I think that it is something worth thinking about both in terms of my practice and research. Why is it that people increasingly want to engage with their audience on such a personal level? There seems to be a surge of practitioners trying to create 'real' intimacy where the audience is having more and more of a realised input into the actual work. Whether this is in the form of confessional pieces, or in the case of Caroline Smith's new work providing information to actually make the show.
Considering this has been interesting in terms of what I am practically trying to achieve at the moment. My work is very much situated in between the conceptual nature of the confessional, and the gathering of material that Caroline is doing (although in a different manner as I am leaving the organic nature of the encounters to dictate the show which leaves the themes much more open ended at this point).
As Lyn Gardner states though, it is an enforced intimacy, an illusion of intimacy in a lonely world. So what does this say about the practitioners making the work and the audience willing to partake in it? What does the work say about the culture we live in?
For my essay I am shifting focus a little (AGAIN! haha). I am considering the intimacy produced in organic theatre (and indeed some one on one performances). I want to try and look at the culture we live in through the lens of these performances. hmmm
I believe that the organic nature of the work and the way that the audience are incorporated into the work produces an almost cult following. You feel intimate with the practitioner, you feel as though they are letting you in on a secret. Like you know them, their inner workings, both personally and as an artist working as they are letting you in on the process. You are really part of somehthing. But how is this effect produced and why?
In terms of a live event there is often an authority attached to it. A belief that you are having an authentic experience due to the visceral and temporal nature of the exchange. However, I believe that the mechanisms used to produce this effect and to draw in an audience are the same as the ones that are at work in media and celebrity culture. The intimacy is no more real than feeling that you know Ant and Dec.
Our culture is one where knowledge about a person or 'persona' is ubiquitous. We have easy, instant access to personal lives, the career development of 'personas', and the inner workings of the films or television programmes that these 'celebrities' are working on (behind the scenes). I would like to argue that the livesness and intimacy inherent in Organic Theatre has no more authority or authenticity than that of celebrity, media culture.
A continuation of Auslander's argument where the ontological nature of liveness and mediatisation is blurred but with a focus on intimacy and authenticity.
I love that I argue with myself constantly and my own ideals! God Dam! :o)
