The following post was contributed by Karl Rouse, Senior Lecturer in Alternative Theatre and New Performance Practice at CSSD, University of London. It was originally a comment on the Live Blog for our first Interactivity Symposium ("What's The Point & What's The Place"), but we've promoted it to a full blog post.
Enjoy!
-Yaz (admin)
I chaired this event on Saturday [The Interactivity Symposium, 9th January 2010] and enjoyed it very much, interactivity is something that I have been excited by and interested in for sometime. I therefore wanted to offer some of my thoughts on the subject, some of which are inspired by the talk; others are just my manifesto if you will.
Officially I first started to study interactivity and work with it when studying at New York University when I took a class with John McKenzie who has a interesting book ‘Perform or Else’.
The first thing we had to do in the class was look at the interface of objects, leading to the interface of design, and learning how we create the ability to interact with things, as well as ideas. Our interaction with the objects often would not lead to the object changing it’s purpose, although sometimes it would, however we were always interacting with it and from this comes my definition of interactivity.
We then looked at the Museum of Natural History and were assigned a project to design the new dinosaur exhibition (it’s been there a while now) and consider how the guests at the museum could learn as much about dinosaurs as possible through their interaction with the exhibit. They could not change the outcome of the exhibition, but it would be hard to argue that they were not interacting with it.
I wanted to raise this issue as interactivity should include a discussion of those events where the audience can participate, change and influence, as well as those times when they cannot but interactivity still takes place.
Experience design seems a good thing to consider in these debates as well, it has been said there are 6 dimensions to experiences: Time/Duration, Interactivity, Intensity, Breadth/Consistency, Sensorial and Cognitive Triggers, and Significance/Meaning
For me this is interaction and interactivity. That a change occurs in me as a result of the action I take that the opportunity provides.
What was interesting about the talk was interactivity was considered by the panel to be an event that the audience could change, and for me when designing what I believe to be interactive events, projects and ideas, the audience and their ability to change have often been a small consideration but I still believe them to be completely about interaction.
Indeed by defining one’s ability to interact as the potential to change the outcome appears limited in its usefulness, but of course should be one of many facets of it’s possibility. In art the greatest and perhaps most difficult of achievements is to create change in the audience, while in actual fact it is the easiest thing in the world to ‘derail’ a performance of any kind, even in a proc arch theatre (even if you may quickly find yourself removed very quickly!).
The audiences within my projects are asked to no longer be passive and as such the event is interactive. An event may not be physically altered, but the interface of the event may lead to emotional or cognitive changes.
The interaction takes place because we acknowledge that we are there, that there is a reason for this and that the space, the objects, the words and the physical body should engage performer and participant (audience).
I view this as the most important thing, as it is this engagement that I want to create. If the engagement comes from changing the outcome then that is exciting as well, but simply having that opportunity seems weak as a method of engagement, here I speak as a consumer of theatre. If it is achieved then I look forward to that possibility, but the driving force behind the creation of the work I believe to be the interaction between performer and audience, sometimes the boundary between the two may be hard to define, at other times the theatre architecture may at first make it appear there is a separation of audience and performer but this is not necessarily so.
I’ve also spent a lot of time considering experience design in theme parks, particularly Walt Disney World in Florida. Again everything is considered for it’s ability to interact and interface with the people who are in the park, from architecture design, sound design, lighting design, food choices, costume, lines of sight and so on. A ride on the Tower of Terror is intended as a interactive experience design from the landscaped gardens you wait in line in, to the music that is played, the film you see, the ride you enter, and the people who load you onto it, and I love this kind of experience design. The event starts from the minute you enter and doesn’t end until long after you leave. The interaction occurs on many levels, but in essence we want you to become the people in 1920’s Hollywood entering a real hotel, about to live the narrative (even if the narrative doesn’t change). Indeed the whole park is designed as a ‘movie’ with onstage and offstage (onstage is any area that guests can see, offstage is any area they can’t), a soundtrack for each area of the park, underground tunnels to ensure someone in costume for one area of the park is never seen in another area of the park, even the journey from the car park at Magic Kingdom is designed to create the ‘fairytale’ narrative, i.e. you have to park some distance away and travel by water to get to the castle, small subconscious narratives are written into the design of the parks even if they are not noticed by the audience who travels through them. However it works, 90% of the audiences who come to these parks have been before, many having been five or more times, on average once every four years although this depends upon location of the audience and their home location. This means each year only 10% of the audiences are new, which is an extremely successful business model.
