Dramaturgy of the Spectator

Author(s): Marco de Marinis and Paul Dwyer

Source: The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer, 1987), pp. 100-114
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1145819
Accessed: 18-01-2018 15:45 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Drama Review: TDR

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy
Dramaturgyofofthe
the
Spectator
Spectator

Marco De Marinis

An Unlikely Association

I wish to reconsider here the problem of reception in the theatre as

broadly and with as little theoretical bias as possible. On the one hand, I
will concentrate on results drawn from the work of theatre practitioners
while considering, on the other hand, the hypotheses and data coming
out of the scientific research into this and related matters. This research
has been going on in various fields-often via a multidisciplinary
approach ranging from sociology to experimental psychology, from an-
thropology to history and, of course, to semiotics (see De Marinis 1982,
chapter VII, 1983, 1984, I985).
There is an unlikely association of two terms which we are not general-
ly used to seeing as connected: dramaturgy and spectator. First, an impor-
tant distinction in terminology:

Dramaturgy-This may be defined as: the set of techniques/

theories governing the composition of the theatrical text.
Theatrical text -This is no longer meant to indicate the dra-
matic, literary text but rather the text of the theatrical per-
formance (testo spettacolare), the performance text. This is
conceived of as a complex network of different types of
signs, expressive means, or actions, coming back to the
etymology of the word "text" which implies the idea of tex-
ture, of something woven together.

"Dramaturgy" can now be defined as: the techniques/theory governing

the composition of the performance-as-text (testo spettacolare); it is: the set
of techniques/theories governing the composition of signs/expressive
means/actions which are woven together to create the texture of the per-
formance, the performance text.

Dramaturgy of the Performance/Dramaturgy of the Spectator

On the basis of this redefinition, there clearly exists a dramaturgy of

the director and a dramaturgy of the performer. However surprisingly it
may seem at first, we also can and should speak-not just metaphorical-
ly-of a dramaturgy of the spectator (see Ruffini 1985). For a start, I
would suggest that we can speak of this dramaturgy of the spectator in
two ways, both of which are already grammatically present in the double
meaning (objective and subjective) of the possessive "of":

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy of the Spectator IOI

I. We can speak of a dramaturgy of the spectator in a passive or, more

precisely, objective sense in which we conceive of the audience as a
dramaturgical object, a mark or target for the actions/operations of the
director, the performers, and, if there is one, the writer.
2. We can also speak of a dramaturgy of the spectator in an active or
subjective sense, referring to the various receptive operations/actions
that an audience carries out: perception, interpretation, aesthetic appre-
ciation, memorization, emotive and intellectual response, etc. (see De
Marinis 1983, I984). These operations/actions of the audience's mem-
bers are to be considered truly dramaturgical (not just metaphorically)
since it is only through these actions that the performance text
achieves its fullness, becoming realized in all its semantic and commu-
nicative potential.

Naturally, in order to speak of an active dramaturgy of the spectator,

we must see her/his understanding of the performance not as some me-
chanical operation which has been strictly predetermined-by the perfor-
mance and its producers-but rather as a task which the spectator carries
out in conditions of relative independence, or, as Franco Ruffini has re-
cently suggested, in conditions of "controlled creative autonomy"
(I985:35). The partial or relative autonomy of each of the different dra-
maturgies (the director's, the writer's, the performer's, the spectator's) all
work together in the composition of the performance and must be seen as
mutually setting and occasionally adjusting each other's boundaries. In
particular, as regards the spectator, to deny her/his (relative) autonomy
or, conversely, to consider it totally beyond restraints means upsetting
and threatening the balance between determination (constraint) and free-
dom; this dialectic between the constraints imposed by the work (the
"aesthetic text") and the possibilities left open to those who receive the
work strikes a balance which is the essence of the aesthetic experience and
the source of its vitality.
Only in theory can we clearly separate these two dramaturgies of the
spectator, the one passive (objective) and the other active (subjective). In
fact, they turn out to be closely linked and act directly upon each other in
that they each derive from the two fundamental and inseparable dimen-
sions (like two sides of a coin) which together constitute the performance
event and the "theatrical relationship."
One side of this "theatrical relationship"-the relation of performance
to spectator-comprises a manipulation of the. audience by the perfor-
mance. Through its actions, by putting to work a range of definite semio-
tic strategies, the performance seeks to induce in each spectator a range of
definite transformations, both intellectual (cognitive) and affective (ideas,
beliefs, emotions, fantasies, values, etc.). The performance may even
urge its audience to adopt particular forms of behavior such as in political
theatre. This manipulative aspect of the performance can be expressed in
terms of Algirdas J. Greimas' theory: the performance or, better still, the
theatrical relationship, is not so much a making-known (faire-savoir)-
that is, an aseptic exchange of information/messages/knowledge-as it is
a making-believed (faire-croire) and a making-done (faire-faire) (see Grei-
mas and Courtes 1979). There is perhaps a further explanation to be made
here: in speaking of "theatrical manipulation," I do not mean manipula-
tion in the ideological sense which the term traditionally implied before
its use in semiotics. That is to say, I do not mean to refer exclusively to
cases where the deliberate and explicit aim of the producers of a perfor-

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
I02 Marco De Marinis

mance is to persuade or seduce. I wish instead to bring to light an

tial and intrinsic aspect of the performance/spectator relationship
This particular aspect depends, in turn, on the asymmetrical and
anced nature of this relationship; for whatever efforts have been an
in the future be made, this relationship can never become one
equality (see De Marinis 1982, chapter VI, and 1981).
The other side to the theatrical relationship, contemporaneous wit
first, consists of an active cooperation by the spectator. More tha
metaphorical coproducer of the performance, the spectator is a re
autonomous "maker of meanings" for the performance; its cognit
emotive effects can only be truly actualized by the audience. Of
the spectator's "cooperation" does not refer to those rare cases wh
for an effective, material contribution from the audience, but rathe
intrinsically active nature which makes up the spectator's reception
performance.
Where both meanings of a "dramaturgy of the spectator" ove
(though in theory perhaps more towards the passive or objective
ing) is where we find the questions concerning the notion of a
Spectator; the theatrical space as a determinant factor in reception;
structuring of the audience's attention.

The Model Spectator

The pragmatics of how a text-aesthetic or other-actually fun

have been studied in various disciplines, and for several years now
been thought necessary to distinguish between two types of rece
more precisely, between two different levels of reception:

I. The extra-textual level of the real (empirical) receiver: This l

reception consists of the reading strategies which are effective
vated during the comprehension of a text.
2. The intra-textual level of the implied (the hypothetical, ideal,
receiver. This level comprises the strategies within the text, th
ner of interpretation anticipated by the text and written into it.

We must understand that this implied receiver-Umberto Eco's

el Reader," whence my "Model Spectator" (Eco I979)-represents
pothetical construct and is simply part of a theoretical metalangu
idea is not to see the receptive processes of the empirical receiver a
rigidly preset nor to indicate a normative reading that is someho
mal, relevant, or correct, and to which every real receiver should
conform.

