been initiated: if someone meets a new colleague in a setting that seems formal but does not shake his hand but turns it into an intimate hug, the situation would not only turn awkward but consequentially stain all the following interactions with the individual. The ‘interaction ritual’ that normally provides comfort in a social situation will not be performed in a proper manner and the situation -established by a multitude of such rituals- will be disturbed (Collins 11).4
4
The comparison between performance and ritual is not uncommon: one could argue that
15 It can be said now that the dealings with situations in everyday life are partly
‘scripted’ on the basis of a cultural repertoire.5 The ability to adjust to a situation without any problems or obstacles depends on the adaptability of the repertoires of the participating individuals. In most of the daily situations, it is expected that the scripts have been studied. External forces work as ‘cues’ for individuals to act upon; public spaces are often designed to facilitate desired forms of behaviour. These cues come in many forms, i.e. material, social or symbolical. One might even argue that political forces are cues. Politics, in a more
abstract way, can have influence on how daily situations are ‘defined’. In her work Cruel Optimism (2011), critical theorist Lauren Berlant examines this influence of politics and the State on social relations. Within contemporary capitalist societies where neoliberal policies and market effects are at work, not only social security but also the usage of scripts are becoming labile. The famous narratives of hope such as ‘living the good life’ are still set in motion but the chance of reaching the last line is declining. The realisation that the chosen way to define a situation does not work, can have quite an impact on an individual. The restructuring of the situation might cost time: such temporal state is conceptualised by Berlant as impasse. This gap moment between searching and shifting of scripts is prevented with great effort. Yet, in cases of intense stress, such a gap can emerge and has to be dealt with. Bodies, affective states and social relations are scrambled and require reconfiguration. Berlant defines this moment, the impasse, as the following:
“The impasse is a space of time lived without a narrative genre. Adaptations to it usually involve a gesture or undramatic action that points to and revises an unresolved situation. One takes a pass to avoid something or to get somewhere.” (Berlant 199)
of ritual (Duncan 8). Museum spaces and theatres have a comparable affect-space where according to Duncan space “is carefully marked off and culturally designated as reserved for a special quality of attention” (10).
5
To clarify my usage of ‘culture’, I would refer to Culler’s definition: “Culture is on the one hand the system of categories and assumptions that makes possible the activities and productions of a society and on the other hand the products themselves” (242). The former hand is best applicable in this particular context.
16 To use the sociological terms of Goffman in this respect: during an impasse, a person loses the ability to maintain a performance. She or he might even lose the ability to perform at all since the repertoire does not provide fitting tools for defining the situation. Furthermore, one cannot respect the understanding of the other due to this lack of ability. The reciprocity within social relations flounders. An impasse therefore is not merely something individual or
psychological but has social implications. This consequentially means that the defining of the situation is done collectively, in an interactive definition.
Spectatorship
Theatrical events are situations that have a strict role distribution. Where most attendees are obliged to be spectators, some are favoured to be actors on the stage. The division of roles is part of the theatrical situation: it is one of the ‘cues’ that trigger a theatrical understanding as such. As was noted before, Rancière believes that the division between actor and spectator is inherently hierarchical and blocks the way towards emancipatory theatre. Such division should therefore be subject for discussion and alteration. In the conclusion of his chapter on spectatorship, Rancière presents three forms of theatre that deal with the blurring of the line between performer and spectator. First of all, Rancière states the Gesamtkunstwerk; the total artwork, as an option. It would place art in the context of life and not within the isolating boundaries of the art sphere: it would be ‘an apotheosis of art become life’ (“Emancipated” 21). Secondly, Rancière sees elements of an emancipatory process in the “hybridisation of artistic means appropriate to the postmodern reality of a constant exchange of roles and identities, the real and the virtual, the organic and
mechanical and information-technology prostheses” (ibid.). It is the element which constantly shifts the roles with help of modern technology that would arouse a new tension that could dissolve the static relationship between performer and spectator. Still, Rancière sees problems in these two proposed forms of theatre. What Rancière problematizes is the way
17 audiences experience productions on basis of these two optional formats. The experience might become too spectacular, grandiose and stunning that the performances would use the dissolving of the boundary to ‘enhance the effect of the performance without questioning its principles’ (ibid.). What Rancière sees as the most hopeful option for emancipatory theatre, is to be found in the simple sharing of stories and experiences. He describes this format as in this way:
“Faced with the hyper-theatre that wants to transform representation into presence and passivity into activity, [the format] proposes instead to revoke the privilege of vitality and communitarian power accorded to the theatrical stage, so as to restore it to an equal footing with the telling of a story, the reading of a book, or the gaze focused on an image” (Rancière, “Emancipated” 22)
What is proposed here is a focus on the community. It is this communality that has always been a characteristic of theatre. The telling of stories would create an atmosphere where participants can link “what one knows with what one does not know; being at once a
performer deploying her skills and a spectator observing what these skills might produce in a new context among other spectators” (ibid.). The model that Rancière describes seems to prefer a discussion about the medium instead of discussing the content that is transferred by the medium. It is a sign that Rancière does not have much hope for progress if the structure of the theatre remains in its divided form.
