Literary Review: Philip Auslander’s Liveness: Performance in
a Mediatized Culture
 |
| Philip Auslander | Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture |
Auslander, Philip, Liveness:
Performance in a Mediatized Culture (New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2008)
Auslander’s text explores the role of liveness in contemporary
culture by addressing the arguably unsettled perceptions and definitions
attached to the term. He initially asserts that by incorporating mediatization
into ‘live’ performances (such as the addition of projections) can often render
such reactions as shock and may even appall some audience members[1] this
suggests that the spectators’ perceptions of a performance are rooted in an
historical construction of performative ideals. His research is undertaken from
a phenomenological perspective, which explores the changing and redefining the
concept of liveness. This concept has changed over time in relation to technological
conditions; suggesting that what determines liveness is unsettled and is subject
to change over time (and will continue to do so). The characteristics
associated with the term aren’t necessarily concrete. Auslander additionally
claims that live performance only exists from the advent of it’s other:
mediatization. This would then indicate that the cultivation of liveness
occurred by default- to impose on it’s other. The idea that performance should
be settled and fail to be considered as ‘valid’ or authentic when interacting
with forms of mediatization seems problematic (especially considering the
nature of simulcasts). The use of microphones and projections are, after all
considered to be part of the seams of live performance; their presence is
justified and has been employed into the performative narrative of theatre and opera
performances. The inclusion of these forms of media are not acknowledged to be
a hindrance to live performance, therefore capturing a contradictory set of
rules. Auslander’s interdisciplinary approach incorporates media studies, media
theory and performance studies, amongst others. His research also consults theorists
such as Baudrillard and Walter Benjamin, applying their theories of
mediatization to his research in the efforts of dissecting and exploring the
characterization and means of preservation of live performance by liveness-enthusiasts.
Amongst the most important stances Auslander takes is his exploration of the
role of television and cinema with theatre studies. He investigates how each
medium arguably feeds off the other for performative characteristics, whilst
also considering and connecting these theories with western contemporary social
and cultural contexts. We are presented with the argument that television has
become embedded into our cultural environment and is no longer to be seen as a
novelty medium; it has transcended its primary role to ‘become’ society’s
cultural context[2]. Therefore,
contributing in portraying the idealized representations of mass identity and
consciousness. If a performance is only real when it is live, then what are we
experiencing and how is one’s attitude to mediatization and hybrid art forms to
be explored? Furthermore, he questions the historical interpretations and
cultivations of liveness and mediatization, while acknowledging the imposed competition
set between both modes; whilst also exploring: the audience, performer’s and
western society’s attitude towards these performative modals from an
ontological perspective- in particular focusing on an authenticity complex and
the role that ‘aura’ plays when idealizing certain modes of performance.
A substantial portion of the text is devoted
to exploring the problematic categorization of liveness and mediatization. Auslander
notes that: ‘It is absolutely clear that our current cultural formation is
saturated with, and dominated by, mass media representations’[3]:
how this effects reception and audience participation is certainly a key issue
to explore alongside acknowledging the importance and obvious dominance of
mediatization in western contemporary cultural structures. Those attempting to
justify the superiority of live performance initially raise issues of aura and of
the energy that is supposedly created between the performers and spectators at
a given performance[4].
Furthermore, Auslander suggests that the contemporary definition of liveness
seems to indicate that audience members and performers should be both
temporally and spatially co-present and also suggests that mediatization (its
binary) fails to offer the same conditions- this is mediatization’s fundamental
difference. The mediation of performance through recording, pre-recording and
live recording offer different experiences and many times the advertisements
and buzz words used to entice spectators may take characteristics from the
other mediums to justify their contribution or to connect to a greater
audience. Simulcasts or Livecasts may be considered here. Is there really a
sense of co-presence and community between performers and spectators and
furthermore, is the actual performance shaped by the (physical) presence of the
audience? Auslander challenges traditional thinking of both forms of mediation
by critiquing the terminology that has become standardized and applied to these
mediums. Therefore implying that by deconstructing the terms applied this
exposes the theory that one is defined by the other’s absence. The characterization
of mediatization in western culture is predominantly based on televisual
studies and it could be said that as it is such an accessible medium it can be
considered the default mode of cultural reference and thus the most ‘authentic’
form of the representation of reality. Auslander analyses what those committed
to live performance do to propagate their medium, like stating that certain
performances aren’t available on video therefore substantiating the
polarization[5]. Taking
this example into consideration we note that the importance of the performance
being an ocular experience is sold (disregarding the importance of ‘aura’). The
experience of liveness therefore is sold as something with a best-before date
whilst also confirming its position as an exclusive and fleeting experience. The
contradiction of the rules and definitions of liveness (and it’s ‘other’…
mediatization) are also broached:
‘From ball games that incorporate
instant replay screens, to rock concerts that recreate the images of music
videos, to live stage versions of television shows and movies, to dance and
performance art’s incorporation of video, evidence of the incursion of
mediatization into the live event is available across the entire spectrum of
performance genres’[6]:
It is evident that mediums like theatre are more than
willing to incorporate some form of mediatization into their performance. Taking
opera performances for example- it is rare that we attend these events without
singers using some form of digital assistance (microphones); these additions
are ‘the norm’. Then, to state that live performances are ‘authentically’ live
is incorrect- if attention was drawn on this to live advocates would these
(live) performances be seen as contaminated by mediatization or alternatively,
are they considered tools in which to heighten the liveness of the experience? Increasingly
developing in prominence, live events are thus turning to modeling themselves on
their mediatized counterparts; the techniques and aesthetic practices are being
adapted for these performances by replacing the medial models with a more
acceptable and known infrastructure that western society is most familiar with
(televisual and cinematic practices).