Eco's Model Reader was proposed as something quite different:

an attempt to remind us that production and reception are strictly
even though they obviously do not altogether coincide. (Th
counter to the arguments of various poststructuralist tendencies
the "Yale School" of deconstruction which speaks of reading as m
ing.) It was also an attempt to show in what form this strict link b
production and reception may, from time to time, present itself. In
words, it meant being aware that

a text postulates its own receiver as an indispensable conditio

not only of its own, concrete communicative ability, but als
its own potential for meaning. [ . . . ] A text is a product, th

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy of the Spectator I03

terpretive fate of which belongs, in part, to its own generating

mechanism (Eco I979:52-54).

When I first suggested the notion of a Model Spectator (see De Marinis

I982), my objectives were the same as Eco's:

I. to show that production and reception of the performance, even given

their reciprocal, partial autonomy, are closely connected;
2. to show exactly in what way and to what degree a performance antici-
pates a certain type of spectator (a certain type of reception); that is, to
show precisely in what way and to what degree a performance tries to
construct/predetermine a certain type of reception, both as a part of its
internal structure and as it unfolds. Still following the lead of Eco
(I979), I previously considered these two problems in terms of a ty-
pology which ranged from "closed" to "open" performances.

Closed performances anticipate a very precise receiver and demand

well-defined types of "competence" (encyclopedic, ideological, etc.) for
their "correct" reception. This is mostly the case with certain forms of
genre-based theatre: political theatre, children's theatre, women's theatre,
gay theatre, street theatre, musicals, dance theatre, mime, and so on. In
these cases, of course, the performance only "comes off" to the extent
that the real audience corresponds to the anticipated one, thus reacting to
the performance in the desired way. If, however, a closed performance is
performed for a spectator far removed from its Model Spectator, then
things will turn out rather differently: imagine, for example, the behavior
of an adult at a children's performance; or the reaction of a straitlaced
wowser to a slightly risque variety number; or the unprogressive male
who finds himself at a feminist performance, etc.
Open performances are at the other end of the continuum. Open per-
formances make a point of addressing themselves to a receiver who is
neither too precise, nor too clearly defined in terms of their encyclopedic,
intertextual, or ideological competence. In a successfully open perfor-
mance, the perception and interpretation for which the theatre producers
call upon the spectator are not rigidly preset. Rather, aside from unavoid-
able textual constraints, the performance will leave the spectator more or
less free, though still deciding the extent to which this freedom ought to
be controlled-"where it needs to be encouraged, where directed, and
where it needs to be transformed into free interpretive speculation" (Eco
I979:58). The openness of any given performance text might even be
related to, and if possible measured by, the number of performance signs
which are based on codes not shared by the spectator (Ruffini I985:32). In
this respect, the obvious reference is to experimental theatre or "theatre of
research" in all its various forms, from the historical avant-garde and on.
A more interesting case, however, would be the example of many non-
Western theatre traditions where the normal practice is to leave plenty of
interpretive freedom to the audience, and not to impose fixed readings.
Forms such as classical Indian theatre, kathakali, Balinese dance-theatre,
kabuki, and even the noh plays generally demand varied levels of under-
standing and enjoyment; all of these readings are equally legitimate or
relevant, though not always of equal importance or value, since they can
all trade what is actually there, in the performance, in exchange for some
sort of emotional or intellectual gain.

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
104 Marco De Marinis

Obviously,
Obviously, at atthis
thispoint,
point,the thecategory
category "open
"open performances"
performances" becomes
becom
unwieldy
unwieldy sincesinceititmust
mustincorporate
incorporate many
many diverse
diverse strategies
strategies
for for
dealing
dealin
with
with spectators
spectatorsand andpredetermining
predetermining their
theirunderstanding
understanding of the
of the
perfor-
perfo
mance.
mance. Hence,
Hence,we wemust
mustmake make a distinction
a distinction between
between twotwo types
types
of open
of op
performance.
performance.
On
On the
the one
one hand,
hand,there
thereare areavant-garde
avant-garde or or
experimental
experimental performance
performan
texts
texts whose
whose "openness"-their
"openness"-theirhighly highly indeterminate
indeterminate makeup
makeup andand
loose loos
fixing
fixing of of reading
readingstrategies-does
strategies-does not
notcorrespond
correspond to any
to anyrealreal
increase
increasein
the
the range
range andandtype
typeof ofdesired
desired spectator,
spectator, butbutwhich
which leads
leads
rather
rather
to atomore
a mor
or less
less drastic
drasticreduction
reductionininrange.
range. This
Thisreduction
reduction occurs
occurswhenwhen
the the
cooper-
cooper
ation
ation asked
asked of ofananaudience
audienceininfilling
fillingin in"gaps"
"gaps"
in inthethe performance
performance text- tex
thus,
thus, actualizing
actualizingthe thetext's
text'ssemantic
semantic and andcommunicative
communicative potential-also
potential-al
requires
requires aa spectator
spectatortotopossess
possess a range
a range ofof encyclopedic,
encyclopedic, intertextual,
intertextual,and an
ideological
ideological competence
competencewhich whichis is anything
anything butbut
standard.
standard. In this
In this
sense,
sense,
as
Eco
Eco has
has said,
said,there
thereisisnothing
nothing more
more closed
closed than
thanan an"open"
"open"workwork
(un' (un'
opera ope
aperta).
aperta). James
JamesJoyce's
Joyce'sFinnegans
Finnegans Wake,
Wake, which
which is one
is oneof the
of the
mostmost
"open"
"ope
texts
texts inin world
worldliterature
literaturebecause
because ofofthethegreat
greatmassmassof ofworkwork
its countless
its countle
"blanks"
"blanks" leave
leaveforforthethereader
readertoto fill
fill
in,in,also
also
drastically
drastically limits
limits
the the
number
numb
and
and type
type of of readers
readersableabletotosuccessfully
successfully join
join
in in
its its
semantic
semanticandand
communi-
commun
cative actualization.
On the other hand, we also find performance texts and theatre forms
where this opening up of interpretive possibilities does correspond to a
real openness of reception; the openness leads to a real increase in the
number of "authorized" spectators and in the types of reception allowed
for and compatible with the performance text. For example, traditional
Indian theatre-according to the theoretical treatment of it in the Natya-
sastra-was devised so that individual audience members could find in it
whatever interested them most, without abusing or misunderstanding the
drama in the process (see Ghosh I967). I believe it is precisely on this
level that we find the main difference between experimental or avant-
garde theatre and the ground now occupied by the international New
Theatre which, a few years ago, Eugenio Barba suggested calling the
"Third Theatre." The theatre of the avant-garde, while staunchly oppos-
ing the passive and standardized means of consumption found in main-
stream theatre, has often ended up producing esoteric works reserved for
a select band of "supercompetent" theatregoers. However, in Barba's
"Third Theatre" the aim-though not always achieved-has been to cre-
ate performances which might allow a real plurality of reception or view-
ings which are equal to one another.
So far, I have said little regarding the actual means-the strategies and
techniques-by which a performance builds into its textual structure and
anticipates a certain type of reception, a clearly determined attitude which
the spectator may hold towards the performance. Among the many ele-
ments that make up the dramatic spectator used by the producers of the-
atre in respect to the spectator, I will now consider two interrelated
elements of decisive importance.