The format that is proposed sounds democratic and indeed gives all participants the option to join the symbiosis. But even this best option has many flaws and cannot fulfil the expectations of Rancière’s ideal type. Theatre analyst Simon Bayly elaborates on this:
“The main problem here is that Rancière’s conception of what might be involved in the ‘setting up of a theatre’ appears magically inoculated against the effects of the police order, preserving its militant challenge to the distribution of the sensible in a
18 way that seems entirely implausible under contemporary cultural conditions” (Bayly 25)
The ‘distribution of the sensible’ in this case can be interpreted as the manner in which theatre may be understood differently by various members of society.6 This distribution is equal in the prototype but as Simon Bayly points out, it is hard to create an environment where participants obey to the model and will not create a stage for themselves. Any environment aiming for equality must be very regulated and closed off from societal norms. Such a solution is contradictory to the premises of the emancipatory model. Any form of authority that would direct the session immediately destroys the moral of the model. A hierarchy inherently emerges then.
Bayly juxtaposes the thoughts of Rancière with those of philosopher Alain Badiou since both authors use theatre as a transistor for philosophy and critique. Both authors see in a motor for agency in theatre. Under the right circumstances, guests of the theatre can leave the performance space with new knowledge and can be encouraged to become active in society. Badiou turns away from the ideal of a power equilibrium between participants in theatre. Instead, he prefers to see the division between performer and spectator in the theatrical art form as a productive social tool. The passivity of spectators that is inherent in the format might lead to activity outside of the sphere of the theatre. Bayly summarises Badiou’s thoughts below:
“[F]or Badiou it is the possibility that this state-sanctioned organization of bodies might be rendered eventful through its rare and unwitting perforation by uncanny Theatre-events that makes it isomorphic with a properly political process. Taken together, these determinations imply that the theatrical function – both inside and
6
In other work, Rancière discusses the inequality of experience between members of society: “I call the distribution of the sensible the system of self-evident facts of sense perception that simultaneously discloses the existence of something in common and the delimitations that define the respective parts and positions within it. A distribution of the sensible therefore establishes at one and the same time something common that is shared and exclusive parts” (Rancière, “Politics” 12)
19 outside the theatre itself – is simply to remind the spectator of what it feels like to be put in one’s place by taking one’s allotted seat and then to re-imagine, though entirely individual acts of ostensibly emancipatory interpretation or fidelity,
alternatives to its space of placements in other times and in other places” (Bayly 26-27)
In the eyes of Badiou, theatre is a cultural practice that has an inherent social structure which basis has comparable elements with the structure of oppressive powers in society. If it is executed properly, the theatre ‘puts one into place’; this experience of a force that
designates one into a certain position and gives them a role, is found back in multiple
oppressive situations in everyday life. Badiou heads towards a discussion on the foundations of theatre, but not by addressing them as hostile. Nor does he wish to come up with new forms that provide alternatives for the structure of current theatre. He rather seeks for performances that violently push participants in the position of the spectator and forcefully present them with content that vexes this spectator. Before someone notices things as abnormal -for these things to stick out of the ordinary- someone must first experience the normal and understand it. For Badiou, the theatrical performances that forcefully lay bare the unequal relations within theatre are most important. Yet, they can only exist by exploiting the taken-for-granted norms and rules of theatre that are reified by the mediocre theatre