But to head back to performance for a while!
What the audience has the potential to change at each performance they see is their view, opinions, ideas, experience and this is where performance must be interactive for me, on a very personal level, if this is achieved through giving the audiences more choices in the production itself then great, but if the starting point is to simple give the audience a choice in the outcome this seems a weaker place to start and is perhaps why I’m left uninspired by those books that allow you to choose the ending…because on the whole the stories they tell are not as interesting
When thinking about the future of this work what scares me the most (or indeed about any work) is when I hear any practitioner only talk about what they want and what matters to them. The arts is possibly one of the only industries where this is an accepted model of practice. This does not mean that I don’t think the work in these cases should exist but I believe (and I’m happy for many people to disagree) we have to make work for the audiences as well as lead them to new opportunities, which they may not yet have considered.
As part of the Centre for Excellence in Theatre Training I am a fellow for Enterprise Curriculum and within that role we look at the difficulties that young and emerging practitioners will face, what is evident is that funding will become more difficult (it never has been easy) and audiences may become more conservative as they choose where to spend their money, and as such the work they make better be good. No one has the right to earn their living as an artist, although everyone has the right to be an artist, provocative yes, true, absolutely. Of course everyone has the right to fail trying to make their living as an artist, but it upsets me that so many do and this is why I engage with the work. The economy of performance is often something that people don’t want to talk about or are even disgusted by, but again we are quite unique in our industry of having such a disdain for financial success for our work, and I believe it is time to adjust our opinions. I know there are many examples of work that were not ‘successful’ at their time of origin which are now among our greatest works, I know audiences often need time to adjust to new work and new ways of enjoying performance, but I also know there are to many people studying performance, trying to work with performance, and as such events such as this are wonderful allowing debate, ideas, and learning to take place so that work can be made ‘better’ and audiences can be developed.
I say this as new, young companies must ask why they wish to work in the way that they work, who are they doing it for, how do they measure their success and what is the impact of their creation.
To end this post I believe that theatre is a democracy and good work will eventually generate good audiences and as a result of this no one should ever fear or even feel the need to defend their work as ultimately if people want to see it they will, of course sometimes it doesn’t matter if people don’t see it as work has a right to exist even if there is no one to look at it and interact with it
The First Symposium – Live Blog
The time is 13:20, and the first Interactivity Symposium will begin in a few minutes. My name is Michael Grady-Hall and I'm co-founder of Three's Company, the company presenting the Symposium at the Tristan Bates Theatre.
I will be updating this blog throughout the hour and a half long discussion. As with the next two Symposiums (16th/23rd January), the discussion will be lead and hosted by Karl Rouse. Karl is senior lecturer in Alternative Theatre and New Performance at CSSD.
Today Karl is joined by Matt Trueman (critic and blogger, Guardian/Time Out), Tassos Stevens and Annette Mees (Coney), Richard Stamp (FringeGuru) and Tom Crawshaw and Yaz Al-Shaater (Three's Company).
The space is set up and all is set.
(What follows is a summary of what was said, not a verbatim transcript. If I've mis-represented anything, let me know. An audio recording will also be avilable to download shortly.)
13:28
Teas and Coffees have been dished out. The caffine count is high (Mainly in 3cs bodies). The doors will open in 2 mins!
13:34
The snow has meant one large group haven't turned up. Damn the frozen rain. But no worries, it'll be a lovley intimate affair.
13:43
Karl suggest he take the role of Devil's Advocate. Although he is a supporter.
13:44
Tassos asks to define the term interactivity for the discussion. There ar emany different forms of Interactivity in Theatre. Are the audience in it (characters), in the space but not characters (Punch Drunk), not in the space not characters but with the ability to change the piece.
Anette: Responsive is a good word.
Karl: (To Coney) Why interactivity?
Annette: Because it is live. You place the ordinary memeber of the public in an extrodinary situation That's what theatre is about.
13:50
Coney introduce Steve, sat in the audience. Part of Coney.
