Among our discussions this week, we wondered if and how we behave differently when we know we're being watched. Now, on one level (as discussed last week), we're always being watched thanks to surveillance capitalism. So ubiquitous and dispersed is that watching that we often cease to notice it. That pervasive attention becomes the background noise for our living in 2020.
Bogart, Goffman, Orenstein, and Kirby all in their own way suggest that something else happens when we submit ourselves to others' live attention, when we present or perform ourselves in front of other people. Suddenly all of our actions, reactions, and inactions unfold as if there were a picture frame floating around us, highlighting our bodies and faces and words and deeds with a special significance. We alter our behavior in relation to that frame (or that matrix, as Kirby would say, if we're on stage). We present a different self, suppressing some acts and accentuating others. Unless we're Manny. Manny is the same in public, on stage, at home--constant as gravity.
Something Kirby points out, though, is that this Frame of Added Significance (where we're taken as not just being but representing) doesn't necessarily happen just when we want or as we want. If I accidentally walk onto a stage during a performance, I might be taking as part of the mise-en-scene, whether or not I'm actually aware of the matrixed frame or not. Or consider a "hot mic" moment, where I'm not meaning to broadcast my words or sounds to an audience, but they get broadcast anyway. Most of us have also had one of those moments where we hit "reply all" rather than just "reply"--creating a larger performance than we had intended.
Conversely, I can think of times where I'm performing my heart out, presenting a particularly special version of me for an audience I'm sure is there--only to find that in fact no one was watching/listening. Think of the impassioned rant you just spewed out--only to find that the call had dropped three words in. Think of how many stunning YouTube masterpieces of self-expression languish with zero views.
Or think of Nigel, a gannet (a kind of bird) that fell in love with a concrete statue of a gannet. He devoted himself to this statue--wooing it, dancing for it, singing for it, forswearing all others. And then he died, alone, having given all his heart all his life to a lover that could never respond or recognize his adoration.
What do we--what would Kirby, Orenstein, Bogart, or Goffman--say about Nigel? Can you think of other situations where the attentional feedback cycle between audience and performer and audience seems rich and amazing and full of mutual life but in fact turns out to be a completely one-sided affair, a fundamental misunderstanding. Does this matter? If so or if not, how?
John
I REALLY enjoyed reading Henry's post. I completely agree that Trump's behavior depends on his followers (either they like him or not). But I would also like to add that there is always a degree that politicians (or performers) rely on the audience/followers. If we take into account another persona equal to Trump's status, but with different political views and approach, the relationship between followers and this person can/will be different. Depending on how much this other person builds his/her strategy and how true is to himself/herself. All of them definitely depend or rely on the audiences attention/feedback, however there is always a question of "to what degree they rely on that?"
ReplyDeleteVictoria outlines some good questions about the attention feedback. It can be friendly or hostile toward the performance based on audience members sense of ethics and personal morals. That attention feedback can effect the how the performers feel about the quality of their performance. I can't say if the audience's mood actually changes the quality of the performance or not, but as she points out many actors feel that it does when they perform for a hostile or apathetic audience. But some performers claim not to feel the attention feedback of the audience. Maybe they have just closed themselves off to that feedback.
ReplyDeleteFor this week, I read Henry's blog and absolutely loved his example of Hamilton. The political cartoon was a good example too, just hard to judge response from the audience it's targeting, so the Hamilton example struck me more interesting and connected on more levels to this subject. An interesting example of a time that the Hamilton cast actually sought a response directly in their audience was when Mike Pence attended the Broadway production and the cast addressed him after the show. They tried to reach someone that supports and perpetuates discrimination against people in minorities and races often mistreated in the US. The response they received from Pence later was not the reaction they had hoped for, a resistance to their outreach to him and a negative response overall to the cast.
ReplyDelete