productions that spectacularize the theatrical form for the purpose of entertainment. In this theatre of entertainment, the passive position is not forced upon the spectator but is chosen by spectator. The spectator is allowed to sit comfortably in the chair, viewing the amusing performance at distance. Here, being passive as spectator has become part of the constructed behavioural patterns that are linked to theatre. According to Badiou, this entertainment theatre, the ‘bad’ form of theatre, is “a descendant of the Mass, with its established and substantial roles, its natural differences, its repetitions, its falsified events” (Badiou & Truong 84). ‘Bad’ “theatre” (Badiou juxtaposes the bad and the good by writing the former as “theatre” (with quotation marks) and the latter as Theatre) “is a collection of
20 established identities, which it works to reproduce with conventional ideas and the
corresponding decent opinions which come along with them” (ibid.). Badiou means that bad “theatre” recreates the existing conventions and holds up a framework for forthcoming bad “theatre” to reuse. The framework of this “theatre” will keeps reproducing in this way. Strangely, it is this framework that is necessary to create the good Theatre which provokes thought and action. The disapproval of bad “theatre” and admiration of good Theatre is ironic since the latter is dependent on the former. Badiou admits that everyone prefers the
passivity that comes with entertainment and loves the spectacularity and sensation that comes with it. A hate for Theatre therefore is understandable since going to the “theatre” -as a culture industry- is enjoyed by the common people in society as leisure activity. It is seen as entertainment. The consumption of bad “theatre” becomes the guilty pleasure that momentarily stills one’s emotions. Discomfort, insult or suffering in the context of Theatre therefore has become very undesirable to someone who is used to visit “theatre”.
Confronting patterns and habits of the self are indeed not pleasant but such confrontation produces an awareness which hopefully leads to social critique (Badiou 199).
The elaboration on the relationship between Theatre and “theatre” described by Badiou works similar to one of the argumentations in the work of philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek. In his theoretical work Looking Awry, he examines the
reciprocity between subject and object with the aid of concepts provided by psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. His analysis is guided by multiple examples, mainly retrieved from well-known Hollywood movies. Žižek tries to understand the way that spectators look at certain objects that show something. In Žižek’s psychoanalytical understanding an object that shows something, has the goal to be presented. It has the intention to show something. An
interdependent relation exists between subject and object. An object can only show something when a subject desires to see it. Objects in a way look back at the spectator, in search of its eyes. Žižek is interested in the implications of this reciprocal dependency between subject and object. While examining cases of seeing through someone’s eyes, he states the following:
21 “There is something extremely unpleasant and obscene in this experience of our gaze as already the gaze of the other. Why? The Lacanian answer is that such a coincidence of gazes defines the position of the pervert” (Žižek 108)
Looking through someone’s eyes is desirable for the pervert, not because of the thing that can be seen through these eyes, but because of the loss of privacy of the owner of the eyes. A realisation of the ‘coincidence of gazes’ tends to reveal what position one is in, in
comparison to the other. The definition of the ‘position of the pervert’ can be understood as a realisation that the perspective that one is gazing from has become inauthentic. Others have seen from the perspective, or are currently seeing it too, without premeditation or consent. This unauthentic perspective is in a sense solicited by the object; it harbours in the object’s gaze. The object, by looking back towards the subject, therefore determines the gaze to a particular extent. Consequently, the realisation of the inauthenticity of the perspective makes the subject spectate again, but with certain awareness. One begins to question what a pervert desires to see, and in search of an answer, the subject finds one’s own vision. Žižek indeed states that this realisation is unpleasant and obscene but it might lead to a subject that becomes critical towards the relationship one has with an object. With this in mind, Žižek shows similarities with Badiou’s approach. Just as the disturbing and uncomfortable Theatre, the ‘coincidence of gazes’ puts a subject ‘in its place’. The subject becomes aware of one’s position. The mediation between subject and object is not taken for granted anymore. But before this can happen, this mediation has to become observable so that the participants of the mediation become aware of their involvement. Žižek finds such mediation in the