Q: Should the audience be for warned for interaction?
Steve: Yes, in a book shop I read the blurb on the back to know what it will be like (romance, horror). It only need be a little bit, a clue.
Yaz: Auditorium was partly marketed to a straight theatre audience. The show appears to be a normal farce, taking the audience on a track and then swerving them into interactivity.
Tom: The audience members who didn't know it would be interactive enjoyed it more.
Annette: I hate interactive theatre which forces an audience to join in. We try to tempt you in.
Tassos: It is an agency of engagement. Broadcasting something as interactive invites people to "test" the work.
13:55
Tassos references Computer Games. Audiences can be put into different characters. Princess, Geek, Jock etc (like a playground)
Karl brings in Richard and Matt:
Matt: Ethics, to place a demand on an audience? Responsive is a very interesting term... it's so realative.
Tassos: There is theatre which is not responsive in any way. Re-rehearsal for a massive musical, no matter what happens it's not responding to audience.
Matt: There will always be response in any peice of work, the man that pisses on the stage in A Little Night Music.
Steve: Art. I cannot effect a painting
Karl: I am effected by the painting. I have interacted.
Tom: Any good theatre should be responsive to the audience.
Richard; Why do we need to difine it? The answer to why interactive theatre? The answer is because we can. Going back to Auditorium. Loved it because elements came as a suprise. Having the sense that I had an opportunity to help and didn't. That's great.
Annette: The fact that you didn't is interesting. I find it exciting to have my choices reflected back at me. Experiment with different me's.
Tassos: Two whys. Can transform an audience buy making them more part of it. You learn more by being an active learner rather than a passive learner. Also because you can!
14:06
Tassos: So exciting I want to shit kittens
Karl: Very interactive. Three's Company, why do you do it?
Yaz: For me it came from the excitment of the possiblities. Love a good story, but I started to get bored with theatre. Imagine if you went to a show and you could change it! The level of activity is small in normal theatre, we can choose when to cough. If there is the potential to change a story, what you leave with is greater.
Karl: How much can a story change?
yaz: Possibly infinatley. Auditorim couldn't beacause of rehersal.
Tassos: I disagree with Infinate. Everything that is possible is maybe not interesting.
Matt: That's what iI'm going to do or that's not. Two choices.
Annette: What happens between point A and B can be very nebulous. But it has to have a point A and B.
Karl: How does an audience learn the rules for A Small Town.
Matt: As an audience we are penned in. We know if we run against the fench we will get out into the real world. Once we are in Coneys world we can go any route between the points untill we get to a big decision. We are fed the rules, almost drip fed. I was aware that the possibilties are not infinate. That is frustrating.
14:16
Tassos: We had to fit in an ordinary theatre time scale. 2 hrs. That limits the possiblities.
Tom: The possiblities are infinate but not unlimited. Within the limits/boundries it is infinate.
Karl: Where do we draw the boundary?
Annette: That's the craft in interactive theatre. You need to set it up carfully
Tassos: An audience sort of have an obligation to respect the creators.
Karl: Do you intervene?
Annette: Ideally no. But if my actor was slapped yes I would.
Matt: What about Internal? I was torn apart in public. Comes back to the blurb on the back of the book , Internal didn't tell me and used us. The shows imorality lies here.
Tassos: I agree it was imoral. It never gave us the chance to truly consent.
14:30
Annette: In my work you are you in an extrodinary situation. I co-author with my audience. You must care for your audience. You have to make sure that at some point it will be ok.
Matt: The first ever interactive piece I saw was Scissor Happy. You voted for the ending with a button. Fake interactivity. Why make interactive work. It is a varification of liveness.
Annette: You do sometimes have to fake interactivity.
Tassos: If it feels meaningfull, it is better. In 'Aa matter of life and death' at national. The toss of the coin which gives two endings didn't mean anything to me.
Annette: The audience have to know about it, otherwise it is not meaningfull.
Matt: The element of risk is what makes live art fantastic.
Richard: matt's 3.4, is like a micro-cosum of what we have been talking about. Always wonder about the interval in 3.4, did anyone ever do anything. How experienced the audinence is changes the work. Extreme behaviour is more likley to happen in this work.
Karl: What's the future of this work.