Manipulation of the Theatrical Space and of the Physical

Performance/Spectator Relationship

Among theatre practitioners it has long been known that the actual
placement of the spectators within the theatrical space and their relation
to the playing area are central to the way in which the performance is
received. In this context, there is a mass of theoretical and practical guide-

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy
Dramaturgyof
ofthe
theSpectator
SpectatorIo5Io5

lines
lines concerning
concerningperspective
perspectivescenery
scenery
which
which
abounded
abounded
throughout
throughout
the the
I6th
I6th century
centuryininItaly.
Italy.ByBythe
the
end
end
of of
thethe
IgthIgth
century
century
and and
coinciding
coinciding
with with
the
the rise
rise of
ofthe
thedirector,
director, there
there
waswas
an an
increasingly
increasingly
urgent
urgent
need need
for changes
for changes
to
to the
the theatrical
theatricalnorms
normsofof
that
that
time.
time.
TheThe
passive
passive
and and
unquestioned
unquestioned
pro- pro-
cess
cess of
of unification
unificationthat
thatthe
the
mimetic
mimetic performance
performance
rulesrules
of Naturalism
of Naturalism
had had
proposed,
proposed,or orrather
ratherimposed
imposed viavia
thethe
staging,
staging,
waswas
firstfirst
to go.
toThis
go. This
initialinitial
modification
modificationwas
waseffected
effectedbyby
manipulating
manipulating
the the
theatrical
theatrical
spacespace
and the
and the
physical
physical performance/spectator
performance/spectatorrelationship.
relationship.
TheThe
changes
changes
took took
two two
forms:
forms: first,
first,a abreaking
breakingout
out
from
from
thethe
"Italian"
"Italian"
stage,
stage,
the boite
the boite
aux illusions
aux illusions
with
with itsits neat
neatseparation
separation between
between a raised
a raisedstage
stage
and and
the the
stalls,
stalls,
both both
of of
which
which werewerelaidlaidout
outfacing
facing oneoneanother
another straight-on;
straight-on; and and
second,
second,
a search
a search
for
for various
variousalternative
alternativespatial
spatialarrangements
arrangements thatthat
might might
dispose
dispose
of thisof this
frontal
frontal relationship
relationshipand andthethe
distance
distance between
between performance
performance and spectator:
and spectator:
a a
search,
search, above
aboveall,all,for
forways
ways ofof bringing
bringing thethe
twotwoas close
as close
together
together
as possi-
as possi-
ble
ble (for
(for example,
example,thosethosetheatres
theatres with
witha central
a central
design
design
where where
the audience
the audience
surrounds
surroundsthe theplaying
playingareaarealike
like
Gropius'
Gropius' "total
"total
theatre,"
theatre,"or theor opposite
the opposite
solution
solution tried
triedby byAntonin
Antonin Artaud
Artaud at the
at theTheatre
TheatreAlfred
Alfred
Jarry,Jarry,
where where
the the
spectator
spectatorisissurrounded
surrounded bybythetheperformance).
performance).
In
In this
this way,
way,not notonly
onlythetheshape
shapeof of
thethetheatrical
theatricalspacespace
and the
and physical
the physical
performance/spectator
performance/spectator relationship
relationship changed,
changed, but but
also,also,
in thein most
the mostradical
radical
solutions,
solutions,the theperformance
performance itself
itselfnownowliterally
literally
passed
passed
from from
view.view.
Pre- Pre-
viously,
viously, the theperformance
performance hadhadappeared
appeared as aasunitary
a unitaryobject
object
to betograsped
be grasped
whole
whole by bythetheonlooker.
onlooker. This
This hadhad
ledled
to the
to theunitary
unitarymodelmodel
of performance
of performance
usage
usage that
thatfor forcenturies
centuries hadhadbeen
beenthethebasis
basis
of Western
of Western theatre.
theatre.
Now,Now,
however,
however,this thisunitary
unitarymodel
model entered
entered a deep
a deep
crisis.
crisis.
In many
In manycasescases
the spec-
the spec-
tators
tators were
wereforced
forcedtotoacknowledge
acknowledge thethe
irredeemably
irredeemably partial
partial
and subjective
and subjective
nature
nature of oftheir
theirexperience
experience ofofthetheperformance;
performance; thisthis
experience
experience
was nowwas now
strictly
strictly conditioned
conditionedbyby their
theirmaterial
materialposition,
position,
theirtheir
pointpoint
of observation.
of observation.
The
The same
sameaudience
audiencemember
member occupying
occupying different
differentplaces
places
on different
on different nightsnights
would
would see,
see,literally,
literally,a adifferent
different performance.
performance. NotNotonlyonly
would would
the specta-
the specta-
tor's
tor's interpretation
interpretationbebealtered altered butbutalso,
also,
andand
above
above
all, her/his
all, her/his
emotional
emotional
and
and intellectual
intellectualreactions
reactions would
would alter.
alter.
Obvious
Obvious examples
examples are the
are '6os'
the '6os'
Happenings,
Happenings,plays playslike
likeLuca
Luca Ronconi's
Ronconi's Orlando
OrlandoFurioso
Furioso
(1969)(1969)
and Ariane
and Ariane
Mnouchkine's
Mnouchkine's1789
1789(1970)
(1970)
at at
the
the
Theatre
Theatre
du du
Soleil,
Soleil,
and and
Grotowski's
Grotowski's
work;
work; however,
however,therethereis is
also
also
a whole
a wholebodybody
of "research
of "research
theatre"
theatre"
workworkof of
the
the '6os
'6os and
and'7os
'7oswith
withfundamentally
fundamentally thethe
same
same
aim.aim.
The
The post-World
post-WorldWar WarII IItheatre
theatreof of
research
research
went went
furthest
furthest
in trying
in trying
to to
exploit
exploit the
thepossibilities
possibilitiesforforconditioning
conditioning reception
reception
inherent
inherent
in the
inmanipu-
the manipu-
lation
lation of
of the
thestage
stagespace,
space, andandespecially
especiallythethe
physical
physical
relation
relation
of perfor-
of perfor-
mance
mance to tospectator.
spectator.Often,
Often, traditional
traditional
"Italian"
"Italian"
theatres
theatres
werewere
passedpassed
over over
in
in favor
favor ofofenvironments
environments which,
which,though
though notnot
originally
originally
theatrical
theatrical
spaces,
spaces,
allowed
allowed the
theperformance/spectator
performance/spectator relationship
relationship
to betoorganized
be organized
as needed,
as needed,
in
in the
the most
mostsuitable
suitableororconvenient
convenient way.way.
TheThe
common
commongoal goal
was specifical-
was specifical-
ly
ly to
to favor
favoraamoremoreactive,
active, engaged,
engaged, andand
creative
creative
reception
reception
by audience
by audience
members.

