The goal is to understand how an audience will respond to a performance that is prioritizing
the urgency (subject/content) over the aesthetics / expectations (form, taste).
What if the performance does not live up to the aesthetic expectations of an audience and
therefor the urgency of the performance goes unnoticed?
What is the impact of disappointment during or after a performance?
Is there a way to bypass, to undo expectations?
— "But why would you not want a show that fits human capacities, interests and expectations?" (Vincent Focquet, 2019, p.41)
A few answers to that question:
First I would like to use the word performance in stead of show. To me the difference
between those two words is key in communicating about an creation.
"A performance is an interaction, it is a ‘thoughtful’ articulation of a particular relation
[...] between performance and spectator.” (Lievens, 2020 P.7)
To me a show is a oneway street, indicating spectacle, entertainment and showmanship (Leroux
& Batson, 2016 P,8) like in traditional circus. The performer is "executing a series of
tricks, pausing after each to encourage applause and excite the audience before continuing
with their next trick" (Ryan, 2013 P.32)
Giving the audience what they want …does that mean ‘uncomplicated performing’,easy to
digest? "Consumerism has invaded artistic creation. To produce, to consume, to throw away.."
(Anna Tauber, Lievens 2020. p.85)
I believe an audience can take far more then assumed. "The audience is also curious. [..]
and they like to have a job to do." (Burrows, 2010 p.48,p.58)
Hearing many colleagues say they create (contemporary) circus performances for an audience to
forget about their daily lives for a moment, I completely understand what they're saying and
there's nothing wrong with it. I jsut can't help but think we are to nice to an audience.
What if I want them to think about their daily life, by means of making a performance
starting from the subject, in stead of the discipline?
With that I don't mean that tricks are abandoned from my creations, they are still an
important part in my practice. Tricks can become a part of the creation as long as they are a
means to an end. "When we expose and critique the blockages we experience in circus, we are
discussing the limitation of agency through the imposition of a norm." (Lievens, 2020, p.14)
If the trick is there just for the sake of it being an aerial performance, I’m not
interested.
Lastly, and more importantly, I believe expectations are clouding the audience’s
capacity and interest to be open to wonderment.
The main question arising from my struggles:
is it possible to neutralize expectations, concerning aerial performance?
... when I say circus
... when I say aerial circus
... when I say aerial acrobatics
... when I say aerial performance
... when I say dance
... when I say dance in the air
... when I say aerial dance
... when I say performance in the air
... when I say performance on the floor and in the air
What was that subqueation again?
Can performances that prioritize artistic content and meaning
over expected aerial stunts and tricks, find acceptance and
appreciation among the audience, performers, and creators alike?
Come with me on my journey.
First I wanted to know what, if any,
expectations an audience really has,
concerning aerial performance.
> a collective memory:
What image of an aerial performance is lodged in the mind?
The long history of classic circus versus the younger contemporary circus might have
something to do with it. I see myself as part of both the contemporary dance & circus
community, although I perform in nature and the outdoor arts, not the chapiteau
(circus tent) or theater.
A recent study by Stalpers & Stokmans (2023) questioned what image an audience has of the
classic and contemporary circus, in Netherlands. The research quotes economic psychologist
Prof. dr. Theo Poiesz (2023 p.3-4) : “Image is a set of subjective associations and
beliefs that influence behavior, but does not need to based on recent personal
experiences” According o Stalpers and Stockmans it doesn’t even need to be based in first
hand experience. Which plays into assumptions and bias. (2023, p,4) So the image or
impression a performance has left behind could also be based on emotions, how the
spectator felt that day. Bad day, good day, in love or with a worried mind.
A paragraph from that same research : “A difference between the classical and nouveau
cirque is the assumed cultural competence of the audience. With nouveau cirque a greater
art based knowledge is demanded, that makes it possible for the visitors to understand the
deeper meanings of a performance and therefor enjoy a more intense experience (Szubulska &
Ho, 2021) . Allary (2013) indicates in her study that a lack of such cultural baggage is
possibly not a hindrance to enjoy contemporary circus, unless the performances are more
abstract and experimental” (2023 p.6)
I would like to place this thought side to side with contemporary dance:
“Contemporary dance is a broad and encompassing term, which can give the creator the
freedom to experiment, while still maintaining their affiliation with a certain genre. For
the audience, however, the experimentation that an umbrella term like contemporary dance
allows can be problematic as there are no clear indications as to what the audience can
expect to receive for their money. Whilst I don’t believe that creating sub-genres to
further define an umbrella genre is the ultimate solution, I do believe that this is one
strategy that could improve the situation. As Scollen (2002, 275) has pointed out,
audiences would benefit from receiving more information prior to the purchase of tickets
and for work that sits on the borderlines of genres.” (Ryan, 2013 p.31)
This plays into my my quest lo leave me out of the box. It seems that my work might be
better off in a bigger box, or under a bigger umbrella, but with more thorough explaining
to give a better heads-up of what an audience is signing up for. Feels like drawing up a
contract, from the performance/ maker’s side for the spectator to read and agree upon.
