Dance Magazine: Some of my favorite experiences as both an audience member and a dancer have involved audience participation. Artists who cleverly use participatory moments can make bold statements about the boundaries between performer and spectator, onstage and off. And the challenge to be more than a passive viewer can redefine an audience's relationship to what they're watching. But all the experiences I've loved have had something in common: They've given audiences a choice.
16 comments:
This is horrifying, and I am very glad I was not at the described performance... I am not sure how much there is to say about this; I feel like the author laid out the relative points pretty well. Audience participation can be wonderful and a huge enhancement to a show. In many productions, it is an integral and well thought out part of the show. The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, for instance, despite using audience volunteers (which the author of this article described as clunky), is a hilarious and beloved musical that has been performed just about everywhere over the last few years. When I designed a production of the show a few years ago, I was honestly unimpressed by the show all the way through tech and right up until opening night, when the show seemed to come alive by the simple addition of a couple audience members. That said, I don't even want to imagine how horrifying an experience it would be if I was forced to participate in a show without being asked. That seems an incredibly uncomfortable experience, and for those who have experienced traumatic events and might be triggered, non-consensual audience participation is cruel and wrong. This seems like it should be obvious, but if not, standards need to be created and adhered to by theaters and production companies.
I love when live performance includes audience participation and interaction, as does Lauren Wingenroth who says “some of my favorite experiences as both an audience member and a dancer have involved audience participation. All these experiences were great because the audience were given the choice to participate, thus the need of conversation on the appropriate use of audience participation. Lauren brings up this conversation in her article “We Need To Talk About Non-Consensual Audience Participation”. I’m glad she brought up this question so we didn’t have to find out it’s relevance through experience like she did. She described the experience that made her concerned about how audience participation is implemented, not to make performances less experimental or risky but so their performance can be truly taken in for it’s experimentalism, be accessible and safe. As Lauren puts it quite well, “ I believe theaters should be spaces where people of all physical abilities and backgrounds can feel safe and respected… audience interaction. What purpose is it serving…? Just like artists might consider using violence or nudity is truly necessary and earned, content that puts audiences at physical risk shouldn’t be included casually. It especially shouldn’t be used as a gimmick”.
The article is just a reminder of how theater tends to put safety (in all areas) to the side as long as work is created. The author of this article says exactly the questions that need to be asked before we include things in the show. "What purpose is it serving, and how is it deepening the work?" If these questions are answered and the answers are valid, there needs to be steps taken to make sure that permission is given by the audience. There is a difference between giving warnings and announcements and asking for consent. I am sure that the actions are blocked/choreographed, so there are places that the dancers/actors are limited to. It doesn't hurt to go to those people in those seats and get their consent (explaining the full extent of what actions are going to be a taking place) and if they don't give their consent, have backup seats for them.
I have always loved the idea of theatre that gets the audience involved, but when this type of performance is done, the only audience members who should be participating are the ones who ultimately made the choice to. No one should be subject to taking part in any situation they were not willing to be part of in the first place. When the aspect of consent is lost, you lose the respect and comfort of the audience. In my opinion, this is unacceptable. It is disrespectful to put someone in a position to participate in something they never consented to. Doing that could be triggering, dangerous, or just uncomfortable, and these are not things that should be ignored for the sake of a production. The particular show mentioned in this article is disturbing for a number of reasons. What happens if an audience member gets hurt while the performers are climbing on them? Or if they upset the audience with the nature of their forced participation? I think shows like this should reevaluate the implications of their participation practices before carrying them out without consent.
I suffer from a non-negligible level of social anxiety. Although I actually quite like performing and having attention focused on me, it has to be on my own terms. This is why I've struggled whenever I have done improv in the past and this is why I have on more than one occasion decided to not see a show because I knew it involved audience participation. I do think it can really improve a show, and bring out really beautiful and unexpected moments, however getting distinct consent from the audience member is not optional. I heard from one friend working on a choose-your-own adventure type show that was incredibly audience participation-heavy that one way they handled it was to have different tables in the audience (it was set up like a dinner theatre) and the group at each table had a puck that they could flip to either the green or red side and that would let the actors know if they were comfortable participating. Otherwise, there is the tried and true method of making sure the actor asks. Whatever way you choose to handle consent is up to you, but it should be the rule, not the exception as it seems to be. Or else you are sending the message to people like me, or anyone else who for whatever reason doesn't want spontaneous touching or interactions with strangers or attention, that they cannot attend your show because they will not be safe and respected.