One extreme form taken by this research might be defined as: The use
of the spectator as an element of the performance and her/his assumption
into the dramatic fiction. It was not enough simply to remove all divi-
sions between performer and spectator by interspersing the two, or by
having the performers use all parts of the space, often performing directly
in the audience (as did the Living Theatre in the '6os). In order to maxi-
mize the spectator's involvement on an emotional and intellectual level,
attempts were made even to give them a role, albeit a marginal one,
within the performance itself. This is exactly what happened in the Living

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
io6 Marco De Marinis

Theatre production of Antigone (1967) when the audience became the peo
ple of Argus at war with the Thebans, played by the performers. Un-
doubtedly, however, the leading exponent of this solution was Grotowsk
in his performances of the early '6os: from Faust (1960), in which the
spectators were guests at the protagonist's table; to Kordian (I962), where
they figured as the inmates of the psychiatric clinic in which the action
takes place; and finally to Akropolis (1962), where spectators, in contras
to the performers, became survivors of the gas chambers.
This somewhat constricting and basically authoritarian approach to au-
dience participation was later superseded and openly criticized by Gro-
towski, who saw it as counter-productive-rather than deconditioning
the audience, this approach risked blocking and further inhibiting them
Already by the late '6os, Grotowski was theorizing the transition from a
theatre of participation to one of testimony, thought to be a more authen
tic form of participation, running deeper than any material involvemen
of the spectator (see De Marinis I987).

The Structuring (Montaggio) of the Spectator's Attention

In discussing how theatre practitioners work upon the attention of the

spectator, we come to what is perhaps the key to all the dramaturgical
strategies by which the performance establishes its relationship to the au-
dience. In fact, properly considered, the manipulation of the theatrical
space is simply one level or one aspect of a much larger manipulative
strategy aimed precisely at this structuring of the spectator's attention.
Of all the leaders of the Third Theatre, Eugenio Barba, director of the
Odin Teatret, has been, of late, the most effective in underlining the deci-
sive importance of the performers' and director's work upon the specta-
tor's attention; this work helps determine whether the performance meets
with "success" and is especially decisive in the communicative relationship
that the performance sets up:

The more the performance allows audience members their own

experience of the staged experience, the more it must also guide
their attention so that, in all the complexity of present action,
the spectator does not lose the sense of direction, the sense of past
and future action-the history of the performance.
All the means which permit this structuring of the spectator's
attention can be extracted from "the life of the drama" (that is,
from the actions which this life brings into play): from the dia-
chronic and synchronic structures which are uncovered there.
To give life to the drama is not simply to plot the actions and ten-
sions of the performance but also to structure the spectator's
attention, ordering its rhythms and invoking its moments of ten-
sion without, however, imposing any one interpretation (Barba
I983a:46; see also Barba 1981).

This theme is also central to Grotowski's most recent theorizing.

Speaking at a 1984 conference in Italy, Grotowski declared that "the abili-
ty to guide the spectator's attention" constitutes "one of the essential
problems of the director's trade" (I984:3I).
It is, in fact, due solely to the application and proper functioning of the
spectator's selective attention that the theatrical relationship is actually set
into place and maintained; only then is the performance transformed from

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy
Dramaturgyof
ofthe
theSpectator
SpectatorI07I07

a confused
confusedjumble
jumbleofofdisparate
disparate elements
elements intointo
a performance
a performance text text
fur- fur-
nished,
nished, at atleast
leastpotentially,
potentially, with
with its its
own ownmeaningfulness
meaningfulness and coherence.
and coherence.
This
This may
mayseemseemtrite
triteinasmuch
inasmuch as as
it holds
it holdstruetrue
for for
any any
other other
type type
of aes-
of aes-
thetic
thetic experience.
experience.However,
However, in in
thethecasecase
of theatrical
of theatricalperformance,
performance,therethere
is is
no
no doubt
doubtthatthatthe
thesensory
sensory faculties
faculties of of
thetheperceiving
perceivingsubject
subject
are called
are called
upon
upon toto sustain
sustainananeffort
efforttotowhich,
which, forforbothboth
quantity
quantity
and quality,
and quality,
therethere
is is
no
no equivalent
equivalentininany anyother
other artistic
artistic field.
field.
In this
In this
context,
context,
RolandRoland
BarthesBarthes
spoke
spoke suggestively
suggestivelyofofa "polyphony
a "polyphony of of
information"
information" in theatrical
in theatrical
perfor-
perfor-
mance,
mance, indicating
indicatingthe themultiplicity
multiplicity of of
heterogeneous
heterogeneous signssigns
that that
are simulta-
are simulta-
neously
neously emitted
emitted(Barthes
(Barthes I963).
I963).
YetYet eveneven
thisthis
doesdoes
not not
go fargo enough:
far enough:
to to
this
this polyphonic
polyphonicquality
quality wewe must
must addadd that
that
thetheperformance
performance text text
or, more
or, more
exactly,
exactly, its
itsdense
densesignifying
signifying surface,
surface, is characterized
is characterized by its
bynondiscreteness
its nondiscreteness
(in
(in that
that ititisiscontinuous),
continuous), itsits
instability
instability
(in (in
thatthat
it isitvariable),
is variable),
and its
andimper-
its imper-
manence
manence (in (inthat
thatititisisephemeral).
ephemeral).
These
These textual
textualand
andcontextual
contextualfeatures
featuresmake
make
it absolutely
it absolutely
essential
essential
that that
spectators
spectatorsdiscard
discardand
andeven
even
drastically
drastically
eliminate
eliminate
somesome
of the
of mass
the mass
of stim-
of stim-
uli
uli to
to which
whichthey
theyareareexposed
exposed both
both
successively
successivelyand and
simultaneously
simultaneouslyby by
the
the performance.
performance.(Of(Ofcourse,
course,thethe
spectator
spectator
nearly
nearly
always
always
does does
this auto-
this auto-
matically
maticallyand
andunconsciously.)
unconsciously.) This
This
only
only
becomes
becomespossible
possible
by actively
by actively
en- en-
gaging
gaging the
thetwo
twomodes
modesofof "perceptive
"perceptivedoing"
doing"
(faire
(faire
perceptif),
perceptif),
which which
some some
psychologists
psychologistshave
havecalled
called
"attentive
"attentive
focalization"
focalization"
and and
"selective
"selective
attention."
attention."
(Others
(Others describe
describethe thesame
sameprocess
process
as aaspassage
a passage
fromfrom
a diffuse
a diffuse
and passive
and passive
"seeing"
"seeing" (voir)
(voir)totoananactively
actively
concentrated
concentratedandand
sharply
sharply
focused
focused
"watching"
"watching"
(regarder)
(regarder)[see [seePoppe
PoppeI979].)
I979].)
It is
is worth
worthrepeating
repeatingthat that without
without this
this
basicbasic
decoupage
decoupage
and selection
and selection
car- car-
ried
ried out
out bybytheir
theirattention,
attention, thethespectators
spectators would
wouldnot not
be inbea in
position
a position
to to
work
work out outtheir
theirown
own"reading"
"reading" strategies
strategies forforthe the
performance,
performance, nor tonor
giveto give
it first
first aalocal
localand
andthen,
then, gradually,
gradually, a global
a globalmeaning.
meaning.The The
Belgian
Belgian
scholarscholar
Carlos
Carlos Tindemans
Tindemansisistherefore
therefore notnotexaggerating
exaggerating when when
he isolates
he isolates
this at-
this at-
tention
tention as asthe
thetrue
true"generator
"generator of of
coherence"
coherence" in the
in the
theatre,
theatre,
the necessary
the necessary
premise
premise to toanyany"coherent
"coherent understanding"
understanding" of theof the
performance
performance text text
(1984).(1984).
For
For theatre
theatrepractitioners
practitioners allall
thisthisis well-known
is well-known and and
alwaysalways
has been.
has been.
Efforts
Efforts havehavealways
alwaysbeen beendirected
directed at setting
at setting out out
what what
Grotowski
Grotowski
calls "an
calls "an
itinerary
itineraryfor forthethespectator's
spectator's attention."
attention." It isItthe
is the
samesame
task task
which,which,
in cine-
in cine-
ma,
ma, isis left
leftto tothe
thecamera
camera lens,
lens,though
though thethecamera
cameraworksworks
in a in
much
a much
more more
rigid
rigid way
wayasasfar farasasa adirector
director or or
performer
performer is concerned.
is concerned. In this
In regard,
this regard,
Grotowski
Grotowskialso alsomaintains
maintains that
that a theatre
a theatre director
director should
should
havehave
"an invisible
"an invisible
camera
camera always
alwaystaking
takinginin
different
different
shots
shots
andandalways
always
directing
directing
the specta-
the specta-
tor's
tor's attention
attentiontowards
towardssomething"
something"
(I984:32).
(I984:32).

