ACT II
SCENE 2
Character:
Setting: Audience in room 0.18A
Synopsis: Researcher confirming its position within the artistic process.
(In room 0.18A)
RESEARCHER
It’s not its turn yet! Did you actually read the programme? You always have your head in the clouds ah? Just come, come here, it’s so irritating to even hear its voice. Get in, get in, hop hop, finally out of that hole right? At least here it’s more spacious, you know, more space for more thoughts eh eh…
I define myself as the researcher. Don’t get me wrong, I believe both Observer and Inner Critic, besides all the voices shaping my practice, to be researchers. But -I- am the Researcher.
I am a thinker, I am personal, I am political. That’s what they say.
I am intuitive, I am egocentric, I am concerned. That’s what I say.
I search and I re-search.
I search for sources; I can either create them myself or seek them somewhere else or find them from someone else.
I’ve learned that the most fitting strategy depends on the context, on the purpose and on what I want to convey. I’ve worked with them separately, I’ve worked with them on different stages and I’ve worked by combining them eventually.
I work very much alongside Observer and Inner Critic.
Once Observer has pointed out some elements of a space, I highlight them using sounds, lights, and projections; building up a new narrative around them or a different way of looking at them.
Within this step I research an additional layer to bring into the space, without actually distorting it by adding tangible material, but leaving room for a potential diverse reading and interpretation of it.
When working on this other layer, that goes beyond the personal one, I heard voices asking me: “Why do you consider the social/political aspect important to your practice?” I’m thinking about answering “Because I don’t believe there’s one singular restricted vision”. I think in this way more individuals might recognise themselves and other realities.
That said, how I deal with researching about spectatorship and dramaturgy may appear quite in contrast with this last concept.
I’ve started to link this other approach to the personal struggle of feeling of not belonging somewhere. The sensation of not owning an identity anymore often makes me feel lost, elsewhere or nowhere. In my work, the attempt to predict and guide the movement and direction of the audience is a way to try to find myself a safe path that leads me somewhere.
Throughout the research, I’ve been exploring various degrees of spectatorship which present different performative roles adopted, shifted and exchanged between the participant, the intangible material, and the maker.
Set aside what are mainly nuances, each degree identifies a key performer: the maker in the first one; the intangible material in the second one; the participant in the third one.
1. The performer guiding the audience
In the first degree of spectatorship I identify myself with the performer.
The performer guides the audience through the use of projections, which address the spectator to specific areas of the space. The projector as a guiding tool is a way to invite the spectator to take a position themselves, the ideal point of view, in order to be able to follow the storyline. The experience of each spectator can be perceived differently depending on the chosen perspective. The audience itself becomes part of the narrative and how much it is able to catch also depends on how involved it feels and is willing to be guided around the space.
2. The intangible materials directing the spectator
The intangible materials positioned in the space direct the spectator through the narrative.
Sound, light and visual are the so called “intangible materials”, whereas space is the material itself. The intangible materials add another layer to the space and they make it talk. The second degree of spectatorship is constructed upon variables. It’s a route that is very much based on prediction, of time, of movement, and even of errors at times. Making the space talk arises indeed the matter of manual and automated control of these materials.
A co-existence of first and second degree of spectatorship can be seen when materials are manually activated. When automated, the narrative is builded up by an attempt to predict the pace of the audience, its understanding and willingness to be involved in the experience. Therefore the spectator is responsible for participating and the experience is partially depending on its behaviour.
3. The spectator making its own path
In the third degree of spectatorship the participant becomes the performer.
The spectator acquires a certain level of agency so that the narrative built in the space is activated by its presence. The participant becomes aware of their presence and role as activists, making them responsible for their deeds.
The presence of the spectator triggering and provoking something in the space gives them the impression to have a certain level of control in it, or even ownership.
The instruments which investigate this specific degree of spectatorship are operating systems. Sensors are capable of detecting physical presence which is here used as a tool to shape the behaviour of the audience and the other way around.
When wondering which degree and role is the most adequate within my work, I don’t exclude or privilege any of them, because I consider each one to suit specific needs depending on the narrative and context.
Oh..what? If I still have questions? Uh, what do you think? Oh I know what comes next. I’m just a researcher, ask god if you want the answers.
(END OF SCENE)