I cannot possibly imagine what this must have been like, nor do I want to. Like the writer, I have experienced audience participation in the past that has been very enjoyable and also extremely effective. I have also been held accountable and equally as affected by the mere held gaze of an actor several feet away onstage. I agree with the question of whether or not audience participation is ever truly necessary, but unequivocally demand that it be a choice for the audience to make for themselves. As Helena mentioned above, two-sided cards on the table are wonderful ways for the actors to identify which tables are open to interaction and which ones aren't. There should also never be an instance where notifications (such as signs or pre-show announcements) are given of audience-actor interaction without stating the magnitude and manner of the participation. Will they ask to use my arm as a prop or will they climb on and over me while putting their genitals in my face? There needs to be clear and visible notifications of the type and extent of interaction, and *always* a way for the audience to say no. There have been too many instances in our country recently where the answer of "no" was not respected, and theatre should be the very last place where we expect our voices to be ignored.
This is a very interesting article about what the defined lines of audience participation in theatre should be. Examining both sides of the issue I think the argument against informing people is the element of trying to surprise the audience member. Along with if you tell someone there will be audience participation then the show becomes almost a waiting game of when will it happen, which may take away from the rest of the experience. More important than that I believe is this idea of consenting to the experience, even if it is in the moment it’s happening, see the “can I sit on your lap” sort of thing. It seems as if this specific performance took things to a dangerous level on both a physical and metal way. These conversations can be difficult and can depend on the mission of the different companies and to be frank its almost relieving to be in the department of theatre that is focused on construction because I am not very well equip with answers for these sorts of questions.
This article describes a shocking iteration of audience participation in a dance piece. I have never been a fan of audience participation but I think, if it is used well and thoughtfully, it can be effective. This, however, is not an example of tactful and thoughtful audience participation. It sounds completely unpleasant and I cannot see how these choices would further the performance in any way. As the article says, I think, if audience participation is going to be as invasive and uncomfortable as this, consent should be an obvious prerequisite. This was not only uncomfortable for the audience, however, this performance was actually dangerous. The article mentions that one of the dancers shattered a light and sent pieces of glass into the audience. In this case, I think the discussion goes above just talking about audience participation. I think the director should have spent a little more time formulating this idea before telling dancers to simultaneously make audience members incredibly uncomfortable and to put them in actual danger.
I, personally, strongly dislike audience participation, as I feel as if it takes people out of the theatre mindset as most of the audience has to crane their neck in order to see the random actors dancing in the aisles. However, this article talks about consensual audience participation. And while I believe that the concept is often tacky (that is audience participation in general). I think that consensual participation is very important, for obvious reasons, and is unfortunately too common. One show that I’ve been to that always takes into account is the Rocky Horror Picture Show. There is very often interaction between the shadow cast and the audience, and this often involves cast members sitting in audience members laps and similar physical contact that would generally be considered taboo in the normal theatre. However, there has never been a time that I have not heard a cast member first ask for consent first, and that is something which is very important.
Any given theatre play has audience participation. We all have witnessed bad audiences and great audiences and how their energy impacts our performers. Lately there has been a raise in plays that involve audience members as part of their plot development, with their consent, and usually audience members are thrilled to participate. Last year for Arturo UI we had audience members participate and every single one of them was extremely happy to do so, and did their best performance. However, when audience participation is not consensual It breaks the patrons trust in the story and the space. People no longer feel safe and feel like their experience has been contaminated. Now a patron is no longer sitting in a viewing point but it is forced to be part of a story that they do not know how it develops. Audience participation requires a lot of planning, from everyone involved in the creative process, it needs to account for the type of audience and the message the show wants to carry, and if it is worth breaking the patron-actor trust over that shock effect.