DETERMINANT FEATURES OF THE SPECTATOR'S ATTENTION

At this point we must examine how the director and actors work upon
the attention of the spectator. In more exact terms, we must ask what are
the determinant features of this selective attention which is, and always
has been, subject to manipulation by the producers of theatre. At the
same time, it should be clear that it is not only a question of attracting the
spectator's attention towards one thing but also of distracting it from
something else. For the most part, these two modes of manipulation co-
exist and are largely interdependent-often it is necessary to distract the
spectator's attention from one thing in order to be able to attract it to-
wards another thing. From the receiver's point of view, these modes can
be labeled in more technical terms: focalization, defocalization, and
refocalization.

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
io8 Marco De Marinis

How THE SPECTATOR'S ATTENTION IS ATTRACTED

All of us are familiar with the number of resources and the occasional
sleight of hand which theatre practitioners have always used in order t
distract and/or attract the spectator's attention. In the I6th century, fo
example, noises or sudden trumpet blasts from the back of the audito-
rium distracted the audience from the stage where the scenery would b
changed in full view in a matter of seconds. Here the lighting, the design,
and the spatial layout are obviously important. On a more general level
however, the performance text predisposes and directs the spectator's at
tention by establishing a more or less explicit ranking of all its partial
texts-the spoken text, the gestural text, the scenery, music, sound ef-
fects, etc. Such a hierarchy may be brought into effect in two basic forms

I. As a stable hierarchy which, broadly speaking, conforms to "rules of

genre," the most obvious example being the privileged status of the
verbal text in the Western theatrical tradition.
2. As a shifting hierarchy where a whole range of focalizing and/or de-
focalizing devices operates within the one performance, a large portion
of these devices being the scenic, lighting, and sound effects just men-
tioned. Undoubtedly the classic example here is opera, where, at one
time, it is the vocal part (aria, recitative) which comes to the fore and,
at another, the musical part, the relationship between the parts remain-
ing inversely proportional and, as was suggested long ago by Abra-
ham Moles, characteristic of the functioning of "multiple messages"
(1958).

WHAT ATTRACTS THE SPECTATOR'S ATTENTION

The performance engages an entire repertory of signals and devices by

which it attracts and/or distracts the spectator's attention-this is the how
of attraction and/or distraction. The next question, and it is a complex
one, concerns the reasons why these performance devices are able to direct
attention.

For some cases, the answer is obvious and the question itself appears
simple-as in the case of an actor who is spotlighted downstage, or the
previous example of sudden noises diverting attention to wherever they
come from. But not all cases are this simple. It may help to reformulate
our question in more precise terms, first dividing it into two parts:

I. What sort of material characteristics (qualities sensible to perception)

must theatrical actions and signs, or signals, possess in order to attract
attention?

2. What characteristics must appear in the composition or "montage" of

these actions and signs in order to produce the same desired result?

There is still no scientific literature on this matter applicable to the

theatre, but I will point out one or two exceptions here. Fortunately,
more advanced work has been going on in studies of the psychology of
perception and in the new, partially related field of experimental aesthet-
ics. This new field studies aesthetic behavior as a highly developed form
of"exploratory behavior," under which heading psychologists place "mul-
tiple activities all serving to provoke, prolong, and intensify the exposure
of the sensory organs to a network of stimuli which are neither intrinsi-
cally beneficial nor harmful" (Berlyne I972:I4I). Of particular interest is

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy
Dramaturgyof
ofthe
theSpectator
SpectatorI09I09