Richard: I have concerns. what we have seen has an impact on the audience because of it's unfamiliarity. Some of the gimmicks I have seen over the past few years are [getting old]. The more you rely on doing what the audience don't expect, you lessen what you can do. Worried things will have to get more and more extreme. The good future we could move towards, is to build a more conventianal. Polished, Character and using the audience. The interactivity becomes a tool. If we can get to that point there will be a new-ish part of theatre.
Karl: Bill Gates "comfortable with the technology you are born into". Students are working much earlier on these works. Final thoughts?
Tassos: The form that it takes resonates with what it is about. We have a fluidity of form, it must be about what is best for what you arr trying to explore. You have to think about the experience of the audience. The experince starts when the first hear about it, it only ends when they stop thinking about it. How do we make work that will get all the audience members not just the interactive "hard core".
Annette: It's all very imergant. Should one set out to make Interactive Theatre? Probably not. I have set out to make ethical theatre, this is the best way. Some stories should just be stories.
Matt: The Factory, why do I want to see Hamlet improvised?
Tassos: It's not really interactive. What's really exciting is the actors. Live divising is not interactive, but it has much of the same qualities. The pot-hole risk.
Tom: The future of interactive theatre is in the area Richard was talking about. Within the structure and geograohy pf a theatre. You still have the story/structure of Hamlet, but with the elements of game play Coney has.
Karl: My expeirence and excitiment is when something happens to me. That's why I'm pleased these dsicussions are happening.
Bekki Coward: Let's take a break and move into an open space discussion.
14:57
The group has headed off to get coffee, and I'm going to stop typing. Back soon
Karl: Thankyou to our guests.
Annette: I will suggest a topic. How do you review this sort of work. Do you have to see it three times.
Richard: If you give me three press tickets. No... as I mature i think becomes easier. Because it is still inovative it's possible to say if you want a new experience go to this.
Matt: I review very subjectivley. The only way to review 'A small town', was to track my course through. You can see through people who are tossing things out as a gimmick.
Yaz: Before we decide if we want an open space discussion, or as one group. What topics do we want to talk about?
Q.How do you write about/review it?
Q. Define Interactivity.
Q. Relationship between interactivity and stories.
Q. What do you hate about Interactivity.
Q. What happens afterwards, linger in the real world... should it?
Q. Audiences, how do you think about different audiences?
Q. Audience Persona.
Q. Framing, the actors role.
Ben talks about Mac's performance pre-talk.
Ben: This guy just kept on talking to me. It was strange as he told me so much, I'd only just met him.
Natalie: Did it make you uncomfortable?
Ben: No because our relationship didn't change, his stance remind as it was when he asked if I wanted a cup of coffee. I didn't feel uncomfortable.
Matt: Is that a piece of interactive theatre if you don't know it is theatre?
Richard: If you do that in Edinburgh, you'll get people saying "you are so an actor!"
Yaz: Ok lets start. How do you write about it/review it?
Richard: I have to say I have not asked myself that question before. It is my personal opinion.
Matt: What is it trying to to? How well does it do that? Should it be done? How did it make you feel? Many critics miss this last question. Younger critics who are more versed in more experimental work can work in a more feeling led way i.e. Lynn Gardener How does it change you? Did it challenge me to act in a certain way? Bad interactive work, you just shrug your shoulder and say... "so?"
Aud: What is your role as a reviewer? What is your responsibility?
Richard: The reviewers primary responsibility is to the audience. If the actors get something from it, great. I don't want to go down the path of damning reviews. I try not give away suprises, but that is difficult.
Matt: I come from a different place. I feel a responsibility to my self. I don't feel I am writing for an organization. With 'a small town...' a found myself writing for Coney. It was for an audience who knew something about it. As I'm writing for myself I do write panning reviews. That's not to do down the artist, but to be honest. In terms of giving away the suprise, I see that as fine. I am part of the theatre world, an ambassador, you have to be able to dive in. You have to be able to disect it. But if it's going to destroy the piece I try not to.
Aud: Do artists feel constricted by being in a box?
Richard: Coney is about games. Three's Company are about Theatre. I don't think we create the labels, the performers have I think.
Yaz: Labels are for Marketing.