definition the ‘gaze’:
“The gaze marks the point in the object (in the picture) from which the subject viewing it is already gazed at, i.e., it is the object that is gazing at me. Far from reassuring the self-presence of the subject and his vision, the gaze functions as a
22 stain, a spot in the picture disturbing its transparent visibility and introducing an irreducible split in my relation to the picture: I can never see the picture at the point from which it is gazing at me, i.e. the eye and the gaze are constitutively
asymmetrical.” (Žižek 125)
By turning around the common relationship between subject and object (the former is now being observed by the latter), Žižek clarifies that the object defines what the subject is allowed to see. A picture, for instance, is a selected image cut out of a wide scale of vision. The subject’s gaze, in its relationship with the object (the picture), is forcefully contained. The content of the picture cannot be adjusted. By defining the gaze as ‘stain’, Žižek shows that objects restrict the subject’s gaze. A stain, an ugly and unwanted substance that interrupts a surface that was presumed to be clean, covers a certain area that the subject wants to see. The stain, located in the object’s gaze, agitates the subject, or even scares it. The stain becomes a representation of the relationship between subject and object, and creates awareness for the terms that both parties award to the mediation.
Badiou’s entertaining, but uninspiring typification, “theatre”, is stainless. The eye and the gaze are symmetrical during “theatre” performances. The reason for this is the low demands of the eye. The subject observes with the low expectation of amusement. The object’s gaze does not influence the mediation. The object’s gaze might cover parts of the total image but the subject has no interest in the content which it is hiding. For this reason, “theatre” does not provoke any intentions to examine the relation between subject and object. The audience is in a passive position which allows it to observe at safe distance. Theatre, the hated but provoking alternative, in contrast stains the sweet spots; no comfort can be found anymore in spectating. The audience is force fed with imagery: the stain cannot be looked around anymore. It is pushed and swiped in the observer’s face. In light of main question here: it is in Theatre, praised by Badiou, that participants might gain a social-critical consciousness.
23 In sum: what Rancière and Badiou share is a desire for awareness of the mediation between actor and spectator. Where the former searches for the negation of an unequal mediation since it has hierarchical implications, the latter sees possibilities of détournement within the theatrical gaze. By taking an oppressive structure and reusing it for a different goal, the structure loses authenticity and becomes vulnerable more easily.
Theatricality
Theatre studies have not been bound to the classical theatrical locations. Theatre has been embedded in society as a cultural institution in most countries and therefore has a clear impact on the other fields of society. Without deviating too much from the concepts discussed above, some thoughts on the significance of the theatrical institution will be discussed here. Within the discipline of theatre studies, the concept of theatricality has been developed to investigate the elements of theatre that can be found outside of the traditional sphere of the theatre. The concept has been fruitful for a better understanding of both broader social structures and theatre itself. For the sake of its analytical usage, the concept will be elaborated on below. Theatricality has been defined in many different ways and has diverse ways of application. The analyses in this thesis are focused mainly on interactions and situations. Therefore, the concept of theatricality is set forth in a social-analytical way.
