Ashley asks how time and pacing help reinforce the “reality effect.” The “reality effect” “explains that something that seems unmediated seems and, therefore, becomes more ‘real.’” 

To examine this question, I again want to refer to Eugene Minkowski's quote: “the essence of life is not a feeling of being, of existence, but a feeling of participation in a flowing onward, necessarily expressed in terms of time, and secondarily expressed in terms of space" (from Bachelard's The Poetics of Space). A piece of artwork becomes more “real” therefore, when this “feeling of participation” is shared between the performer/s and audience.

Last night I watched the HBO documentary “the Artist is Present.” "The Artist is Present," was a 736-hour and 30-minute static, silent piece, in which Marina Abramavic sat immobile in the museum's atrium while spectators were invited to take turns sitting opposite her (wikipedia). We have discussed this is class and so I won’t bother giving a deeper explanation of her work. What I would like to highlight is something that occurred two months into her performance. One day in late April, just as the museum was closing, Marina decided to do away with the table that stood in-between the two chairs. She said later that this removal made the connection between her and the people sitting opposite her, more vulnerable and immediate.

I thought about this documentary as I read Ashley’s post. Most of us live lives mediated through meaning. It is very rare that we share in an immediate participation in the flow of life. I would argue that "art" in its purist form, attempts to break through these layers of mediation in order to bring one face to face with the mystery of existence. How is this possible?

In the Twitter plays, the point is to accurately re-produce life “real-time.” Twitter theatre can reproduce a more thorough realism because “the means by which one observes and interacts with characters is in face identical to the ways one follows the lives of actual friends.”

Forced Entertainment, on the other hand, uses long performances in order "to place the audience in a world rather than describing one." It seeks "a theatre that disrupts the borders between the so-called real and the so-called fictional.” One way that this is achieved is quite simple: the long duration of these performances cannot but result in the exhaustion of the performers. Audiences therefore, are not watching actors “pretend” to be tired, but real exhaustion. 

Atmosphere

I would like to address question number 3: Do I agree with Kantor's view that the theatre is the least appropriate site for drama to be materialized?

Before examining this question, we must first explore the meaning of space. According to Eugene Minkowski, the essence of life is not "a feeling of being, of existence, but a feeling of participation in a flowing onward, necessarily expressed in terms of time, and secondarily expressed in terms of space" (from Bachelard's The Poetics of Space). Michael Foucalt says that just as the great obsession with the 19th century was time, the present age is the epoch of space. He writes: "We are in the epoch of simultaneity: we are in the epoch of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and far, of the side-by-side, of the dispersed. We are at a moment, I believe, when our experience of the world is less that of a long life developing through time than that of a network that connects points and intersects with its own skein."

He then notes that our contemporary experience of space is very different ages that have preceded us. In the Middle Ages for instance, "there was a hierarchic ensemble of places: sacred places and profane places; protected places and open, exposed places," etc. This space of emplacement was "opened up by Galileo. For the real scandal of Galileo's work lay not so much in his discovery, or rediscovery, that the earth revolved around the sun, but in his constitution of an infinite, and infinitely open space."

In other words, in our modern era, space as "emplacement" has been replaced by space as "extension." Today we talk about space in terms of sites connected to each other by relations of proximity. In Foucault's words: "space takes for us the form of relations among sites."

With the demise of the hierarchical experience of space - (space as places of meaning - i.e. "emplacement"), the world became flat. Many thinkers have written about flattening or leveling affect that modernity has had on the world. The distinctions between sacred and profane began to crumble as space became identified with extension. From this perspective emerge architects who believed that the structural and aesthetic considerations of buildings should be entirely subject to functionality. In other words, space becomes subject to the demands of reason and the feelings or emotional affect of these buildings are seen as unimportant.

In the early to mid 20th century however, with the discoveries of depth psychologists and phenomenology, things began to change. According to Gaston Bachelard, images reveal the psychological state of a person. He says that a reader of poems is asked to consider an image not as an object but to seize on its specific reality. In the introduction to his book he quotes C.G. Jung, who famously wrote about the connection between the images of the imagination and the unconscious depth of the human person. Images embody symbolically deep layers of meaning which the conscious mind may not be aware of. Bachelard takes the philosophic tools of phenomenology and the discoveries of depth psychology to explore the meaning of architecture. Architecture embodies the images of the imagination. He then takes "the house as a tool for analysis of the human soul." While the house may not "contain" meaning as it might have done in the mindset of ancient peoples, it is once again within a world of meaning insofar as it embodies human meaning.