Auslander’s second chapter centers on
dissecting the position of live performance in contemporary society, particularly
looking at popular culture and televisual studies. He argues against the:
‘Intrinsic
opposition and in favor of a view that both emphasizes the mutual dependence of
the live and the mediatized and challenges the traditional assumption that the
live precedes the mediatized’[7]:
thus proposing
that each medium has somehow been influenced by the other and the merging of
certain practices has (possibly) been unconsciously applied to the other and therefore,
achieving a state of convergence; this may be applied to theatre, film and
televisual mediums for example narrative structures and visual devices that
have developed on stage. We could also say that cinema in turn has had an
impact on the approach to stage productions (like seamless transitions from
editing). Stylistic preferences have become ingrained in western society’s
consciousness from the mass exposure to each medium. Each art form has influenced
the other, and this is particularly true of simulcasts. Take The Met’s live in
HD series; this phenomenon could be seen as complicating the live experience
further. After all you’re experiencing a ‘live’ event with cinematic,
televisual and obviously theatrical aspects, conditions and conventions. The
layering of audience perspectives and the cultivation of temporal and spatial
environments reassert the notion that we are experiencing a live event from
both a certain ontological and ideological stance. The audience’s chosen medial
identity affects interpretations of liveness and what it means in terms of
presence (taking into consideration the different temporal and spatial
settings). As these events are co-experienced and ‘live’ then disputing the
realness in the performance seems somewhat redundant- the mediatized spectator
experiences the liveness of the event; additionally they have their own
conditions of liveness. At the recent Met simulcast of The Nose, the presenters
communicated the importance of the in-house audience’s setting (the cameras
also work to show the social diversity in age, sex and race). Both audiences
are conscious of their position to their counterparts (virtual and live) yet,
the numbers attending these simulcasts far out weigh those in the opera house.
Thus posing the question as to whether these supposedly live (with microphones,
cameras and surtitles boxes) aptly subscribe to the boundaries of their imposed
live identity (and the cultural construction of said identity) or whether they
are being used as a platform for the mediatized to experience? Auslander
proposes that:
Television’s
intimacy was seen as a function of its immediacy- the close proximity of viewer
to event that it enables… events from outside… to be transmitted into the viewer’s
home’[8].
It is
apparent that the global experience (from a promotional and economic sense) is
dependent on the interaction and collaboration of both mediums for a hybrid
experience of liveness. Historically, a live performance was considered to
involve the co-presence of performer and spectator both temporally and physically;
however it is now used to define absence. As television is ‘the cultural
context’ then the liveness of a television program pinpoints the shift to a
temporal epicenter[9]
the same can be applied to simulcasts, right? This shift of focus has lead to
some ambiguity as to what exactly may be considered live. How audience members
perceive liveness and how this in turn encourages or discourages them attending
certain performances is the imperative question. This development leads to certain
mediums attempting to simulate or promote feelings of inclusivity and
exclusivity when attending mediatized performances. For The Met’s simulcasts,
the presenters encourage attending the production in person (for the aura/
sense of atmosphere) yet the virtual audience gain (in a sense) exclusive
access to the whole production- far exceeding the boundaries of the mise-en-scene which the live audience
(although temporally and spatially present) are denied access. The
selling of liveness pinpoints issues of participation, accessibility and
environmental and social conditioning. For simulcasts, the audience is temporally
co-presence but not spatially. Live-recorded productions are neither spatially
nor temporally co-present, yet the techniques used to entice audience members
center on it’s immediacy and almost inclusivity. This action indicates a shift
of attitude towards the concept of liveness and identifies the elusiveness
attributed to the current conceptualization of liveness. It is worth
considering what are the foundations and infrastructure that facilitate in
conveying the ideals (of reception) of a given performance. Auslander notes the sub-genre’s of liveness
by compiling a table documenting the proposed categories of liveness, their
characteristics and the art forms to which they can be attached to[10];
proposing that liveness can be broken down to: classic liveness, live
broadcast, live recording, Internet liveness, and social liveness. The former
is mainly what I’ve been focusing on thus far: the physical co-presence of
performers and audience members in temporal simultaneity of production and
reception[11],
he attributes this form if liveness specifically with theatre, concerts, dance
and sports.