Perhaps the most prominent figure within theatre studies, playwright Bertolt Brecht, discusses his understanding of the relationship between public spheres and theatre in the short essay “The Street Scene”. To explain his goal for ‘epic theatre’ (his ideal form of theatre performance), Brecht turns to common situations in everyday life where no particular theatrical intention exists. As starting point, he uses an example of a pedestrian who
explains a traffic incident he witnessed. A curious audience surrounds the pedestrian, and wants to know what happened. The witness is eager to present his experiences to them. Brecht sees in this phenomenon the building blocks for the theatre he aspires. About the demonstration he says the following:
24 “The incident is clearly very far from what we mean by an artistic one. The
demonstrator does not have to be an artist. The capacities he needs to achieve his aim are in fact universal. Suppose he cannot carry out some particular movement as quickly as the victim he is imitating; all he needs do is to explain that he moves three times as fast, and the demonstration neither suffers in essentials nor loses its point.” (Brecht 121-122)
The demonstrator, next to imitating it, can also describe the incident as it happened. This can be done by translating the actual event to descriptions of movement and sound. But Brecht refutes that the demonstration should be ‘perfect’, imitating the event in greatest detail. He continues:
“[The demonstrator] must not ‘cast a spell’ over anyone. He should not transport people from normality to ‘higher realms’. (...) It is important that one of the main features of ordinary theatre should be excluded from our street scene: the engendering of illusion. The street demonstrator’s performance is essentially repetitive. The event has taken place; what you see now is a repeat” (ibid.).
Where Brecht heads to with this example is the goal of ‘epic theatre’: the performance on stage should be made by actors and actresses that ‘detach’ themselves from the character they play (120). The goal is not to have the spectator believe that the actor plays his role so mimetically that it almost is identical to the character. Brecht prefers a distance between the performer and its role since it gives the observer the ability to criticize the performer’s execution of the role. In the case of the street demonstrator this is exemplified. The performance without the engendering of illusion gives the crowd of listeners the choice to doubt the trustworthiness of the demonstration. One might think of motives the witness could have to alter the facts he presents in his demonstration. In the same respect this can be said
25 about a stage actor or actress that does not pretend to ‘be’ the character he or she plays. This would give the audience the opportunity to think about the gap between the player and the role being played out. As has been shown in the examination of Badiou’s ideas on theatre, such realisation allows a subject to observe in a different manner.
In a different fashion, the example of Brecht shows how particular relationships between theatre and everyday life can be approached. Brecht intended to enrich theatre by adjusting theatrical performances. According to him, theatre needs to represent social phenomena more than to imitate them. Theatre needs to acquire experience from the streets, where people without artistic aspirations roam. Unfortunately, Brecht does not question how the common people in the streets have acquired the ability to demonstrate the things they witnessed. The epic theatre of Brecht might have been inspired by
representations of actual events but these representations (and even the actual events) are in their turn influenced by the cultural institution of theatre. Exactly this reciprocal influence between theatre and society is what condensates into the concept of theatricality. There is no clearly bounded meaning around to explain what theatricality is. Academics of the theatre have discussed about the definition extensively, and this has created multiple possible definitions (Burns). Yet, the basis of the concept provides a helpful tool for examining the institution of theatre more productively, and subsequently its surrounding societal
institutions. Theatricality seems to be a common denominator of all forms and products of theatre. By abstracting theatrical structure, new ways of comparison become possible (Davis & Postlewait 1). A profound example is the work of the already introduced Erving Goffman. In his quest for defining social interactions, Goffman put forth the concept of ‘dramaturgy’, a sociological framework that perceives human interaction through a theatrical scope. Theatre influenced Goffman’s perception of social action significantly: his research concepts and terms were copied directly out of theatre jargon. People ‘play roles’, have a ‘back stage’ to prepare themselves, and a ‘front stage’ where these ‘performances’ play out (Goffman).
The applicability of a theatrical ‘gaze’ on settings outside the theatre reveals not only how theatre is constructed, but can provide a perception of social reality that is explanatory.
26 Theatricality is not necessarily an action or a practice by an individual: one cannot ‘be’
theatrical alone. Its definition holds an inherent spectatorship. When behaviour -certain ways of moving or acting- is theatrical, this is because one recognises “certain patterns and
sequences which are analogous to those which he is familiar in the theatre” (Burns 12). The crucial difference between finding theatricality within the theatre and finding it outside of its context, is the drive behind actions that are defined as theatrical. Within the theatre, the forces behind theatrical action are easily located. “The spectator inside the theatre sees [theatrical elements] as the product of dramatist, producer and actor, while the observer in the world outside, partly involved himself, is less conscious of the processes that produce action”, theatre academic Elisabeth Burns (13) elaborates. In this sense, theatricality can awaken a critical consciousness in other fields in society, such as politics, religion, and the educational system.