All of this is very important when we consider the role of space in the theatre. Kantor makes a very chilling statement quoted by Amar:

“It is only in a place and at a time where we do not expect anything to happen that something we will unquestionably believe in can happen.

This is the reason the theater, which has been completely sterilized and neutralized by centuries-old practices, is the least appropriate site for drama to be materialized.”

Going back to Minkowski's quote at the beginning of this blog post: the essence of life is not "a feeling of being, of existence, but a feeling of participation in a flowing onward." Theatre is deadly when things get stuck within a particular form. This deadly "stuckness" occurs whenever movement is stifled. Stanislavski reacted against the cliche acting of his day and sought to recover a truthfulness that is new and fresh in each and every performance. In this weeks article's we read about how theatre must also break out of the deadly straight jacket of traditional performance spaces and past uses of technical elements. In short, if life is a feeling of participation in a "flowing onward" which gets expressed in space and time, and if theatre is an expression of life, then theatrical space must never become a fixed and rigid thing. Insofar as theatre becomes a "place" where one does "plays," Kantor is right. If however, the theatre remains open to the images of the imagination and faithful embodies these images in text, movement and setting, the drama of human life will continue to be expressed.

It is towards this goal that Richard Schechner offers his six axioms of environmental theatre. The point of his work, as stated by Amar, is to increase the audience's awareness by eliminating the line between what is the actor's space and what is the audience's space. 

"Face to Face"

Addie asks if theatre is in danger of becoming diluted through the cross-pollination with other mediums. She says: “Are we in danger of losing the only truly present artistic expression in service to our technological era and the demands of instant gratification?”

First off, I think that we need to define our terms a bit more clearly. Frankly, I’m not sure where the lines are between performance art and theatre. I’ll sidestep this question for now and instead focus on what theatre and other forms of performance art have in common – i.e. the physical presence of human bodies. Addie says that the “definition of performance art requires the physical body of the artist in order to be ‘present.’” She then says that if the next movement in the evolution of performance art is towards cross-pollination with other mediums (film, images, technology, etc), does that mean we are in danger of losing what is really essential – i.e. the inter-subjective – “face to face” – encounter between performer and audience?

I would like to look at this question from a different angle. The enemy here isn't technology per se but rather, a growing abstraction from our embodidness. Our culture operates from a dualistic mindset, most powerful expressed by Descartes over 300 years ago - cogito ergo sum. We see ourselves as minds which inhabit bodies. More and more we are seeing the tragic consequences of this horrific split. To be truly human is to be body and mind - or rather - body and mind are two sides of the same coin. True human connection therefore, involves physical presence. The more we lose “face to face” contact with other human beings, the less human we become. Phelan quotes the philosopher Emanuel Levinas who believed that all ethics is based upon the “face to face” encounter. To be a human being, is to be open to other human beings. To be fully alive is to open oneself to another to such an extent, that one allows him or herself to be transformed and changed by the other. This openness to the world – or “presence” – can only take place when I am fully there with another in my body ("in" is not the right word because it perpetuates the mind/body split... perhaps it is better to say: “when I am there totally, body/mind”).

So yes, I do think that we live in dangerous times and that technology allows us to become more and more abstracted from our bodies. As we retreat more and more into our private concerns, we lose the possibility for true encounters with “otherness?” Performance art therefore, has the great obligation of waking people up to the inter-subjective experience. Phelan says it well:

Performance remains a compelling art because it contains the possibility of both the actor and the spectator becoming transformed during the event’s unfolding. People can often have significant and meaningful experiences of spectatorship watching film or streaming video. But these experiences are less interesting to me because the spectator’s response cannot alter the pre-recorded or the remote performance, and in this fundamental sense, these representations are indifferent to the response of the other. Interactivity holds more promise, but thus far most of the technology delimits in advance the kinds of interaction possible between audience members and performers.

Rather then bemoan the death of theatre or the tragic plight of our modern world, I think we need to take a different mindset. The world needs art now more than ever because art is all about that mysterious thing we call "presence." An artist must fight for presence. He or she must sacrifice their life for presence. The vocation of an artist thus becomes something like a missionary. We strive for authentic human interaction by opening ourselves to transformation. In so doing, our lives will also transform others.