Daniel
Daniel Berlyne's
Berlyne'sresearch
researchintointo thethe"collative
"collativeproperties"
properties"of these
of these
stimuli-
stimuli-
those
those properties
propertieswhich
whichcan canbebeshown
shown to to
have
havea precise
a precise
effect
effect
on the
on sub-
the sub-
ject's
ject's "exploratory
"exploratorybehavior"
behavior"and, and,specifically,
specifically, on on
thethe
workings
workings of their
of their
selective
selective attention.
attention.During
Duringa lengthy
a lengthy series
series
of ofexperimental
experimental studies,
studies,
Ber-Ber-
lyne
lyne managed
managedto toisolate
isolatethe
thefollowing
following collative
collativeproperties
properties(or variables):
(or variables):
novelty,
novelty, surprise,
surprise,complexity,
complexity, andandoddity
oddity(1960,
(1960,1972,
1972,
1974,
1974,
and and
1976).
1976).
Berlyne's
Berlyne's results
resultsserve,
serve,inintheir
their ownownway,way,to to
confirm
confirm manymany
earlier
earlier
hy- hy-
potheses
potheses concerning
concerningjustjustthese
these sorts
sortsof of
problems
problems as they
as they
havehave
appeared
appeared
in in
many
many different
differentareas
areasofofstudy.
study. Some
Some ready
ready examples
examples are are
the the
concept
concept
of of
"distanciation"
"distanciation"proposed
proposedbybythe theRussian
Russian Formalists,
Formalists, thethe
efforts
efforts
of Gestalt
of Gestalt
psychology
psychologyto toshow
showthe therelations
relations between
between order,
order,disorder,
disorder,
and and
complex-
complex-
ity,
ity, and
and the
thefindings
findingsofofinformation
information
theory
theory
regarding
regarding
characteristics
characteristics
of the
of the
aesthetic
aesthetic message.
message.Adding
Addingtotothese,
these,
Berlyne's
Berlyne'sresults
results
serve
serve
to corroborate
to corroborate
some
some of
of the
themost
mostrecent
recentsuggestions
suggestionswhich
which have
have
emerged
emergedin connection
in connection
with
with the
the theatre.
theatre.
These
These suggestions
suggestionshave
havecome
comefrom
from twotwodifferent
different paths
paths
of inquiry,
of inquiry,bothboth
of which
which cutcutacross
acrossseveral
severaldisciplines,
disciplines, butbutwithwith
differing
differingmethods
methodsand and
objectives.
objectives. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless,thesethese two
two approaches
approaches meet meetat aatpoint
a point
wherewhere
they
they must
must both
bothdeal
dealwith
withthe the
mechanisms
mechanisms usedused
in the
in the
theatre
theatre
to prime
to prime
the the
spectator's
spectator's attention.
attention.The Thefirst
first approach
approach hashas
beenbeenfollowed
followedby aby Dutch
a Dutch
team
team of
of theatre
theatreresearchers
researchersand andpsychologists
psychologists during
duringa series
a series
of empirical
of empirical
studies
studies into
intoperformance
performancereception
reception (see
(see
Schoenmakers
Schoenmakers 1982,1982,
Tan Tan
1982,1982,
Schoenmakers
Schoenmakersand andTan
TanI984).
I984).The
Thesecond
second approach
approach appears
appears
in the
in the
workwork
going
going onon under
underthe
thedirection
directionofof Eugenio
Eugenio Barba
Barbaat the
at the
International
International School
School
of Theatre
Theatre Anthropology
Anthropology(ISTA).(ISTA). SoSofar,
far,ISTAISTAhashasheldheld
fourfour
sessions
sessions
(Bonn
(Bonn I980,
I980,Volterra
Volterra1981,
1981,Paris
ParisI985,
I985,andandHolstebro
Holstebro I986)
I986)
and and
of par-
of par-
ticular
ticular interest
interesthas
hasbeen
beenthetheresearch
research intointo
thethetechniques
techniques of the
of the
actoractor
in in
which
which Barba
Barbahas
hasled
ledananinternational
international teaching
teaching unitunit
(see(see
BarbaBarba
I98I,I98I,
I983a,
I983a,
I983b, I985).
Considering the same problem from opposite sides, these two paths
have converged significantly on several points. The spectator's attention
appears to be the product of a certain type of psychophysiological disposi-
tion which, in the appropriate scientific literature, goes under various
names: arousal, excitation, curiosity, interest, etc. Among other things,
this disposition is signalled by several neurophysiological activities, such
as characteristic changes in electroencephalogram levels (EEG), sweating,
changes in heartbeat, muscular tension, pupil dilation, etc. This state lead-
ing up to the actual focusing of attention can be termed a "state of inter-
est." In turn, this state of interest seems to be aroused by another, more
basic psychophysiological state which may be called surprise or amaze-
ment. Thus we have the sequence:

surprise -> interest * attention (with the obvious possibility of

feedback)

Putting it simply, this amounts to saying that in order to attract and di-
rect the spectator's attention, the performance must first manage to sur-
prise or amaze; that is, the performance must put into effect disruptive or
manipulative strategies which will unsettle the spectator's expectations-
both short and long term-and, in particular, her/his perceptive habits.
And the performance must do this by introducing Berlyne's "collative
properties"-elements of novelty, improbability, and oddity-in areas
where the spectator habitually feels certain of her/himself.

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
I Io Marco De Marinis

EXTRA-ORDINARY
EXTRA-ORDINARYTECHNIQUES
TECHNIQUESOFOF
THE
THE
ACTOR
ACTOR

In
In their
their research
researchinto
intotheatre
theatreanthropology,
anthropology,Barba
Barba
and and
his team
his team
at ISTA
at ISTA
have
have identified
identifiedthese
these"disruptive
"disruptivestrategies"
strategies"
largely
largely
in terms
in terms
of the
of funda-
the funda-
mental
mental techniques
techniquesofofthe theactor.
actor.They
They have
have
described
described
thesethese
techniques
techniques
as as
"extra-ordinary"
"extra-ordinary"oror"extra-daily,"
"extra-daily," since
since
theythey
are are
based
based
primarily
primarily
on the
on the
transgression
transgressionof ofthe
thebiological
biologicalandand
physical
physical
lawslaws
governing
governingour "normal"
our "normal"
everyday
everyday bodily
bodilyand
andmental
mental behavior-the
behavior-the fundamental
fundamental lawslaws
of gravity,
of gravity,
inertia,
inertia, and
andthe
therule
ruleofofleast
leasteffort.
effort.According
According to Barba,
to Barba,
the following
the following
theatrical
theatrical principles
principlesallalltransgress
transgress these
these
lawslaws
andand
formformthe the
basis-both
basis-both
intercultural
interculturalandandpre-expressive-of
pre-expressive-of performer's
performer's techniques:
techniques:

I. The
The principle
principleofof"altered
"alteredbalance"
balance"(or(or
"ultra-tuned"
"ultra-tuned"
balance);
balance);
2. The
The principle
principleof of"opposition"
"opposition"(for
(forthetheactor,
actor,
every
every
impulse
impulse
mustmust
al- al-
ways
ways be
be met
metbybya acounter-impulse);
counter-impulse);
3. The
The principle
principleofof"simplification"
"simplification" ("the
("the
omission
omission
of some
of some
elements
elements
in in
order
order to
to promote
promoteother
otherelements
elements which
which thus
thus
appear
appear
essential");
essential");
4. The
The principle
principleofof"surplus
"surplusenergy"
energy" ("a ("a
maximum
maximum of energy
of energy
inputinput
for afor a
minimum
minimumeffect").'
effect").'