Annette: Labels are dangerous for creaters. We make very different work to people we are labeld with.
Richard: Labels are necassary. But saying it's to do with Marketing puts a bad soin on it.
Matt: It's not about labels it's about threads.
Tom: It seems there is a gap in language.
Yaz: Let's talk about deffinition. Three steps to Interactivity. Art can effect an audience. Audience effect the art. Audienec effect the art Back and Forth.
Matt: What happens with crap interactivity?
Yaz: It's still Interactivity, but it's crap.
Annette: A word I use is co-authorship. For something to be Interactive it must be co-authored by the audience that night. When I am replaced by say Matt, and the outcome is exactly the same, that to me is not really interactive.
Aud: A distinction I have heard is. Interactive: Play with it but don't cause it to change. Participasory: What Annette discribed (co-authord).
Annette: Not quite.
Matt: I would use the terms the other way round. You can participate in a workshop (a lesson) with changing it, but an interactive workshop must be co-authord.
Yaz: We should create some new words.
Steve: Choose your own adventure. Fake interactivity. If you are interacting with a performer it has the possiblity to be truly interactive.
Yaz: A form of interactive theatre that fascinates me is work where you can interact with both the characters AND the story.
Richard: We have to be carefull not to get so obsessed with labels. We must think about the audiences experience.
Annette: We have to be really carefull of using these words, people have such different responses to them.
Aud2: In dance (my practise) doesn't have to be linear. We look at Jazz Structure.
Annette: We also talk alot about Jazz Structure.
Aud: Could an audience repeat A small town?
Annette: Many people did come back to go through a different experience.
Aud: The idea of form relates to this. Having a label means an audience can go for armed to get the most out of the experience.
Matt: I feel every piece of art should come from the idea of form. As Richard said we have to have companies who justify the form. And the form has to justify it's content.
Annette: It has to be justified by the story.
Matt: Within the company, you ought to have your own private terms.
Richard: I'd like to talk about "the contract". What are actors alowed to do the audience. But more importantly what are the audience alowed to do to the actors. We must find a way to comunicate to the audienec what we expect from them.
Matt: If you set your piece in a kitchen, the fridge must work. What are the obvious things the audience are going to do. What may they do that isn't obvious?
Richard: In the Hotel, I wanted to go through a door marked No Entry, and was stopped by the actors. I thought part of the idea was about getting through the door. Were the actors cursing me in the bar after?
Annette: No, they will have loved you.
Matt: So what's wrong with going through the door and finding backstage? You just know your weren't meant to.
Yaz: You are responsible for everything the audience do in your space.
Matt: It is afterwards that is important, there must be space for the audience to reference what happend, what they did.
Annette: The tail space (what Matt is saying) can be directly after or personal, but it is just as much part of the work.
Richard: It is possible to provoke bad behaviour. I am conserned about this, if it was a science there would be heavy controls. What some of the things we are talking about sounds more like pschological test.
Annette: An un-ethical theatre maker is a very scary thing.
Aud2: I can see un-ethical theatre makers being created because of the pressure artists are under to gain audiences.
Matt: There has always been a certian type of artist who push boundaries. The media make that cynical. Consistancy of the frame is what the artist works on
Annette: Richard is asking if the work should be regulated. you can't really start making interactive theatre laws. I don't know how you fix that.
Yaz: I think we must move on as the final session will be about Responsibility. Lets talk about different audiences.
Annette: We went out to get different audiences, because it made it better.
Matt: To make it better for you? It sounds like pschological testing.
Annette: We didn't look at it that cynically. The more diverse you group is the more intersting.
Yaz: The audience which most appreciated Auditorium, were non-theatre audiences (schools/stand-up).
Aud: Nobody's mentiond Politics. Does anybody care about that sort of thing?
SILENCE
Richard: I think that's a no.
Annette: I'm driven by people, so I am driven by politics. I want to sensatise people to things I think are important.
Aud2: I'm still trying to find the form. I want to think about the next generation of audiences.
Matt: It should be an investigation in collaboration.
Aud: Even that was political (collaboration).
Annette: We experiment with how Coney can exist beyond a traditional theatre company. Can it be more distributed. Steve is as Coney as I am.
Yaz: Please stay for Interplay. thank you.
