As an audience member watching a show of any kind, we are drawn to make some sort of verdict on the performance we have just witness, allowing us to feel independent when engaging in the analysis. The issue here however, is that we are never aware of how accurate the audience’s final reaction is. From personal experience for example, after performing in William Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, a friend of mine who after seeing the production approached with me with much praise and compliments, despite admitting that she had no idea on what was occurring on stage nor understanding the language commonly used in Shakespearean theatre. This particular example is of course common in other similar situations during the reception process after spectators have watched a performance in the theatre. According to Daniel Meyer-Dinkgräfe, the reception process consists of three interrelated elements:
‘First the spectators, empirical individuals with their psychological and social backgrounds and positions, which influence how they react to the stimuli of the performance. The second element is the performance, which contains potential stimuli, dramatic and performative means of guiding the spectators. The spectator and the performance merge in the reception process which takes place within the spectators and constitutes an interaction of spectators and the performance’ (2005, 127).
However, according to Mathew Reason, there is ‘little empirical research asking whether there is indeed a distinct nature to audiences’ experience of live theatre’ (2004). In the context of theatre, Reason states that the discussions raised regarding the audience’s experience in theatre are primarily theoretical, philosophical or even occasionally anecdotal; ‘the experiential impact of liveness on actual audiences, by its nature something elusive and difficult to access, remains an under-researched area’ (2004).
In Phelan’s Unmarked, she discusses the nature of a live performance, stating that a performance ‘cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance’ (1992, 146). What Phelan is explaining here, is that since we do not have the accessories at hand to document a live performance, it is up to us to absorb as much as we can from the performance in order to conduct an analysis with the knowledge that we have of our recent experience. Referring back to Theatre and Consciousness, Dinkgräfe mentions a very interesting fact that is probably undermined whenever we attend a performance. Whilst in attendance for a show, we have the ability to turn off our senses of hearing and seeing at will. However, according to Schechner, our ability to smell functions differently than hearing or seeing, ‘Theatre has developed as an eye-driven medium because of the controllability of focus. Sound and sight can be instantly turned on/off: now you see/hear it, now you don’t. Smell is not only diffuse it lingers’ (128). Why is this considered significant whenever we view a performance? Because the sense of smell can be potentially used to ‘influence the development of consciousness of actors and spectators involved’ (128).
Reflecting back on my research on audience and reception, looking back on a performance as a spectator is very different in comparison to watching a mediatized production. Mediation allows the user to manipulate time by pausing and rewinding key moments of a performance at will, whilst live performances strip you from that ability, allowing you to experience as much as you can from the performance using the senses that you have.
Works Cited:
Dinkgräfe, Daniel, M (2005) Theatre and Consciousness: explanatory scope and future potential. Bristol: Intellect.
Phelan, Peggy (1992) Unmarked: the politics of performance. London: Routeledge.
Reason, Mathew (2004) ‘Theatre Audiences and Perceptions of ‘Liveness’ in Performance’ in Particip@tions, 1 (2) [online] Available from http://www.participations.org/volume%201/issue%202/1_02_reason_article.htm [Accessed 23 January 2015].