consciousness of doubleness

Even though Carlson doesn’t articulate an absolute, all-encompassing definition of “performance” in his Introduction, he explains a few concepts that try to define what performance is…literally reinforcing the notion that performance is an “essentially contested concept”.  I found myself understanding each argument that Carlson explains. But I also found myself playing the devil’s advocate…thinking of situations where it could be considered a performance to one and not the other.  I found myself wondering if this is the heart of the issue--of it being a contested concept.  Does performance depend on the actions of the performer or audience, or is there a balance between the two? Carlson explains Bauman’s “highly suggestive attempt” of “consciousness of doubleness” in which all performance constitutes a carrying out of an action—whether “placed with a mental comparison with a potential, and ideal, or a remembered original model of that action…” (Carlson 5).   However, Carlson points out that what is key to what Bauman refers to in this double consciousness is not the external observation from the audience, but implies the internal observation of the performer.  Does this mean that the performer is the only one that decides if he or she is performing? Is there a double consciousness in an audience or spectator as well? Carlson gives an example of the athlete, having a mental standard of his own performance, where it is then argued that all performance is a performance for someone—whether for an audience or the self.

The question of whether a performance depends on the performer or the audience reminded me about Peter Brook’s chapter of “The Deadly Theatre” (from his book The Empty Space).  He comments on different circumstances and participants in the theatre, such as the actor, director, playwright, critic, and even audience, which can transform the art form into a “deadly theatre” (bad theatre).  This may be stretching the argument, but Brook writes about the relationship struggle between the performers on the stage and the audience. The Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of King Lear affected the Europe audiences much differently than the American audiences.  Both audiences brought different attitudes and life experiences to the production.  Europe’s concentration and excitement affected the actors on stage whereby they were moved and inspired.  The audience in America had an opposite reaction whereby much of the actors’ new found discoveries were thrown away (24-25).  Moreover, Mr. Brook’s “experiment” at his lecture further illustrates this dynamic.  He asked for volunteers to read an excerpt from Peter Weiss’s play, The Investigation, and Shakespeare’s Henry V.  Both readings had a different effect on the audience and volunteer.  Mr. Brook then engaged the audience to individually fill in their impressions of Auschwitz with Agincourt as the reader read the Shakespeare excerpt again.  The audience’s concentration began to guide the volunteer, just like in the previous reading from The Investigation (26-28). Both parties in each case knew there was a performance taking place, but they didn’t necessarily realize how important the relationship between them affected the experience of it.  The definition of a “good” performance, to the actors and audience, required both to participate in the experience. 

Even though Carlson’s article deals with defining performance outside of the traditional theatre, I can’t help but assert that the audience is an integral member of defining the experience and definition of a performance.  If we are searching for a definition of performance as an art form, we must realize there wouldn’t be an art form without an audience…an audience of spectators or of self.  A recognition from both is required to make it a performance; a “consciousness of doubleness” is inherent with both sides.