by Noah J Nelson | Sep, 2021 | No Proscenium: I was out at a show — a really great cabaret show — this weekend from a company whose work I’ve enjoyed and respected for the better part of a decade now. It was fantastic.
Just one little problem: they referred to it “immersive” and it was so far from being remotely interested in being immersive that it bummed me out a bit they were messing around using that word.
7 comments:
In terms of finding an audience or financial success in entertainment, talking about theater is as important as making it. If we can’t describe our work, we have no hope of selling it. That’s why I found this breakdown of the difference between immersive, interactive, and other kinds of theater so interesting. In this article, Nelson discusses the disappointing disconnect between his experiences with immersive theater and more recent pieces he has seen advertising themselves as “immersive.” I have seen art installations merged with dance, a play that takes place on multiple floors, and interactive virtual shows. All were brilliant works that deserve their recognition as art pieces, but I strongly agree with Nelson that using buzzwords is not the way to give them that recognition. If we lump anything that isn’t actors speaking to each other on a proscenium stage into the label of “immersive,” we lose the language to describe the valuable art right in front of us.
Language is an interesting thing, when a buzz word is created and begins to take on the meaning: “popular” as well as the true meaning of the word itself, the word’s meaning begins to fade away. Everyone starts to use the word to create business and make a few more bucks than they would without it. However, buzz words are a finite resource as we are learning with the use of “Immersive” specifically in theater. The cutting edge of theater lies in the crazy immersive pieces that make waves and headlines, and every genre of theater wants in on that young and growing energy to revitalize their own little pocket of the industry. Unfortunately the word is quickly becoming diluted and misused as exemplified in the article and soon it will lose its boost making room for a new word that people will slap on marquees from LA to New York until that one dies as well.
I think that this article brought up a very great look into “immersive”. Almost every single theatre experience claims to be immersive, which just doesn’t add up. But to add to the argument of how important the audience is to an immersive experience, I think that the personal willingness of the audience member is also extremely important. To really have an immersive experience the viewer must be invested emotionally. The most eager of viewers don’t need to wait for an invitation to bring themselves into another world, especially in theatre. This audience engagement is the definition that they put forth of immersive, so I think that active art goers can make anything more immersive if they decide to engage actively with it. Still, I agree that there is far too much usage of the word immersive and that the art simply being in your space is not enough. More than presence is required to truly make something immersive.
The overuse of powerful words is something that is so sad and is a huge problem in younger generations. Younger generations are reading less and writing less so we are losing our vocabulary overtime, in and outside of school. This makes it so much harder to communicate effectively and powerfully about our work. This overuse of words pushes us further away from authentic collaboration, and communication, and it is something we have to fight in order to facilitate innovative works. We also need to recognize that words have been misconstrued by this overuse. For example, when we think of immersive we see audience interaction, but the true meaning is about engagement. I like the idea of immersive meaning “all around you” being literally surrounded and enthralled by content. Something that isn’t just entertaining but is also gratifying and thought- provoking. The level of engagement is driven by the creative intent, but the idea, not flashy lights or loud jazzy music.
I have never thought about immersive theater so much before. I must admit that I also just thought of immersive theater as any show where the audience seating and the stage are blended and taking up the same space. Now when I think about immersive theater, I will also think of the all the criteria mentioned in the article: table stakes, the performance seeing the audience, the interactivity, the ability for the audience to play. I am just a big nerd, but I can’t help but think of Dungeons & Dragons when I think of immersive play. I don’t flatter myself into thinking all my players are fully immersed in the narratives I am weaving and that we are all seeing the same story played out in our minds. However, there are definitely table stakes, and the performance definitely sees the audience, if you can call the players an audience. Additionally, there are consequences for their actions, and I have seen some strong reactions from players so I would call that immersed. Hopefully this can lead to a shift in reference when I think of immersive theater and what the production is actually trying to do.
My mother works in a museum, and a similar word she often sees thrown around with no backing is "interactive". Museum exhibits are "interactive" because you can Touch A Thing, And Oh Look, This Helps You Learn Or Something, Right? Very similar for "immersive" theater. Oftentimes it's just a buzzword without any weight behind it. Truly interactive museum exhibits or immersive theatre pieces are rare, because they're hard to pull off. The nature of most art is separate from the viewer, and stripping away those barriers takes a lot of work to pull off. And the thing about that barrier is that it's not always a bad thing. If we constantly try to chase immersivity and interactivity just because it's the hottest thing, will we be making good theatre? Does a Chekhov play need to be immersive to be good? I think that's a really important question to ask as we make theatre. What would serve the work best? And then pursue our goals from there.
Often people use the word immersive, for shock value. It can be used as a marketing ploy. Immersive theatre is a trend right now. It has been for a while. Look at things from “Sleep No More” which has been. Popular and featured high priced tickets for you to the less complex “Instagram Museums” that seem to be popping up everywhere. Theatres can seem fresher and more with the times by tagging simple cabarets and shows places in a black box as immersive. Theatres can draw in audiences, especially in smaller towns, with a promise of getting to be a part of the buzz in immersive theatre. Honestly, this article makes a fantastic point on using clear language and understanding terms. Immersive can mean different things for galleries, theatres, or museums. However, I don’t believe most theatre markup interactive or works that break the fourth wall by immersive on accident. It seems very intentional.
Post a Comment