It is
is precisely
preciselythrough
throughthe theworkings
workingsof of
these
these
extra-ordinary
extra-ordinary
techniques
techniques
that
that the
the actor
actorisisable
abletoto"disrupt"
"disrupt"
thethe
expectations
expectations
and and
perceptive
perceptive
habits
habits
of of
the
the spectators,
spectators,totosurprise
surprise them
themand
and
draw
draw
their
their
attention.
attention.
And And
this this
takestakes
place
place even
evenbefore
beforethetheperformer
performer seeks
seeks
to to
attract
attractthe the
spectator
spectator
withwith
the the
wonder
wonder of ofaastory,
story,orora amanner
manner of of
delivery;
delivery;
it takes
it takes
placeplace
simply
simply
with with
the the
performer
performer"giving
"givingshape"
shape" toto her/his
her/his own ownbody-making
body-making a "fictitious,"
a "fictitious,"
"artificial"
"artificial"body
bodywhich
whichdraws
draws out/deforms/amplifies
out/deforms/amplifies the the
normal
normal
tensions
tensions
of
of the
the human
humanbody.
body.WeWemight
might consider
considerthisthis
pre-expressive
pre-expressive levellevel
of extra-
of extra-
ordinary
ordinary techniques
techniquesasasthethefoundation
foundation on on
which
whichthe the
performer
performerbuildsbuilds
per- per-
formance.
formance.There
Thereare,
are,ofofcourse,
course, many
many other
other
sources
sourcesfor for
this:this:
on one
on hand,
one hand,
the
the relevant
relevantsocio-cultural
socio-cultural context,
context,thethetechnical
technical and and
expressive
expressive
conven-
conven-
tions
tions of
of the
theactor's
actor'sart;
art;ononthethe
other,
other,thethe
performer's
performer's ownownpersonality
personality
and and
talent.
talent. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless,for for the
the
performer,
performer, justjust
as for
as for
everyone
everyone
else, else,
nothing
nothing
good
good is
is built
builtexcept
exceptononsolid
solidfoundations.
foundations. Thus,
Thus,
it isitatisthis
at this
pre-expressive
pre-expressive
level
level that
that the
theactor
actordisplays
displaysanan
ability
ability
(or(or
lacklack
thereof)
thereof)
as a as
maitre
a maitre
du regard;
du regard;
that
that is,
is, aa relative
relativecapacity
capacityfor
forcarrying
carryingoutout
thethe
manipulation
manipulation
(montaggio
(montaggio
in in
Barba's
Barba's terms)
terms)of ofthe
thespectator's
spectator'sattention
attention
which
which
is necessary
is necessary
to a to
success-
a success-
ful
ful working
workingof ofthe
thetheatrical
theatrical
relationship.
relationship.
But
But as
as Richard
RichardSchechner
Schechner (I986)
(I986)
suggests,
suggests,even
even
ordinary
ordinary
behavior,
behavior,
if if
properly
properly framed,
framed,cancanbebe
theatrical;
theatrical; e.g.,
e.g.,
pedestrian
pedestrian
movement
movement in dance
in dance
and
and naturalistic,
naturalistic,documentary,
documentary, or or
news
news film/TV.
film/TV.
WhatWhat
makesmakes
such such
things
things
"theatrical"
"theatrical"are
aretheir
theirediting
editingandandframing,
framing, devices
devices
which
which
belong
belong
solely
solely
to to
the
the director,
director,choreographer,
choreographer, ororeditor.
editor.In such
In such
cases
cases
the the
extra-ordinary
extra-ordinary
does
does not
not depend
dependon onthe
theperformer
performer (who
(whomaymay
eveneven
be abe
non-actor
a non-actor
doingdoing
ordinary
ordinary things)
things)but
butrather
ratherononthethe
ways
waysperformers'
performers'
actions
actions
are "treated."
are "treated."

Conclusions
Conclusions

My
My concluding
concludingremarks
remarksfollow
follow
onon
from
from
this
this
discussion
discussion
of the
of formal
the formal
means
means and
anddeterminant
determinantconditions
conditions
involved
involved
in the
in the
spectator's
spectator's
selective
selective
attention.

EXTRA-ORDINARY TECHNIQUES/"VIRTUOSO" TECHNIQUES

A very interesting parallel presents itself between Barba's view of the

dialectic between ordinary and extra-ordinary techniques, and the conclu-

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy
Dramaturgyofofthe
the
Spectator
Spectator
II I I

sions
sions of ofexperimental
experimental aesthetics.
aesthetics. These These
conclusions
conclusions
argue argue
that "some
that of "some of
the
the effects
effectsbrought
brought ononby bynewnew stimuli
stimuli
[ .. . [] ..
do. not
] doachieve
not achieve
maximum maximum
strength
strengthwith witha maximum
a maximum of novelty,"
of novelty," but rather
but rather with "anwith intermediate
"an intermediate
level
level of ofnovelty"
novelty" (Berlyne
(Berlyne I960:64).
I960:64).
In relation
In relation to thetotechniques
the techniquesof ac- of ac-
robats
robatsand andthose
those sometimes
sometimes usedused
in Beijing
in Beijing opera,opera,
Barba Barba
has similarly
has similarly
observed
observedthat thatininsuch
such cases
cases
"it "it
is nois longer
no longer a mattera matter
of extra-ordinary
of extra-ordinary
techniques
techniquesbut butsimply
simply oneoneof 'other
of 'othertechniques.'"
techniques.'" In theseIn other
these tech-
other tech-
niques,
niques,"there
"thereis is nonolonger
longer thethetension
tension
caused caused
by a deviation
by a deviationfrom the from the
norm,
norm,nor northethesort
sortof of
'elastic
'elastic
energy'
energy'which which
characterizes
characterizes
extra-ordinary
extra-ordinary
techniques
techniquesininopposition
opposition to ordinary
to ordinary ones.ones.
In otherIn other
words,words,
it is noitlonger
is no longer
a matter
matterof ofdialectical
dialectical relationship
relationship but but
only only
of distance:
of distance:
the inaccessibility,
the inaccessibility,
in
in short,
short,whichwhich thethebody
body of aof'virtuoso'
a 'virtuoso'performer
performer represents"
represents"
(I981:73).(I981:73).
These
These observations
observations arearecorroborated
corroborated by the by results
the resultsof experiments
of experimentson vi- on vi-
sual
sual perception
perceptionwhich which show,
show, as I as
mentioned,
I mentioned, that "clusters
that "clusters
of stimuli
of stimuli
are are
judged
judgedmore morefavorably
favorably whenwhen they they
fall fall
within within
an intermediate
an intermediate scale ofscale of
novelty
noveltyand andcomplexity"
complexity" (Berlyne
(Berlyne I972:I48).
I972:I48).
TheseTheseobservations
observations
form an form an
excellent
excellentstarting
starting point
pointforformoremoredetailed
detailed
analysis
analysis
of theof qualities
the qualities
particu-particu-
lar
lar to
to theatrical
theatrical attention
attention and, and,
I would
I would
add, add,
to artistic
to artistic
attentionattention
in general.
in general.
It
It is
is also
alsothe
thebasis
basis forforanalysis
analysisof those
of thosestimulistimuli
whichwhich
are most arecapable
most capable
of of
arousing
arousingattention
attention in in
thethe
theatre
theatre precisely
preciselyby playing
by playing
upon theupon dialectic
the dialectic
of of
novel/known,
novel/known,strange/familiar,
strange/familiar, complex/simple,
complex/simple, unexpected/predictable,
unexpected/predictable,
odd/consistent.

DISRUPTIVE FEATURES "OF" THE PERFORMANCE/DISRUPTIVE

FEATURES "WITHIN" THE PERFORMANCE

In defining the actor's techniques as extra-ordinary, Barba insists on the

way they "disrupt" the spectator by opposing-though it is a dialectical,
"elastic" opposition-the techniques used in everyday life. However, it is
clear that a performance can disrupt or frustrate expectations, producing
effects of surprise and increased attention, in many other ways and on
many different levels. The disruptive features of the performance also ap-
pear on the level of general theatrical expectations. Here, the disruption
no longer arises in the opposition of theatre to everyday life but rather in
the opposition of the performance to theatre. One example of this would
be a work breaking the conventions of dramatic fiction long since part of
the average audience member's competence. On this level of specific the-
atrical expectations, one might think of the opera buff who turns up at
Peter Brook's Carmen expecting to see an authentic staging of the Bizet
work.