Right Folks that's the first Symposium over. See you next week.
Cheers Mike
The Immediate Future
A short essay on the place of interactivity in theatre by Tom Crawshaw
Despite the rise of television and film – so proficient in producing artistically complex drama and comedy and delivering it to people – predictions of the death of theatre appear currently to have been misjudged. The breadth of culture and the desire for new stories and experiences seems more than capable of supporting a wide range of art forms. It seems to me however that, in order to maintain a place as one of the main players in British culture, theatre still needs to develop an identity, distinct from television, radio and film. Furthermore, this identity is one which is yet to be fully embraced – and can give us the best indication of the future direction of theatre.
Although it has managed a successful co-existence, the need for theatre to justify its existence, in the face of television, radio and film, can be seen in the history of the previous century. Prior to the prevalence of recording and broadcasting technology, the last major development in theatre was naturalism. Television and film however are a much better, if not perfect, medium for realism. Since the first emergence of popular film in the early 1920s, theatre instantly retreated from the pursuit of realism, with such practitioners as Brecht, Artaud, Dario Fo and Grotowski at the helm.
To identify the identity of theatre, as distinct from film, television and radio, we can start by considering what the distinct feature of theatre is not. It is not, for instance, theatre’s ability to convey and discuss complex philosophical, moral or political ideas. Certainly, theatre has a tradition for being more wordy and thoughtful than its bright, action-packed brothers - film and television. Presumably this is a result of the classism of the arts – with the middle classes and intelligentsia more likely visit the theatre (and opera) than the working classes for whom television and film are more relevant. This picture can be seen to be blurring today, with film and television clearly up to the task of delivering thoughtful and intellectually complex works. Certainly however, we must admit that there is nothing essential to theatre that makes it any more suited to complex or intellectual writing than any other form; if this is currently the case, it is the result of circumstance and we can’t necessarily expect it to continue.
Although commonly cited, the essentially live nature of theatre cannot be seen to be its distinguishing feature either. Certainly, theatre performances have a somewhat special quality because you know they are being performed as you see them – and the experience is therefore unique (at least temporally). The event you are witnessing is linked, inextricably, to the evening you have chosen to witness it. But theatre by no means has the monopoly here. Many TV shows are recorded the same evening they are broadcast and many, such as morning shows and the news – go out live. Most radio stations obviously go out live as well, giving the same sense of excitement and enabling phone-ins. A recent episode of ‘Two Pints Of Larger And A Packet Of Crisps’ was even broadcast live on TV – the result being as dull as any of the other episodes, despite the novelty that things could go wrong at any point. Technological limitations in early television in fact meant that all dramas had to be performed and broadcast live – and yet there was no danger that this would render theatre unnecessary.
Being a medium for intellectual ideas and being live, then, cannot be seen to be the key to theatre’s distinct identity. Which feature then should we be concentrating on? The best offer to me seems to be immediacy. All theatre performance is fundamentally immediate: it happens right before you, in the same room or area of ground. Immediacy is not only necessary (being live is at least necessary) but it is also sufficient and unique. Any artistic performance which is immediate must be some form of theatre, and such immediacy cannot be recreated by film, radio or television.
A large amount of theatre about today, though highly impressive, enjoyable and successful, does not embrace, does not exploit this unique element - the immediacy of theatre. A typical play – by Alan Ayckbourne, David Hare, Arthur Miller or David Mamet – for instance, is obviously different from a filming or radio recording of the same events but does not capitalise on the fact the audience are right there in front of the actors. Good performers will live the performance anew each night and should be alive to the psychology of the audience on that night but, even in the best circumstances it is hard to see how this will have much effect on the actual events. The audience posses a very small number of acceptable audible reactions they can have, in order to communicate their feelings to the actors, who then have a very tight framework within which they can react to these signals. Although the audience are but feet away, the actors are much more directly affected by the script, the set, the director’s notes from the night before and their fellow performers on stage.
Even more experimental theatre – such as site-specific work – does not usually embrace this immediacy. Walking amongst the audience, and allowing them to move amongst the actors, merely changes the physical position between them and does not use this immediacy to any effect. In some site-specific pieces, the audience is so free that they can choose which characters - and which stories – to follow. Although such ‘interactivity’ gives a lot of power to the individual audience member and is an exciting development it still does not embrace the immediacy of theatre. Indeed, television, although completely removed from the person watching it, has this form of interaction in spade-fulls: one can now choose from potentially hundreds of different ‘stories’ and, in some cases, even what camera angle they are seen from.
