By Bethany Schaufler-Biback and Chanel Sheridan
Throughout both rounds of data analysis for the Being Together project, there has been a reoccurring trend of audiences contradicting their wants, needs, and understandings of their experiences in theatre. During the first year of the project, Bethany wrote a preliminary blog post pointing towards this trend. These contradictions include but aren’t limited to how audience members define their role, identify the sorts of theatre they enjoy seeing, and how they wish to be affected by a production. As discussed in the preliminary blog post, many of these contributions can likely be attributed to a complex relationship to theatre and its various forms and unique asks.
A contradiction that we found to be particularly intriguing in both rounds of analysis pertains to affect. We have often found that audience members will describe their experience, detailing the event with a consistent tone, whether it be positive, negative, or neutral, and then recount their overall feeling towards the show as an affect that is strikingly different than that of which they described the show with. For instance, an audience member might only share negative aspects of the show when discussing their experience, and then assign the overall encounter as positive. When explaining these shifts, we noticed a reoccurring theme where the difference in overall affect appeared to be linked to those people shared space with during the given theatre experience. Through applying works from Sara Ahmed and Jordan Tannahill alongside Being Together audience data, we aim to investigate the ways in which co-presence is one factor that can lead to one affect having dominance over another affect within the same encounter.
To illustrate how co-presence can work as the tipping point in determining which affective response has dominance in a theatre experience, let’s imagine theatre as having the ability to be both a “happy object” and not a “happy object”. In her work, “Happy Objects”, Sara Ahmed explains that humans create attachments to “objects”, that they deem to be a source or cause of happiness (29). If the participant in question views theatre as a happy object, sharing space in the theatre with their friends, or even strangers (especially after covid), may be able to satisfy the audience member regardless of the favourability of the show.
The first example occurs within Zoe Gordon’s individual interview within the 5Oct20217pm-Individual-RM-Transcript file. The contradiction of affects arises from answering a question pertaining to whether they felt as though the shared excitement of attending theatre with other people has changed post covid for them. They specifically address how they have an increased appreciation for attending shows with others and speculates that people are “craving any sort of like…connection with with others, so I think like, and I think the answer is such an underrated connection with others” (Gordon, line 147). The contradiction with their affect experience arises through an example in which they describe attending a show over the summer that was terrible yet “there was so much joy in that like we left and you’re like K, that was bad, but how much fun did we have together, like if I had watched that on my laptop at home, I would have been miserable” (Gordon, line 148-150). In this instance, the production itself creates a negative affective response, yet, there is also a positive affective response because of the connection created with others through this shared negative affect.
On the contrary, if a person does not view theatre as a “happy object”, or in other words, theatre is not viewed as a source of happiness, inspiration or aspiration, and therefore do not anticipate or hold positive expectations towards attending theatre, elements of co-presence could actually lead to the audience member’s experiential detriment. In Tannahill’s essay, “Boredom: The Boring Play”, he discusses how unlike other art forms where a disliked song or book won’t lead audiences to “writ[e] off [the] entire form”, the communal elements of theatre can have this impact on its consumers. While in Zoe’s example, the negative show was neutralized with the positive collective experience, Tannahill argues that for those who don’t identify as a “theatre person”, the experience of watching unfavorable show doesn’t read as a positive communal ingroup, but rather an uncomfortable or negative experience.
The second example occurs within the 15Sept2022630pm-MB-Individual-Transcript file and the second round of interviews. This example comes from a response to the question of which moments stand out to them as an audience member. They describe how it “was a super cool project” yet it was also “super emotionally devastating at times though too” (David, lines 137-138). They highlight a moment in which the actors had just finished an intense fight and someone started playing Mad World on the guitar, describing it as “very sad but also like hilarious because it’s fucking Mad World” (David, line 145). This element was further highlighted when later, an audience member laughs at this moment of the production (David, line 147). In this instance, the negative affective response is shifted to positive through the audience member’s laughter.
These observations of affective contradiction within audience member’s experiences have raised many questions warranting further attention. While we have specifically focused on highlighting how co-presence works alongside these affective contradictions, are there other factors, such as audience reward, show content, or audience comfort, which also impact the affective contradictions? Furthermore, we question what the tilting point is that allows one affective response to be the “dominant” one of an audience member’s experience of a show. Do other factors change this point and does it change over time? How, if at all, does the dominant affective response shift as audience members reflect on and create new meanings from past show experiences? Finally, we question what potential arises from these understandings of contradictory audience affective experiences. Does this present an argument for the potential productiveness of negative affect? How can community building arise from the potential negative affects and what is the implication of that within theatre creation? In conclusion, while the scope of exploring the contradictory affective experiences of audience members is beyond the scope of this blog post, we have attempted to highlight the potential of inquiring into these contradictions. The untapped potential of understanding the affect contradictions of audience members can lead to a deeper understanding of the ways in which audience members create meaning from theatre experiences.
Works Cited
Ahmed, Sara. “Happy Objects.” The Affect Theory Reader, Duke University Press, 2010, pp. 29-51.
Tannahill, Jordan. “Boredom: The Boring Play.” Theatre of the Unimpressed: In Search of Vital Drama, Coach House Books, 2015, pp. 21-27.