Spectatorship as *action*: being active as opposed to being passive
Spectatorship as an *institution*: belonging to a community with certain conventions and practices
Spectatorship as *perception*: using senses, the body, media to make sense of the world ------------------------------------ My working thoughts on spectatorship:
Spectatorship is work. It does not just happen by itself. It must be learnt and practiced.
Spectatorship is a mode of interaction which makes things worth seeing, making them visible.
Before we talk of taking action (politically speaking), we must learn to choose to become spectators.
I really enjoyed your lecture on spectatorship and I found myself thinking of one or two things which I'd like your opinion on in terms of relevence.
Within a performative frame the spectator can become aware of the his/her act of spectating. It's this awareness that I want to focus on and link with Sartre and his thoughts on 'pre-reflective consciousness' and the idea of thinking about thinking. And thinking about thinking about thinking and so on. Might this same idea be transposed into a performative context? Take your citation of Kierkegaard's ram. Within the performative frame the possibilities of directing thought towards the act of spectatorship itself is greatly heightened. We can observe the ram. The ram can observe us. But we can also observe the act of observing the ram.
Could we here bring in reception theory. In observing our act of observation might we come to find something out about ourselves? What we bring to a performance (in terms of history, politics, sociology etc)... Can it not become part and parcel of the act of spectatorship itself?
Your comments are relevant to current discussions on theatricality.
Spectatorship is often understood in terms of reception, but I was trying to focus on its active, productive elements. Brecht spoke of learning the art of being a spectator (die Kunst des Zuschauens), implying training in certain skills and attitudes, and your link to meta-thinking (thinking about thinking) is part of this training. I personally feel that in a performative context spectatorship is interesting when this meta-level is achieved without the performance becoming too self-referential, self-centred or an act of navel-gazing. So how to achieve empathy with the other and at the same time stay reflexive?
In terms of reading, I recommend Kati Roettgers article (on the Warwick assigned reading list),
Baz Kershaw's latest book on Theatre and Ecology, especially the chapter on Audience.
Tracy Davis: Theatricality. London 2003
The special issue on theatricality in the Journal SubStance, edited by Josette Feral 31.2&3 2002.
3 comments:
Spectatorship as *action*: being active as opposed to being passive
Spectatorship as an *institution*: belonging to a community with certain conventions and practices
Spectatorship as *perception*: using senses, the body, media to make sense of the world
------------------------------------
My working thoughts on spectatorship:
Spectatorship is work. It does not just happen by itself. It must be learnt and practiced.
Spectatorship is a mode of interaction which makes things worth seeing, making them visible.
Before we talk of taking action (politically speaking), we must learn to choose to become spectators.
Hi Sruti,
I really enjoyed your lecture on spectatorship and I found myself thinking of one or two things which I'd like your opinion on in terms of relevence.
Within a performative frame the spectator can become aware of the his/her act of spectating. It's this awareness that I want to focus on and link with Sartre and his thoughts on 'pre-reflective consciousness' and the idea of thinking about thinking. And thinking about thinking about thinking and so on. Might this same idea be transposed into a performative context? Take your citation of Kierkegaard's ram. Within the performative frame the possibilities of directing thought towards the act of spectatorship itself is greatly heightened. We can observe the ram. The ram can observe us. But we can also observe the act of observing the ram.
Could we here bring in reception theory. In observing our act of observation might we come to find something out about ourselves? What we bring to a performance (in terms of history, politics, sociology etc)... Can it not become part and parcel of the act of spectatorship itself?
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Your comments are relevant to current discussions on theatricality.
Spectatorship is often understood in terms of reception, but I was trying to focus on its active, productive elements. Brecht spoke of learning the art of being a spectator (die Kunst des Zuschauens), implying training in certain skills and attitudes, and your link to meta-thinking (thinking about thinking) is part of this training. I personally feel that in a performative context spectatorship is interesting when this meta-level is achieved without the performance becoming too self-referential, self-centred or an act of navel-gazing. So how to achieve empathy with the other and at the same time stay reflexive?
In terms of reading, I recommend Kati Roettgers article (on the Warwick assigned reading list),
Baz Kershaw's latest book on Theatre and Ecology, especially the chapter on Audience.
Tracy Davis: Theatricality. London 2003
The special issue on theatricality in the Journal SubStance, edited by Josette Feral 31.2&3 2002.
Hope this makes some sense.
Post a Comment