To conclude: the three concepts all share the property of relationality. All three define, describe or analyse the relationship between two things rather than focusing on one. Interactivity provides insight in human interaction on broader levels of society without any predetermined implications. The concept highlights the importance of reciprocity of
interaction, i.e. social relationship are established between persons. Spectatorship in its turn specifies the relationship between subject and object. This relation may seem to be a one-way road but it turns out to be more reciprocal, which is one of the analytical qualities of the concept. Theatricality is the most context dependent concept here. Theatrical elements and behaviour found outside of the theatre bring a tension along that not only enriches theatre as such, but also provides a better understanding of situations that are defined as theatrical. The concepts, in their triangular relationship, provide the basis of an analysis on
performance. Packed with theoretical provisions, the thesis shall continue with its journey, heading on to the first analysis.
27
III
Throwing the stick: discussing the Disruption of Expectations within the
Theatre
This chapter analyses an object of performance. This statement can be dismantled immediately since performance contains an inherent element of temporality: performance has momentum. It is presented in a selected space and time, and drifts away immediately after the end. Peggy Phelan would argue that performance is impossible to reproduce or to be contained in a longer lasting medium. Phelan states that “performance implicates the real through the presence of living bodies”. She continues: “[i]n performance art there are no left-overs, the gazing spectator must try to take everything in” (148). For this reason, it might be better to understand the object of analysis a representation of a performance. At this
moment it is only possible to imagine how the performance was unfolded, and the object’s audio-visual representation might help us with that.7 The analysis does not only address the object’s situation and its content but also reaches out to the cultural discourse of classical theatre.
The object illustrates the performance of a theatre play called Going to the dogs. The title in first instance invites for a figurative understanding, but is as literal as it gets. The
performance presents its audience a very generic stage play that its creator would compare with realistic dramas like the works of playwright Lars Norén (Ruhé 72). But a not too subtle deviation from realism can be found in the cast of the performance: no human performs on the stage during the play. Instead, six dogs portray the roles of the human characters. The play was written by Wim T. Schippers, who has had an interest in the provocative
possibilities of performance art. This chapter will introduce the performance with visual
7
This is the case in all three chapters that centre around the analysis of an object. All objects in this thesis are representations of performance. This is an unavoidable fact, since the medium which this thesis is using for communication is not capable of capturing the performance without leaving out vital elements.
28 material and textual descriptions. The analysis tries to show that a deviant or disruptive act on stage creates a productive agitation within the domain of the performance. What is argued here, is that this agitation is not isolated on the stage but triggers factors beyond its boundaries. Such provocation does not only induce strong emotions but lays bare social and physical structures that were previously taken for granted.
Going to the dogs
It was the year 1986 when Dutch artist Wim T. Schippers presented a stage play in the Schouwburg in Amsterdam which obtained the energy to move not only its audience but also the general public. Schippers, known for creating artwork that provokes discussion about the understanding of art (his association with the international Fluxus movement signifies this too8), replaced the common human stage actor with an animalistic alternative. In the play Going to the dogs, a narrative develops around six trained German Shepherds playing characters with human names and relations (Ruhé 71). Although the dogs are on stage and in a sense perform, the narrative is best described understood by reading the description of the play in a booklet that was provided in the theatre. The play consists of four acts, whereof two are set in a living room, and two unfold in the woods. The introductory act is put forth as follows:
“The first scene is set in a living room, where Nimrod and Bella Williams are worrying about the future of their daughter Jane, particularly because of her new boyfriend Bobby Strabovsky. Hector is visiting, who is having a covert relationship with Bella. Jane and Bobby are in the bedroom upstairs, for now. When Hector is trying to
8
One of the points in the Fluxus manifesto of Maciunas fits well with the work of Schippers: “To establish artist's nonprofessional status in society, he must demonstrate artist's dispensability and inclusiveness, he must demonstrate the self-sufficiency of the audience, he must demonstrate that anything can be art and anyone can do it” (Maciunas 1).