Stalpers & Stokmans (2023) asked circus-fans (acquainted with both types of circus) if
they had any advice for the contemporary circus performances of today:
“contemporary circus should have more characteristics of the classic circus, more
comprehensible, more fancy costumes and no bare feet. Not too complicated themes, stories
not to be too far fetched and make sure there’s still enough circus in it. Make sure
there’s more acrobatic quality and a higher tempo and more of the atmosphere of the
classic circus.“And last but not least: “Listen to taste and demand of the audience so
that you don’t need to depend on funding”
This to me feels like a stranglehold contract, drawn up by an audience for the
performance/ maker to sign. It’s not only an expectation, it’s a demand.
To put it bluntly: the advice to the maker is not to create from their own vision, but
from the vision of the spectator.
“I discovered that whilst genre classification can be beneficial to the performing arts
industry, practitioners and audience members alike, it can also be damaging. When art
is interpretative, reflective or groundbreaking it often defies classification, and for
the receptive party, this can cause uneasiness if not approaching the work with an open
mind. (Ryan, 2013 p.37)
In my opinion an open mind would mean an active effort of giving up expectations,
and I strongly believe it is possible to help an audience opening up to wonderment.
Let’s do some nudging…
> theory of nudging
"A nudge is a little change to our behavior or thought
patterns that can have a disproportionately large impact on an outcome. They can often seem obvious but
as humans we become such creatures of habit that we
frequently need to be prodded, both metaphorically and
physically, into waking up to the possibilities of the
world around us." (Chesters & Mahony, 2021 p.3)
In this research the nudge is intended to encourage letting go of expectations, before the performance has started.
"A person having the responsibility for organizing the
context in which people make decisions is called a
choice architect"(Thaler & Sunstein 2021 p.14)
In this research the 'choice architect' is the maker
who designs, organizes the nudge(s) and even curates
nudges to help the audience open to what the maker
wants to share with their creation.
what did I do
I performed the creation
Wild Horse, a performance about impatience, in two different settings.
One for audience
feedback,in a theater setting, and
One for audience dialogue,in an outdoor setting.
Wild Horse is a performance that
technically consists of
one extreme slow fall and
rise, using aerial equipment.
It's a performance with no
spectacularity, designed to
trigger the dialogue of what
is expected of an
aerial performance.
Alexander Vantournhout
International Theater Amsterdam
Amsterdam (NL)
02.07.2023
duriing Festival Julidans
conclusion
Performances that have been created with the concept of content informing or
even dictating form (meaning over expected aerial stunts and tricks) can
find profound acceptance and appreciation among the audience, performers,
and creators alike. By strategically incorporating nudging principles into
the presentation of aerial performances, artists can guide the audience's
cognitive shifts, inviting them to let go of conventional expectations and
embrace a more profound sense of wonderment.
This could be before the performance starts, like with Wild Horse,Nomadics
and Breathing from the ground up or a visual element of surprise like
Foreshadow or La Spire. It is however important that the ‘contract’ -
information on what an audience will be signing up for - is not to vague or
to far fetched. The more intricate the content of performance is, the more
clear the information needs to be in order for an audience to be open
towards the ourcome of creation.
Nudges during a performance can be unexpected narrative arcs, emotional
resonance and imaginative storytelling that pave the way for a richer, more
transformative audience experience. Both artists and audiences can discover
the profound connection between artistic expression and the genuine
appreciation of aerial performances, transcending mere stunts and tricks to
unlock the true essence of the art form.
My conclusion from Wild Horse during the feedback-session is that my
‘contract’ was not clear enough. Even though to me it was an aerial
performance, to some spectators it was too conceptual and needed a clearer
explanation beforehand. I purposefully did not share where this performance
was ideally performed which, in retrospect, might have given more clarity on
both concept and form choices.
The dialogue session had a very clear contract and was held at the intended
location, with all nudges in place. The session was a positive audience
experience, like the ones I had myself when visiting a performance that
communicated clearly and performed in the ideal setting.