Reading this genuinely terrified me for the sake of safety and exploitation. I have always thought audience involvement in shows was insanely cool for the audience and the performers, but only when it’s done safely and consensually. In the heat of sexual assault cases, people should be learning to be more sympathetic to the boundaries that come with sensitive social issues. Victims are becoming more open to letting their voices be heard, and a show like this can hinder the growth that is happening in the world by making people more uncomfortable than ever. Safety and comfortability should never be sacrificed for the sake of creating art. With things like the sensitive content and nudity policy in place for performers at CMU, it shows me, as someone who has mainly management experience in theater, that the the mental state is something that should never be disturbed in an uncomfortable and unsafe way ever. The negligence on the part of the choreographer and higher-up staff is ridiculous and should face consequence in their action. Respect and safety should always be a theaters biggest concern when creating pieces and productions.
I have a few issues with the audience participation described in this article. First, such an invasion of personal space should never take place without express consent from the parties involved, and secondly I would work for the actor safety because as we all know there are malicious people in the world and putting exposed people on top of strangers seems, to me, to open up the doors for invasion of the actors' personal space and privacy. I am honestly surprised that in this era where consent is so so so important, that this piece would be allowed to perform. Perhaps the people who decided to produce this thought it would be an apt commentary about these issues, but what they failed to realize is that they were likely just perpetuating them. I think the comment comparing this to adding nudity, etc. is a great one, things like this need long and thoughtful discussion before ever making it to the stage.
I hope more choreographers and directors would learn a lesson from this article that audience participation should never be forced upon the audience members but should be consensual. I enjoy shows that smartly utilize audience participation and agree that it can be a great method to amplify the message of performances. But I also am not the most open and flexible person in the world, and need some time to breathe and prepare myself for any kind of audience participation. And for me the most common assumption going into a theater is that there would be a fourth wall between the stage and the house, unless noted otherwise. Violating the assumption without notification can make me really antsy, and most importantly, not safe—I would do anything to not get picked on. Also, the theater has to be careful about creating any kind of liability from the audience participation. In this time and day, we really have to be careful about anything nonconsensual.
Non-consensual audience participation is something that I haven't thought a lot about recently, but as more people voice their opinions about it I can see why it is such an issue. The example in this article is definitely on the extreme end of the spectrum, particularly with the broken glass falling on the audience, but things similar to this happen all the time across the entertainment industry. You never know the background of the audience member that you're interacting with, so by forcing them to participate or touching them without consent you could be making them uncomfortable or even make them relive trauma. There are many easy ways to combat this and the article mentions a good one when the performer whispered to the audience member to get their consent before sitting on their lap. Last year when we did Alkestis the show relied heavily on audience participation, but every audience member got to choose if they wanted to participate in a speaking role, a silent role, or not at all. By using practices like this interactive performances can remain intact but audience safety can be ensured.
This is not acceptable. I've never been a huge fan of audience participation in the theatre because when I go to see a show I want to watch and experience something just like everyone else around me - I do not want to be watched or experienced by others. If I am told ahead of time that a show heavily involves audience participation, I might not go - but as the author said - that choice should be mine to make. I think it's very insensitive to not only be invading people's space without consent but especially to be pushing your genitals into their faces ESPECIALLY the week of the Kavanaugh trial. These actions are never acceptable, but the timing here just made them that much worse. I think they need to be whispering asking for consent no matter what if they’re going to have surprise audience participation. There are many ways to use the audience in a show so that everyone is comfortable. The theatre is supposed to be a safe, welcoming space for all – nothing should be compromising that.
Between reading the article and watching the two videos advertising the show, I am incredibly unsettled. The first video especially depicts certain more bold actions-- picking one’s nose, touching genitals, etc-- but neither depict audience involvement or acknowledge that the audience might be touched following these actions. I was horrified to hear the author’s account of the numerous ways in which the dancers engaged in completely non-consensual physical touch with the audience members, without regard to individuals with accessibility concerns or other disabilities. I think the author says it all, while making very clear that she is not opposed to experimentation or audience participation, and I couldn’t agree with her more. The question of consent and content warnings should be considered in any theatrical piece in as many ways as it should arise as a concern. It was apparent that the creators of this piece pushed concept above essential aspects such as actor and audience safety, audience comfort, and the delicacy of technical aspects such as lighting fixtures. As someone who thoroughly loves experimenting with the abstract, I hope to never lose sight of the goal of the audience’s experience in the ways that this company did.
Post a Comment