This list of disruptive features could easily be extended, bearing in

mind expectations having to do with the context of the performance, the
precedents set by the various producers of the performance, etc. Howev-
er, what I wish to make clear is that alongside these disruptive features of
the performance are those occurring within the performance, and these
latter may well be more important and decisive in terms of the spectator's
attention. By disruption within the performance, I mean that the ability of
the performance to hold and direct the spectator's attention is also due to
its ability to.continually create expectations on the most diverse levels,
from the thematic to the expressive and stylistic, and then to continually
frustrate and disrupt these expectations by sudden leaps, rapid changes of
direction, tone, atmosphere, rhythm, etc. In this way, surprise is con-
stantly renewed, and interest and attention remain lively and strong. And
it is in primarily this direction that the work of the director, not to men-
tion that of the dramaturg, is aimed.

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
II2 Marco De Marinis

FRUSTRATION/SATISFACTION OF EXPECTATIONS

"In my opinion, there are two aspects to the enjoyment which theatre
can give: surprise and the joy of finding the same thing over again." This
recent declaration by Italian director Luca Ronconi serves as a useful
reminder of a risk which is undoubtedly present in a certain way of han-
dling the question of attention in the theatre. This is the risk of maintain-
ing that the "proper" functioning of the performance, its success and pull
on the audience, depend exclusively on the disruptive strategies it uses. In
short, the risk is in seeing only the irregular and unexpected as being able
to produce interest and entertainment in the theatre. Certainly, for exam-
ple, Barba's theories regarding the extra-ordinary, despite their obvious
importance, come at times dangerously close to just such a view and
betray links with certain outdated avant-garde poetics.
More in keeping with the facts as they stand, and more important from
a theoretical viewpoint, seems to be an acceptance that theatrical pleasure
arises and is maintained in an unbroken dialectic between the frustration
and satisfaction of expectations. The fragile balance is kept between the
pleasure of discovery, the unexpected, and the unusual, on one hand, and
the pleasure of recognition, deja vu, and the anticipated on the other. To
upset this balance in either direction means threatening the success of the
complex communicative interaction which constitutes the very life of the-
atrical performance.

Translated by Paul Dwyer

Notes

i. For more detailed information regarding these principles, see Barba 1981,
I983a, I983b, I985 and De Marinis 1986.

References

Barba, Eugenio
1981 La corsa dei contrari. Antropologia teatrale. Milan: Feltrinelli. Partial
English translation in The Drama Review 26, no. 2 (T93).

I983a "Drammaturgia." In Anatomia del Teatro, edited by N. Savarese, 43-

46. Florence: La Casa Usher.

I983b "Montaggio." In Anatomia del Teatro, edited by N. Savarese, 15-

222. Florence: La Casa Usher.

1985 "El cuerpo dilatado." Paper read at the international congress of t

Instituto del Teatro, Barcelona, I9-25 March.

Barthes, Roland
1964 "Litterature et signification." In Essais Critiques. Paris: Seuil.
Berlyne, Daniel E.
1960 Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1974 Studies in New Experimental Aesthetics. New York: Wiley & Sons.
1976 "L'estetica sperimentale." In Prospettive della psicologia, edited by P.
Dodwell, I23-I49. Rutin: Boringhieri. Originally published in New
Horizons in Psychology 2. New York: Penguin Books, 1972.

Berlyne, Daniel E., and Joyce Ditkofsky

1976 "Effects of Novelty and Oddity on Visual Selective Attention." Br
ish Journal of Psychology 67, no. 2:I75-I80.

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Dramaturgy of the Spectator I13

De
De Marinis,
Marinis,Marco
Marco
I98I
I98I "Vers
"Versune
unepragmatique
pragmatiquede la
decommunication
la communication
teatrale."
teatrale."
Versus Versus
30:71- 30:71-
86.

1982 Semiotica del teatro. Milan: Bompiani.

1983 "Theatrical Comprehension: A Socio-semiotic Approach." Theater
I5, no. I (Winter):8-I5.

1984 "L'esperienza dello spettatore: fondamenti per una semiotica della ri-
cezione teatrale." In Documenti di lavoro, I38-I39. Centro di Semio-
tica e Linguistica di Urbino.

1985 "Toward a Cognitive Semiotic of Theatrical Emotions." Versus 4I:5-

20.

1986 "I1 corpo artificiale: biologia e cultura nell'arte dell'atore." Prometeo 4,

no. 14:48-55.

1987 II Nuovo Teatro (1947-1970). Milan: Bompiani.

Eco, Umberto
1979 Lector in fabula. Milan: Bompiani. English edition, The Role of the
Reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979.

Ghosh, Manomohan, ed. and trans.

1967 The Natyasastra. Calcutta: Manisha Granthalaya.
Greimas, Algirdas J., and J. H. Courtes
1979 Semiotique: Dictionnaire raisonne de la theorie du langage. Paris:
Hachette.

Grotowski, Jerzy
I986 "I1 regista come spettatore di professione."* Teatro Festival 3:28-36.
Moles, Abraham
1958 Theorie de l'information et perception esthetique. Paris: Flammarion.

Poppe, Emile
1979 "Analyse semiotique de l'espace spetaculaire." Unpublished manu-
script.

Ruffini, Franco
1985 "Testo/scena: drammaturgia dello spettacolo e dello spettatore." Ver-
sus 41:2I-40.

Schechner, Richard
1973 Environmental Theatre. New York: Hawthorn Books.

1984 La teorias della performance, 1970-1983. Rome: Bulzoni.

1986 Personal communication, 21-26 August.
Schoenmakers, Henry
1982 "The Tacit Majority in the Theatre." In Multimedial Communication.
Vol. II, Theatre Semiotics, edited by E.W.H. Hess-Luttich, Io8-I55.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Schoenmakers, Henry, and Ed Tan

1984 "'Good Guy Bad Guy' Effects in Political Theatre." In Semiotics of
Drama and Theatre, edited by H. Schmid and A. Van Kesteren, 462-
508. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tan, Ed
1982 "Cognitive Processes in Reception." In Semiotics of Drama and The-
atre, edited by H. Schmid and A. Van Kesteren, 156-203. Amster-
dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
I 4 Marco De Marinis

Tindemans, Carlos
1984 "Coherence and Focability: A Contribution to the Analysability of
Theatre Discourse." In Semiotics ofprama and Theatre, edited by H.
Schmid and A. Van Kesteren, 127-I33. Amsterdam and Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.

Marco De Marinis teaches at the Istituto di Discipline della Comunicazione at

the University of Bologna. His main fields of interest are semiotics and theatre
history. His publications include: Teatro e comunicazione (Theatre and
Communication), Mimo e mimi (Mime and Mimes), Semiotica del teatro
(Semiotics of the Theatre), Al limite del teatro (At the Edge of the The-
atre), and II Nuovo Teatro (I947-I970) (The New Theatre [I947-I970]).
He is a regular contributor to Le Bulletin, Carte Semiotiche, Gestos, Euto-
pias, New Theatre Quarterly, Prometeo, and Theater. He is also editor of
the journal Versus-Quaderni di Studi Semiotici.

This content downloaded from 120.188.74.164 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:45:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms