As arts organizations around the world retool their experiences to foster engagement, connection, participation, and audience interaction, the parody newspaper The Onion reminds us that these may not be universally welcomed innovations. The mock report describes the horror of theater attendees as performers break traditional boundaries, leave the stage, and attempt to connect with them directly:
While it remains unclear how long this horrifying breach of the fourth
wall will last, or why the actors worked so hard to create a fictional
distance between themselves and the audience if they had no intention
of maintaining it, past productions suggest there are still five
minutes left in the current number. Some predict the cast will return
to the stage before the song’s conclusion, but others fear they may
stay in the aisles, making unnerving eye contact and blocking all
available exits.
Says an audience member in response: “Why–why don’t they just leave us alone?”
Funny (and biting) stuff. Worth a read.
During a Ralph’s World (www.ralphsworld.com) concert my seven-year-old son and I attended recently, the audience was invited to get up on stage for the final act. My child gleefully rushed the stage with most of the other children in the audience and about half the adults. I sat in my seat wondering: what was keeping me frozen in place? It wasn’t stage fright. I grew up attending performances and was taught the skills of passive audienceship: listening appreciatively, clapping when appropriate, maintaining good posture (obviously slumping, snoring, and unwrapping candy were big no-no’s). My son will grow up knowing that the invisible barriers can drop, from time to time, and that these are moments of joy to embrace. Next time I’m right there with him.
That’s nice Sarah. But this post is for those of us who don’t want to be on stage. Nor do we want to see others of our ilk cavort. We came to see the professionals. Thank you. Regina Hackett
I’ve always found ‘audience participation’ to be the most terrifying two words in the English language. I hate it. I haven’t been to a circus since a French-Canadian clown tried to engage me by pretending to sneeze (or something, the horrors have blacked out my memory).
As an artist, administrator and active arts participator I had a difficult time relating to Onion’s fictional audience goers. But it reminded me of an uncomfortable instance attending a new Church. Growing up, religious practice was a staid affair requiring, as Sarah put it, passive audienceship. I was totally unprepared when a new priest invited people to put up their hands and talk about their personal experiences. I remember slumping down in my pew trying not to make eye contact. Then he told us to turn to our neighbour and tell them about a very powerful personal religious experience. I looked at the complete stranger beside me and mumbled an apology as I walked out. For new entrants and passive participators, imposing active participation on them because we, as administrators or funders think it is good for them, is going to cause some of them to find the nearest exit. What the onion says is funny because there is an element of truth to it.
The Museum 2.0 blog had a good post on a similar idea, but in a museum context:
Self-Expression is Overrated
I think that audience participation works when it is easy and uncomplicated. IRUBNY Community Arts Initiative is one of those audience pleasers. I have successful events in many museums in New York and will have several more this summer at the MAD. The purpose of audience participation is not to discredit the professional status of artist in the museum. But to encourage the under served population to come and take part in museums.
“In our modern world the artist is tempted to do stunts in order to attract attention. But the true task of an artist is to discover her or his relationship to the community, a community often in desperate need of the artist’s power to see the world anew. “
Historian Page Smith, from the forward to Art in Other Places: At Work in America’s Community and Social Institutions.
For performers, there is a fine line between feeding off of/using an audience’s energy and playing directly to them. An active, interested audience who “gets” what you’re trying to present is fantastic, but it’s easy to fall into the trap of playing to the audience and over doing it. Concerts or plays with audience participation can be scary or challenging of the audience isn’t into it, but I think in some cases, it is appropriate and fun.
I agree that the idea of audience participation is somewhat frightening, but theatre should also have a chance to evolve. I went to a show that I would have never otherwise seen had a blood relative not been in it, called “The Toy Chest.” It was pretty awful, but there was audience participation, and it pretty much saved the show for me. There were 5 or 6 “toys,” aka: people dressed as toys, my sister was the cho-cho train; each toy/person would do a little song or dance, and then tell a riddle. I was called up to participate in this mimicry/mirror thing and it was very intimidating. But when the audience worked together to figure out the riddles it was quite enjoyable.
My sister is constantly involving herself in modern and unconventional theatre shows, she keeps mentioning a need for a sort-of revolution within theatre. She believes it to be happening soon, but for traditional theatre goers this audience participation thing is going to freak them out! It may deter some people from going to a certain show, but it may also encourage others who wouldn’t usually go to the theatre.
At the same time our lives are becoming more participatory. With the development of web 2.0, which includes things like blogs; we, the average people, are now able to put in our two cents. Maybe thats the direction theatre revolutionaries are trying to go.
There are music directors who don’t even like Sing-Along Messiah’s, but even those performances are carefully planned in order to work, and often professional choirs are strategically placed in the audience. It’s sad that even in this post so many keep forgetting that the point of an art production is to get as close as possible to its meaning as a whole work. This is HARD WORK and it takes time, courage, skill and money -whether amateur or pro. If a writer, composer wanted to create an art work whose form is more loose and involved audience participation- they’re just creating another kind of art form, which, of course, would not be true to itself were it presented formally-without audience participation.
Although this contact between the performers and audiences may be a bit awkward and uncomfortable for some, it adds interest and an element of surprise. I personally would not be jumping up and down at a chance to interact with the performers but nonetheless, it would not bother me in the least. I think that if people are that uncomfortable with experiencing something that is a little out of their comfort zone, they need to get a grip on reality. Life is all about experiencing different things and stepping out of your box every once in a while.
This makes me laugh a little inside. It is true, actors have been breaking that 4th wall more and more often as time goes on. But my response to this is simple: If you are uncomfortable with plays where actors break the 4th wall, then don’t go see plays where they do so.
There are still plenty of companies out there that hold to the 4th wall rule, and for those who like to keep that boundary between themselves and the actors, they have the option to go see those plays. The truth is, more and more people are looking for different and innovative theatre. To appeal to the greater audience, breaking that 4th wall may be the best plan.
Using Ian’s experience, I do not believe that the actors are looking for participation from the audience, just reactions, something to feed off of to make the play more lively and rememberable, unlike in a circus, where they are looking for you to be involved.
Clowns are pretty creepy, I don’t blame you, but I wouldn’t let that hinder your opinion on breaking the 4th wall. There’s a difference between breaking that 4th wall, and pulling audience members into the show.
I’m all for breaking the fourth wall, under many circumstances this can be an appropriate choice, my problem comes when audience members are dragged through the fourth wall. If I’m not on stage as an actor, I take my role as an audience member very seriously and try to give my complete attention to the show at hand. I do not want to be dragged into the isles to dance, I do not want to be physically involved in whatever is going on onstage, I came to watch and be mentally and emotionally engaged in a performance, I did not come to perform.
I think that breaching the fourth wall boundary can potentially open up whole new areas in attending the theatre. However there is something that people need to realize: breaking the fourth wall is a choice, but it is not always the actors choice, sometimes it is written in by the playwrite. So what’s a poor actor to do? Not only that, but many actors are jsut as uncomfortable with it as some of the audience members. They don’t know how to react to you. You aren’t in the ‘world’ for them and they don’t know you. A lot about acting has to do with trust and allowing yourself to be truthful. That can get really hard when you’re making eye contact with the uncomfortable guy in the second row.
I like it. As one who prefers non participatory performances I like to be a passive audience member most of the time. At times its ok and when I’m expecting it, but most of the time i would just rather appreciate the art for what it is and remain uninvolved. I think most audiences would agree. There is a time and place for participation, but be careful about going overboard. There is a line that can be crossed and most Americans enjoy their small bubble they live in.