Performance Architecture and Architectural Performances

Space, in both an architectural and performance setting, is a key consideration. The space must have a functionality, a sense of composition and a liveness that transcends its stasis (assuming, that is, that constructed space has a static existence, a notion to be challenged). In theatre we have starting talking about the space as another character, another ‘body’ to be read and understood. Spaces are often ‘animated’ by human presence – humans provide a context, a function to a space. This does not, however, mean that a space cannot live alone – a space that is flexible, organic, that finds the right mix of purpose and openness. It is in discovering (or uncovering) the purpose of space in contemporary human interactions that performance and architecture find their strongest link.

Performance has become a class of theoretical understanding, often uncomfortably placed under the ‘theatre studies’ rubric. Performance theory deals primarily with constructions. As humans we construct our identity in the clothes we wear, the way we hold ourselves, the words we choose to use, the style of our hair, the subjects we interest ourselves with and so on. Race, sexual orientation, gender – these are all considered constructions, imposed either by ourselves or by society. This does not make them fake (or any more fake than anything else) it just recognises that they are more to do with a series of social interactions than they are to do with any internal, eternal ‘truth’. In essence, every action, every interaction we undertake as humans comes from a series of strategies we have learned throughout our lives to best cope and thrive within society. We present ourselves through identifying actions and accompaniments. These actions and accompaniments become so familiar to us that the sense of ‘performance’ is replaced with a sense of ‘being’ – I would say I am male, I am straight, I am Irish, rather than I act male, I act straight, I act Irish. The ‘truth’ is probably somewhere in the middle – or rather those identifying actions have become so essential to my being, that they are unrecognisable.

Architecture fascinates me as it deals directly with how people interact with one another. Architecture must consider, as it seems from the uninitiated view, how and why people combine and connect in the way they do, how this changes and how it can be made more effectual. Thus architects are in a unique position – both responding to and leading innovations in human relations, thereby somehow having a hand in adjusting and moulding society. Perhaps on some level theatre makers attempt the same feat – presenting different realities to those who are taken to watch. Perhaps our best attempts can not model utopic visions of society, but exploring possibilities as they differ from those established gives at least a view to a change, opening up the knot of accepted reality to reveal potentialities not yet discovered. We both hold the mirror to the world around us – the mirror is a reflection to what we see, inevitably skewered and subjective, but as genuine and as honest as we can manage.

Theatre, in the more formal region of ‘performance’, is also to do with human interactions. Whether dealing with Greek epics, Stanislavskian naturalism, kitchen sink realism, modernist absurdism, post-modern deconstructionism or phenomenological explorations through movement if there is one constant it is that there is a relation between humans (even in monologue pieces, or ‘one-handers’ the absence of another human body establishes a relation to other humans, on the most basic structural level). When considering the construction of a theatre space we must think of proxemics – in what spatial relationship will the performers be to the audience, can the ‘stage’ space ever be ‘balanced’, will the audience be made to be aware of one another through interrupted sightlines or close proximity, do you want all of the audience to see all of the action all of the time?

Further, we can start to think of the space itself as some sort of additional performer – can a space be flexible enough to change during a performance (one imagines an external wall starting to contract, making a square space a triangular one…), can it change its texture and nature, its atmosphere, its meaning? In theatre we look to change the nature of a neutral space for our own purposes – adding lighting, sounds, set and costume (as well as, of course, performers) to a space that in it self ‘says’ nothing to create the effect we want. On the other hand you have ‘site-specific’ work that takes a space (usually non-theatrical) which has a character, a history, that is a filled canvas, and transpose live action on to it. In either sense the space is static – it provides the backdrop, it can be plastered over or used, but in itself is not organic or changeable.

Moving toward a theatre space that facilitates adjustability, an organic flexibility that allows the space to shift throughout a performance, changing the sense of proximity, sight-lines, status relationships between characters opens a whole new set of possibilities for theatre makers that has yet, in my knowledge, to be explored. Thus, as space makers and space users we empower ourselves with new potential realities.

- Neil Keating

This entry was posted by Neil Keating, on Monday, 12 November 2007. You can leave your response.