By Chanel Sheridan
There is a clear notion within the theatre world of good audiences versus bad. With the voice of the Stage Manager in my ear, I have held doors open for actors returning from the stage, echoing disappointments of the “bad” audience occupying the theatre tonight. Oftentimes, this comes from a lack of response or engagement that deflates the energy actors seem to feed off. This calls attention to the apparent importance of participation within audiences, yet as Matthew reason argues, it goes beyond a simple binary of a passive versus active audience. This blog post will highlight Matthew Reason’s and Astrid Breel’s writings surrounding audience participation and the aesthetic experience within the Being Together research.
Both Breel and Reason highlight the importance of audience participation as it is integral to the aesthetic creation and structure of the work itself (Breel 2015: 369; Reason 2015: 271). This is easily identifiable within New Societies as audience members directly impact the show, seen through one interviewee who describes how “the piece does not go on without me. Um I am not only participating, but I am influencing the course of this show” (3Aug2022730pm-B2-NS-Group-Transcript, line 101). Yet, the interviewee takes a step further, acknowledging their participation within New Societies as beyond simply participating, but influencing. This in turn reflects upon Breel’s notion of the audience member’s aesthetic experience in which “the responses and actions of the participants become part of the fabric of the show” (Breel 2015: 358).
Reflecting upon Bourriaud’s argument, Reason also highlights the contribution of the audience through describing how “the purpose of the artwork becomes ‘to invent possible encounters’” (Reason Citing Bourriaud 2015: 273). Within New Societies, this invention of possibilities is seen through an understanding of the rules of the show and a desire to push those boundaries. Interviewee Stacey Carter outlines this through their experience at the show, participating with family who were playing at another table. They describe a desire to create “chaos” and “fun”, not just for themselves but for the other audience members they knew personally, specifically trying to “add some little fun for them” (4Aug2022730pm-K1-Group-NS-Transcript, line 13). They however also emphasized the importance of the experiences of author audience members, only wishing to create chaos if the others at their table also agreed, stating that “in my mind when I’m doing participatory theatre like this I wanna have a good time, but I also want to make sure the people I’m participating with are having a good time” (4Aug2022730pm-K1-Group-NS-Transcript, line 15). This reflects not only the invention of different possible encounters thus shaping the experience of the show, but also reflects the individuality of each audience member within their form of participation.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to ponder the show’s connection to both Biggins’ and Ranciere’s fears. Within the audience participatory experience, they describe a fear of missing a key “intrinsic” insight to the experience or only focusing on the consumption of the experience instead of reflection (Reason citing Biggins and Ranciere 2015: 276). Specifically, I would like to raise some questions in relation to our research. Firstly, if the experiences of audience members are completely individualized and present within the very fabric of the show, how can specific insights be missing? If the participation of the audience comes in so varied forms as described by Reason and Breel, then does not the implication of something “missing”, of only “consuming” the experience not discredit those individual forms of participation from which the fabric of the show is built? In building the show, does the experience then not become something inherently more than participating and consuming through the co-creation of the audience?
In conclusion, this blog post has attempted to highlight the different forms of audience participation within New Societies. Touching on arguments and reflections from Breel and Reason, these connections reveal a need for constantly repositioning our findings through the lens of individual audience member experiences. There is clearly a well of information to be tapped into concerning participation within this show, of which I have begun to only draw the simplest of connections.
Breel, Astrid. "Audience agency in participatory performance: A methodology for examining aesthetic experience." Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 12, no. 1 (2015): 368-387
Reason, Matthew. "Participations on Participation. Research the “active” theatre audience." Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 12, no. 1 (2015): 271-280.