Audience
council after Performance Trip-tih presented in the frame of Ventilator cycle –
notes
Performance finished at 20.55. We went out to catch
some air and clear our minds. After a few cigarettes we grabbed something to
drink and started Zbor. The beginning of discussion was dominated by the
question posed by Katarina: if we would define Ventilator not as an improvised
performance but just a performance (perhaps a piece which is set and built
around a clear context), would it change the way we watch it? Great but tricky
question! The answer was delivered relatively fast: we watch improvised
performances differently, and the main difference is lack of expectations from
the side of a viewer. Honestly at that moment I wasn't sure what this could
mean exactly, but I try to summarize a few similar opinions shared by viewers.
Basically, when somebody goes to see improvisation one is supposed to be free
from any specific wishes, expectations, demands. It seems that in case of an
improvised event we should not find ourselves in the position of judging
decisions made by authors as it takes place in case of fixed performances. A
field of perception is crystal clean. There are no strictly defined statements
on the stage, so there should be no solid statements made by the audience
members. Interesting, I thought to myself. I started to feel a bit nervous and
curious. Is it really possible to free personal reception from any filters,
assumptions or certain emotional or intellectual needs? Few more viewers
confirmed that they came to see the show without any expectations. Katarina
expressed categorical disbelief that people can come to the theatre or gallery
completely clean from any preceding ideas of what they would hope, wish or fear
to see. I silently agreed with her. The atmosphere became quite hot. There was
profound disagreement between parts of the audience. Some of them expressed a
need for a clearer idea or context which could help them to direct attention
and understand emerging feelings. But that was a minority. Other viewers
appreciated that they could project their own thoughts and develop personal
identification with certain actions taken by performers. They simply enjoyed
observing performers dealing with spatial, emotional or physical relations.
Meanwhile others pointed out that we could not be sure what exactly we were
watching: maybe dynamics between bodies, sound and space, or a story about man
and a woman swaying in ups and downs of relationships, or a very good concert
seasoned with sometimes poetic and virtuosic, sometimes neutral activity of
dancers. Should we ignore gender differences? Why on earth would somebody be
annoyed seeing a woman with a broom on the stage? Should the artistic opus of
the performers be taken into account? Or is it just another attempt to let the
audience sneak inside processes and modes of performing, to become part of open
rehearsal with all uncertainties and frustrations that follows? The
questions about the content of the performance remained suspended in the air. What
else we could feel in the air was an intense and quite emotional gap between
those who asked in disbelief : No expectations? Really? And those who answered
with great certainty: Yes! No expectations. Really. Why is it so hard to
believe in this?
Following the course of talk I stumbled on a thought,
that improvised performance is actually always the topic for itself and despite
stories, associations and interpretations which inevitably appears in the mind,
the viewer is invited mainly to observe how performers create something on the
spot and what they do to influence stage companions. We could say that watching
is an act of observing how the moment is born. I decided to chip in and shared
a thought that perhaps openness of improvised events could be it's most powerful
strength, but at the same time also it’s biggest weakness. It seems that too
much openness can cause too much confusion, while too many structural decisions
can kill spontaneity and the potentiality for real surprise.Probably the way
improvisation is viewed largely depends on what decision the performers make
regarding the degree of freedom and to what extent they will reveal to the
audience the rules or structural decisions they have made in advance. It is
quite different if we know that we watch unprepared performers, thrown in the
situation which exposes their vulnerability (like in case of Neforma) or we
observe performers free to make free choices within strictly established
and clear principles.At some point in the discussion, someone questioned
whether this show was in fact improvised. This was a small proof that we
circled around the very undefined nature of the event. So another question
appeared. Does all what is happening on the stage always have to be defined?
One of the spectators expressed a rather radical
opinion when he claimed that nothing needs to be defined according to the show,
it is OK to look at it as it is, without any particular references...it sounds
complicated, but the conclusion is simple: we, the individual viewers, watch as
we wish, and the performers, as authors, do what they want. Those two worlds
can match or not, each option is welcome and does not undermine the essential
value of the performance. It sounds simple but it’s quite complicated.
Regardless of the fact that this approach would prevent any possibility to
discuss anything we see on the stage or to open dialog with authors, the
statement is essentially true. Spectators always take home their subjective
experiences, regardless of the opinion of others. I guess looking for consensus
at that moment would be too difficult. Some of us didn't feel a big need to
question accustomed viewing codes (or lack thereof). Some of us have remained
stubborn in our demands for greater clarity of the idea. Some for the first time
experienced bitter pleasure of expressing a critical opinion discovering that
being critical is perfectly fine. Surely we took so much time to talk about the
general issue of viewing that we missed the opportunity to speak directly just
about the piece itself.
During this Zbor I witnessed a small collapse of the
audience’s nervous system. I have noticed how the certainty of an individual
point of view is undermined by a similar certainty of the opposite point of
view expressed by another viewer. We were really surprised to hear the opinions
of others. I am convinced that the shaken “unquestionable“ certainty is an
excellent result of this debate, albeit partly unpleasant.We will see, maybe it
will force us, viewers, to watch next performances with higher attention
and observe not only the performers but also ourselves while watching. So, as a
stubborn, grumpy viewer I’ve promised myself to ventilate my overgrown
repertoire of expectations. After all, we, the public, are those greatest
improvisers whose minds twist in all directions and try to figure out what the
hell is going on before our eyes.