By encouraging the consideration of Internet
liveness, he suggests that the imposed importance of audience-performer
interaction (or co-presence) is not as important as it may be propagated. There
is certainly a sense of connection with other users and if social liveness is
also to be considered then the situation is made slightly more complex. Certain
opera houses like the Royal Opera House present and maintain a strong presence
on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook (especially the former). Their
constant interaction with fellow users demonstrates their position as a
platform for a global cultural experience (their engagement with simulcast
productions and additionally accommodating spectators with pre-performance
talks and experiments validates this position). Whether or not people prefer to
attend live performances (spatial and temporal co-presence) over mediatized
(simulcast) may be difficult to discern, and may be down to the value that an
individual places on attending a live event[12]
like cost, access, convenience and whether they’re going to see a certain
performer or whether, ahem… they’re going as part of educational commitments.
What motivates an individual to attend one form of performance over the other
is perhaps too subjective to pinpoint, regardless of the amount of empirical
studies conducted. Of course a given performance can incorporate both live and
mediatized elements like pre-recorded commentary to contextualize the
performance; cast interviews and deconstructions of the work’s narrative from
collaborators can all feature in televisual, cinematic, theatrical works and
arguably to the greatest extent the hybrid form of all of these: simulcast
operas.
Harking on Walter Benjamin’s
theories, Auslander seeks to illustrate that meaning in performance is conveyed
through mediation[13]:
like in cinema and television the most successful tools to do so is via
technology: camera movement and techniques: framing, angles, zoom- all
contribute to create meaning (this is equally true of staged performances and
in simulcasts like the NT:Live). Auslander’s interpretation of the positive
qualities associated with simulcast productions are listed as thus:
spontaneity, community, feedback and presence[14]:
all of which can aptly be re-positioned to analyze simulcast productions. Feedback
can be enabled by social media- where often, communication on Twitter can be
quite prominent and effective. A sense of presence and community is also
re-created, with additional perspectives to be considered and glitches are just
as likely to occur during these productions as well as their ‘live’ counterparts.
Issues like social prestige and symbolic
capitol could also be important to consider, thus the value of physically
attending performances can be considered from attendance factors[15].
On the issue of presence from the live vs. mediatized perspective, Auslander
poses the question of how valid co-presence exactly is? Audience members that
attend a live performance are behaviorally restricted and may feel compelled to
behave in a certain manner and mimic fellow audience member’s behavior (booing,
cheering, etc.) yet virtual audiences are free to behave in whatever manner
they choose (of course certain cinema behaviors are adapted and merged with
conventions of both)- ‘disruptive’ behavior in the theatre is not akin to that
in the cinema theatre (like eating popcorn, moving seats mid-performance, going
to the bathroom when intermission is an hour away) simulcasts are encouraging
shifting the paradigm of the landscape of behavior. Operating on the premise
that authenticity and otherness are at strife- the audience member decides
whether the performance is accurately explored both aesthetically.
Auslander’s exploration of digital media and performance cultivates the justification
of media’s presence in performance studies and reception studies from contemporary
mediums, thus stressing that: ‘the live event itself is shaped to the demands
of mediatization’[16].
Both concepts are interconnected; therefore the definition of one is only aptly
understood with its other used as a point of reference. Ideologically speaking
liveness and mediatization have been polarized and categorized as ‘others’. He
addresses the historicity of the concept of liveness and traces the use of the
term from its first noted documentation, when the definition was used in
contrast to the incorporation of technology in (or relating to) performance. Meaning
that the term liveness developed in opposition of the advance of mediating
technology. Many of the counter arguments and apposing theorists that Auslander
involves in forming and motivating his theories (like Peggy Phelan) seem to
wish to preserve the dichotomy between the live and recorded. However many
mediums are making a claim on experiencing events as live and certainly do
their best to re-create and re-adapt the conditions, consequently forming the
reconfiguration of the concept of the live. It is very much up to the audience
to accept this claim to substantiate an event as live, this conscious effort
then concretizes complete presence of an active audience. Surely if the primacy
of the live is being propagated to western cultural consumers then the seduction
strategy placed on audience members (inclusivity, communality, involvement and
social co-presence) can be applied to mediatized events like simulcasts.
Auslander’s research opens up the question as to how simulcasts ought be received,
where do they stand? They seem to occupy this peculiar live/ mediatized
intersection by accepting defining elements of both mediums. This hybrid
relationship may confirm his theory that the live is unsettled and subject to
reconfiguration. His text further prompts investigation of the presentation of contemporaneous
performative experiences, like how is the value of presence being established
and accepted… is complete presence achieved? The reconfiguration of the means
of receiving, accepting and consuming cultural events needs to be
re-contextualized to suit a culture dominated by mass media.
[1] Philip Auslander, Liveness:
Performance in a Mediatized Culture (New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd,
2008), xii.
No comments:
Post a Comment