29 relieve some of the parent's mistrust towards their upcoming son-in-law, Jane is coming down with Bobby to introduce her new love.” (“Going to the Dogs”)9
As the premise partly shows, the narrative of the play follows the lines that normal stage plays generally tend to follow. The biggest deviation is obviously found in the negation of the human vehicle on stage. Of course, some practical elements were changed, but next to those, the play was produced according to the framework of a common stage drama.10 The human audience was presented with a stage that lacked the presence of a fellow member of its species. How does an audience respond to such a replacement? And how does the audience adjust to such strange phenomenon?
Two responses to the play are fruitful to put forth here. First of all, the reaction of the audience. As part of a video documentation for public broadcast, a reporter questioned some members of the audience on their opinion of the play. The reactions of these audience members span from honest appreciation, detest, reflectiveness on the role of the audience,
and playing along with the joke. To just give some examples: one lady sarcastically responds with being ‘utterly moved’; a young man is telling that the work is ‘theatre in its purest form’ with a naughty smile on his face, and an older man states that he ‘actually hates
theatre, but the dogs make things better’ (“Going to the dogs”). Secondly, a response in the form of a public debate is worth noting. The play made international fame for being original
and surreal. But not everyone approved the play: “In parliament the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed concern that such cultural events would have a ‘comparatively ruinous
effect’ on Holland’s profile abroad” (Ruhé 71). Others were not amused by the fact that innocent animals were misused in the play. Policy oriented critics “were amazed that the
Ministry of Culture had -though only after long hesitation- subsidised the project and wondered if the
9
The text is freely translated from a Dutch text that was impregnated a video broadcast available on Youtube.
10
It is not the case that this play was made by, and received by dogs; although this might be a very interesting thing too. Another witty response to Schippers would be a play by humans received by an audience of dogs.
30
Image 1: Poster for promotion of the play by Schippers. The two depicted dogs are addressed with the Dutch names Ilja van Vinkeloord and Victor Cronjé, respectively playing the parts of
31 money would not have been better spent on Circus Boltoni (‘because as a bonus you get an elephant’)” (ibid.).
The brief description of the general response to the play has much to offer, but there is an underlying behavioural element here which is most noteworthy. The audience responds to this provocation with some detest, but there is no denial of the phenomenon. The bizarre replacement of human actors with canine stand-ins was received with the set of responses common in the theatrical atmosphere. The monologue of Hector is listened to with respectful silence. When one of the dogs skilfully picks up the ringing phone with its nose, the audience applauds. Even the radical urinating on the rug which lies the stage during the first act
comes with heavy laughter. These responses are common to human performers: to a certain extent, the dogs are humanised here.
Image 2: Victor Cronjé, in his role as Bobby Strabovsky, performs a prologue on the stage of the Stadsschouwburg in Amsterdam.
32 The relationship between dogs and humans contains quite some implications. The dog, man’s best friend, signifies more than being non-human. The German Shepherds are presented as domestic, not feral animals. It is obvious that a human hand has guided them in their act. The dog is a living sign of the human capacity to tame animals. This fact can be proved with multiple examples, ranging from the ancient hunters to Pavlov’s conditioning experiments (Eco 20). The presentation of domestic dogs, as something to be looked at, has a reflective property awarded to it. A pet dog, born and living in the context of human life, adapts its behaviour to its owner’s demands. A domestic dog already follows the lines laid out before it; the ‘script’ that was used to indoctrinate the dog from its birth. The laughing about the urinating therefore is directed to the humanity within the dog. The animal on stage has become human since the flaw in its performance -urinating on the carpet- is awarded with the response of surprise; of incoherency. The subject does not see the dogs as they are but as dogs portraying the tasks imposed on them by a third party. This can be read as a ‘stain’ in the image of the dog. The awareness of the human influence, once it is seen, covers parts of the performance. It allows the realisation that the spectator will never locate “the point from which [the object] is gazing” (Žižek 125). The object’s gaze is narrowed down by the theatrical frame, which forces the spectator to see the dogs as performers. It is
through this realisation that the spectator is able to understand that this performance continues outside of the theatrical frame. A domestic dog was performing human all along. Subsequently, an authentic form of behaviour of a dog will not be found in the play of Wim T. Schippers.