This is not to say that any of the above are bad theatre and should not happen. Clearly, a wide range of people get a lot of enjoyment and are profoundly affected by such theatre and it is a means for communicating important issues of today. However, without in some way embracing immediacy, and clearly marking its territory as distinct from film, television and radio, theatre could easily become just “another form” of entertainment or storytelling. It is therefore important for at least some branches of theatre to explore and embrace the nature of theatre as immediate performance, immediate art, or immediate entertainment.
There are, then, a number of branches that do do exactly this. Comedy theatre capitalises on the immediacy of the audience. By laughing – or not – the audience at a comedy can drastically change a performance, making it a unique event, which the audience are a part of. In some comedy scenes, the audience literally plays another ‘character’ who interjects lines at certain points – saying them louder or for longer and in different places each night. Such a 'character' must be listened to carefully, and can affect the performance, almost as much as an actor in the piece itself.
Plays which include moments of ‘audience interaction’ also make some – limited – use of the immediate audience. Pantomime dialogue with the audience follows formulas but will change depending on what people shout out, and in some plays entire conversations are held with audience members. Just like the reaction of actors to a laughing audience, these moments could not happen in an art from which was not immediate.
Such types of immediacy are by no means a modern phenomenon – indeed they seem to be more common in British theatre's earlier stages. Soliloquies, it is thought, in Shakespeare’s day, were always spoken directly to members of the audience. Although there is no place in Shakespeare for them to respond – and tell Othello not to kill Desdemona – the effect on those individuals is important, noteworthy – and unique to theatre as an immediate art-form.
These features, although still present in many pieces of theatre, do seem to be comparatively rare in mainstream theatre today; they are often small aspects of plays and, more importantly, do not appear to be a part of the current movements of today’s theatre. Few modern practitioners appear to be concerned to create theatre which allows more opportunities for embracing the immediacy of theatre to its audience - and in more ways. Instead of merely talking to the audience at certain points or being receptive to their mood, theatre needs to include works that fully embrace the audience and all they can potentially do to an art-work. To embrace the unique feature that immediacy brings – that the work can affect the audience and the audience can affect the work.
As people increasingly turn to television and film for their dramatic stories and entertainment, it is precisely theatre which embraces its unique features that will remain relevant and necessary. Whist the full gamut of theatre genres is sure to remain, we should expect the newest developments to be in the area of developing and exploring immediacy. This might involve actors working to become more aware of their audience, it might involve a growth in live comedy – but it should also be expected to involve theatre performances (plays as well as less conventional performances) that make the most of the audiences presence, right there in the same place as the performance
‘The Stage’ on Interactivity
Roger Foss’ Feature in The Stage against interactivity in theatre:
It’s play time: How much interactivity can one take?
And the only response I could find on the internet, a great defence of the genre:
Fussing Over Foss
Did anybody catch the BAC Directors’ response the following week? And any thoughts on this?
Audience Derailment
In any form of interactive storytelling the audience will derail rather than cooperate with a scripted plot.
- www.pause-effect.com/excerpts_p03.html (in reference to MMORPRGs).
I disagree. Any thoughts?
‘Reflections about Interactivity’ by Luis O. Arata
"Reflections about Interactivity" by Luis O. Arata
Very in-depth and paper about interactivity in general - interactive works, interactive views, ‘play’, etc.
Fascinating and useful - if slightly dry.
“Electronic Book Review”
reblogged from untitled-project:
A site full of articles (loosely) about the philosophy, debates, and art of making and playing games - mostly computer games.
Provides a good way of thinking about elements of this project, lots of ideas, and a useful set of terminology.
(I’ll link to specific articles later on)
Choose Your Own Adventure book – mapped out
Choose Your Own Adventure book - mapped out
Interesting depiction of how they worked.
Yaz’s Dissertation on narrative in interactive theatre
Yaz's dissertation on narrative in interactive theatre
email me for username and password, or comment below
Written May 2008.
