I find it funny that yesterday, towards the end of my study session, I felt that I was actually able to generate some content that can be very valuable for my thesis, and I also had some ideas about what to read next in order to develop a more concrete theoretical framework. I even thought of some questions, that could also serve as the starting point of today’s blog post… I thought I would have so many things to write and I could take my research a step further, and yet, now I feel again a bit lost and the confidence that let to a carefree evening and a hopeful morning is fading…
What happened? What generated my confusion again? And how I can offer some clarity again to my thoughts?
Maybe it will actually help to look back at what I did yesterday and the topics that I got very excited about…
So, yesterday, I started reading the 3rd chapter of the book on dance dramaturgy that I also mentioned during my previous blogs…The topic of this chapter was an analysis on the relationship between the dramaturg and the audience. The chapter started by stating that one of the common positions that the dramaturg has been associated with is that of the “advocate of the audience”. This is related to the idea that the dramaturg is the first spectator of the work, and that he/she is always positioned at a critical distance (especially when compared to the choreographer/director or other collaborator), which allows him/her to engage with the creative process in a more ‘objective’ manner. However, this position is quickly challenged as reductive, impossible and in the end unproductive within the creative process. This position tends to overlook the subtleties and complexities of the work of dramaturgy. At the same time, she does not entirely dismiss this role… She suggests approaching it as an impossible task. And by precisely approaching it as such, dramaturgical thinking is set into motion. So, Profeta sees this “role”, this relationship with the audience as an ongoing process that constantly takes different forms. It acquires different levels of significance within the creative process, depending on the particularities of each work as well as the specific stage in which the work is situated at every given time. In the chapter, she addresses several theoretical accounts that indicate an alternative way of addressing the audience which is especially marked by the move from dramatic to postdramatic theatre (from performances that have a logocentric approach – the dramatic text being the source on which all other elements where further developed – towards performances that place text, movement, visuals and sounds on the same plane of significance). By challenging the logocentric logic of theatre, new modes of experience and perception are introduced.
However, then another question arises: how can we account for the response of the audience when it is presented with new modes of perception which also generate a multiplicity of points of view, and of experience?
It seems that several dramaturgs point towards the idea that in order for something novel or unfamiliar to be experienced, “it can only occur within a context of familiarity” (94). They suggest that the “secret” (if it is even possible to name it as such) lies in the interplay between what is already known and the unknown, what is expected which can then be subverted into something unexpected. It is a constant negotiation between heterogeneous elements and how they interact with each other to generate something new.
Another theoretical account when it comes to the position of the audience that Profeta introduces is that of Ranciere’s notion of the “emancipated spectator”. Although there is a rather long theory behind this term, the main point here is Ranciere’s criticism of perceiving the audience as ignorant, as in need to be guided into the world of the performance by the artist and, therefore, assuming a hierarchy between the artist as the holder of knowledge. In other words, the audience are the ones that need to learn what the artist knows. What Ranciere is proposing instead is to presuppose that the audience are always active, they do not need to be guided into what they will understand, and hence, the dramaturg does not need to be preoccupied with “activating” the audience. Although Profeta, recognizes the value of this perspective, she is also critical of some of its implication when it comes to different types of performances but also when taking into account specificities that the role of the artist and the audience entail respectively within the context of a performance.
What happens when the audience willfully decided to assume a position of ignorance? How can the artist and the spectator not know in equal terms when the artist and the collaborators are creators of the performance? And how can we understand the role of dramaturgy in this equation? Regardless of the methods that will be employed, the existence of an audience cannot refrain from being implicated in the thinking and decision-making processes. A work is meant to be performed in front of an audience, it is meant to communicate something. Nevertheless, the characteristics and qualities of that “something” can take different shapes and forms and can also vary from spectator to spectator….
Well, I certainly didnt expect that this long summary will come up…and I feel like there is plenty more that I can write about…
However, it is getting late, but I am dedicated to publish something everyday, so I will leave it here today and I will continue tomorrow…
Books referenced:
- Profeta, Katherine. 2015. Dramaturgy in Motion: at Work on Dance and Movement Performance. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
A Student's Journal 