Something that particularly struck me in Carlson’s
introduction is the idea that “a consciousness of ‘performance’ can move from
the stage, from ritual, or from other special and clearly defined cultural
situations, into everyday life. Everyone at some point or another is conscious
of ‘playing a role’ socially” (4). This leads to the thought that the
difference between “doing” and “performing” is simply attitude, a consciousness
of action. But is simply being aware in everyday life that you are “playing a
role” in order to achieve something specific (to be accepted, to take charge,
to receive help from someone, etc) enough to be considered a performance? Or is
it also necessary to have a conscious audience to consider something a
performance? This whole concept is fascinating to me, because I think the
relationship between psychology, sociology, and acting is so interesting and
closely woven, and this idea of Carlson’s blurs the lines even further between
performance and what is just basic human activity.
So, when we look at performance in this blurred state, when
the traditional conventions are somewhat thrown to the wind and the lens of
performance is focused more on real life than a staged environment, I am curious
about the role of the audience. In the traditional conventions, we place a
distinction between rehearsal and performance; it is the addition of an
audience that transforms a rehearsal into a performance. Does this remain true
when the concept of performance is moved into everyday life?
Reality TV is an example of an event that represents this
challenge for me. Here is a clip
from Real Housewives of New Jersey:
These are people who are completely conscious of the fact
that their lives are being filmed whether or not they are completely conscious
of all their actions. Does taking real life, filming it, framing it and editing
it in a particular way, and then broadcasting it on TV make it a performance?
It has an audience; it shows people seemingly conscious of “playing a role” in
society. In that sense, according to one of Carlson’s theories, it could be
considered a performance.
What if the cameras were stripped away, and none of these
people’s lives were aired on TV, would it then cease to be a performance?
Stripping this idea down even further, can something still be a performance if
it is for only one person and that one person is the performer? For example,
singing in the shower; it is a display of skill (or lack there of, depending),
but if it is only for yourself, does it then became something other than performance?
To ponder at an answer to my own question; I think
performance is, in essence, for someone outside of yourself. Considering that
Carlson’s other theories on performance all include an audience or spectator of
some kind, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he may feel the same way. Performance is a chance to change,
shape, or focus another’s perception of something, to affect someone else. Bert
States, in his article “Great Reckonings” talks about “theater as a process of
meditation between artist and culture, speaker and listener; theater becomes a
passageway for a cargo of meanings being carried back to society” (6). To cut
out an audience is to cut out half of that process.
States also mentions in his article that theatre is like an organism,
which receives its nourishment from the world, adapts to cultural climate and
conditions, eventually exhausting itself and dying, like generations replacing
one another (13). With this in mind, it makes sense that our way of defining
performance is forever in flux; the moment that we nail it down to mean one
particular thing and cling to that definition, that is the moment that Peter Brook
might suggest that theatre moves from being deadly to plain old dead.