The relationship between the actors and the audience is brought to disbalance since the audience might come to know that the acting party is fraudulent. Yet, there is no denial of the play as being theatre. Adding to this, the actors are also not approached in a manner normally seen when humans are interacting with dogs, in an adoring way, or as a pet.11 The atmosphere of the theatre determines that the moving creatures on the stage are to be seen
11
The understanding of the dogs as actors is still existent: recently Ilja van Vinkeloord, who played Victoria Jones in Going to the Dogs, has had her portrait placed in the hall of the Stadsschouwburg, along with other famous actors who performed in the theatre (Gelder).
33 in the context of human actors. Yet again, the focus of this analysis does not lie on the dogs, but more on the ones that see the dogs perform in the play. It is rather the question if the disturbing play of Schippers reveals not only the entertainment that dogs have to offer, but also the lines that social behaviour follows in particular social spaces and atmospheres. In other words: how does this disruption of clear-cut social interactions that are common to the sphere of classical theatre reveal what kind of expectations an audience has? And following this: what kind of repertoire of responses does an audience possess to deal with such a disruption?
Why keep a dog and bark yourself?
Going to the dogs can be seen as an improper handshake: there was no hand to shake since it has been replaced by a dog’s paw. Since the performance was held in the reified, high culture venue of the Stadsschouwburg, the bizarre and surreal performance becomes harder to grasp. The cues present in the theatre building tells the audience to behave as they have learned (or are learning). But apart from the social provocation in relation to the space, another element is heaved up by the performance object. The relation between audience and performance that has been introduced already above, is revealed by the object. To refer back to Rancière and his understanding of active performers and passive audience: the audience is left alone since the position of the active performer is abandoned. The place where a performer, with the intention to use gestures, words and expressions to convey a meaningful message to the audience, was expected to stand, now holds a dog that is turning on the television with its snout. One could argue that meaning is still there: there is a narrative and a scripted message. Yet, the mediation seems flawed since the performing dogs do not perform with the intention to mediate. To paraphrase this with the terminology of Goffman, it could be said that the actors of Going to the dogs do not have any goals to attain in the social interaction. Any reciprocal respect within the interaction is useless since the reciprocity has been superseded by unidirectionality. The whole situation is comparable with
34 a dog owner who talks to its dog: not with the hope for a proper response, but for the
owner’s own need for expression. To counterplay the cards of Rancière, the insights of performance theorist Peggy Phelan are key. In her argument on theatre, it is not the actor who is active in the interaction of performance (in a sense of determining the situation), but it is the “silent spectator [who] dominates and controls the exchange” (163). Phelan parallels the relation between active and passive to the relationship between actor and spectator; speaker and listener; female and male. Although gender studies are her main focus of analysis, she argues the following about the overarching unbalanced relation:
“[The] account of [male] desire between speaker/performer and listener/spectator reveals how dependent these positions are upon visibility and a coherent point of view. A visible and easily located point of view provides the spectator with a stable point upon which to turn the machinery of projection, identification, and (inevitable) objectification” (ibid.)
Phelan assumes that the dominant forces in fact lie in the hands of the passive spectator instead of in the performer’s. This raises new questions. What if a successful mediation depends on the affirmation of the receiving party? What if Going to the dogs created disturbance, not because the dogs were placed on the spot of the performer, but because the audience in its dominant and determining position, decided that the whole phenomenon was indeed a performance?
For an answer to these questions, some words on the influence of the space on this mediation will follow. Art historian Carol Duncan has put effort in explaining the influence of art space and its infrastructure on spectatorship. The ideas of Duncan are about the
museum space but are similar to that of the theatre space. What these two kinds of spaces have in common is an architecture and interior that are intended for dramatis personae: “individuals who are perfectly predisposed socially, psychologically and culturally to enact the museum ritual” (Duncan 13). These individuals, as ideal types, consume the
