Liveness on Stage

Claudia Georgi

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9783110395044
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: English Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

Theatre is traditionally considered a live medium but its 'liveness' can no longer simply be taken for granted in view of the increasing mediatisation of the stage.

Drawing on theories of intermediality, Liveness on Stage explores how performances that incorporate film or video self-reflexively stage and challenge their own liveness by contrasting or approximating live and mediatised action. To illustrate this, the monograph investigates key aspects such as 'ephemerality', 'co-presence', 'unpredictability', 'interaction' and 'realistic representation' and highlights their significance for re-evaluating received notions of liveness. The analysis is based on productions by Gob Squad, Forkbeard Fantasy, Station House Opera, Proto-type Theater, Tim Etchells and Mary Oliver. In their playful approaches these practitioners predominantly present such media combination as a means of cross-fertilisation rather than as an antagonism between liveness and mediatisation.

Combining an original theoretical approach with an in-depth analysis of the selected productions, this study will appeal to scholars and practitioners of theatre and performance as well as to those researching intermedial phenomena.

1 (Inter-)Mediality

1.1 The Medium

The term ‘medium’ is not only central to the field of media studies but it has also been appropriated as a key concept by the humanities and social sciences in general. As such it figures prominently in academic disciplines as diverse as communication studies, literary and cultural studies, linguistics, philosophy, visual and performing arts, sociology and anthropology – to name but a few. Since most of these disciplines issue their own definitions of the term ‘medium’ according and limited to their own contexts and specific interests, this interdisciplinary significance of the medium often leads to terminological fuzziness. The confusion is further enhanced by the fact that the term ‘medium’ is frequently used in everyday language where it barely undergoes further terminological reflection or scrutiny, because its deceptive familiarity as an all-purpose term suggests a tacit agreement on a commonsensical understanding of the term. Alluding to this multitude of approaches and the ensuing definitional confusion, Frank Hartmann argues that there can be no absolute answer to the question ‘What is a medium?’ because the medium per se does not exist. Instead, he insists that anything can become a medium or a sign, depending on the circumstances and contexts (cf. 2008: 96).

Etymologically, the meaning of the term ‘medium’ can be traced back to the Latin noun ‘medium’ and the corresponding adjective ‘medius.’ Among the dominant meanings of ‘medium’ the Oxford Latin Dictionary lists “[t]he middle part, centre” and “something which acts between two things, an intermediary” (“Medium,” def. 1, 6.b). According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online, two basic meanings have developed from this root in current English: firstly a middle condition in the sense of “[s]omething which is intermediate between two degrees, amounts, qualities, or classes; a middle state” and secondly an interceding instance in the sense of “[a] person or thing which acts as an intermediary” (“Medium,” def. I, II). Scholarly analyses and definitions of the medium restrict themselves to variations of the second sense and therefore carry the notion of the medium as a means of communication, transmission of information or cognition as their common denominator. Yet, their scope still varies significantly due to the many subordinate meanings that can be derived from this rather broad understanding of the term. Depending on the context and the respective academic discipline, the focus is thus placed on different facets of meaning from which diverse definitions can be gained.

Instead of providing a universally valid definition that is applicable to all disciplines and contexts, I shall introduce central approaches to the term ‘medium’ in the following in order to provide an overview of the range of possible frames of reference for this concept. Moreover, since the status of theatre and its interrelation with other media depends on how broad a definition of ‘medium’ is applied, I attempt to establish a working definition of the medium in order to support the analysis of the role of distinct media in theatrical performance which forms the centre of the present study.

In aesthetic definitions, such as those issued by the visual and performing arts, the medium is perceived as a means or form of artistic expression. According to this notion, all established arts such as painting, sculpture, architecture, theatre, music, dance etc. are media because they communicate meaning – sometimes overtly, sometimes in more abstract or obscure ways. As such, this notion of ‘medium’ implies an aesthetic or artistic claim although it is not necessarily meant to be an evaluative term in the sense of being limited to traditional ‘high arts’ or products of ‘high culture.’

Closely related to this use of the term ‘medium’ are institutional or sociological approaches as represented, for example, by media and communication studies which often rely on empirical methods of media analysis. With their focus on social, material, economic and pragmatic conditions of public communication, these studies analyse any aspect concerning the processing, distribution and reception of information via print, mechanical, analogue and digital media such as newspapers, magazines, radio, television, video, film, computer or internet. Due to their function as means of public communication, these media address a wide range of recipients in an impersonal way and used to establish a one-directional communication that hardly offered the addressees any means of active immediate response. Technological innovation in these media, specifically in online communication, however offers increasing opportunities for reciprocal communication and consumer participation via audience call-ins, live blogs, fan fiction websites etc. Nonetheless, the term ‘mass media’ under which these media are commonly subsumed still bears a negative connotation and implies a criticism of how mass communication often forces the recipients into a passive role.⁵ In a figurative sense, the people (e.g. journalists) and institutions (e.g. publishing houses) providing and disseminating public communication can also be referred to as “the media” (cf. “Medium,” OED Online, def. II.4.d).

(Information-)technological or mathematical approaches to the medium are common in informatics and figure prominently in Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver’s seminal work The Mathematical Theory of Communication (1949). Here, the medium is seen as a channel of communication. Hence, the main object of research is not the semantic content of a message but the mechanical and one-directional process of transmitting codes and signals from sender to receiver. This approach neglects aspects such as meaning, context or even the use of a specific medium because “[t]hese semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem” (31). Accordingly, these variables are not included in Shannon and Weaver’s well-known transmission model of communication, which only operates with abstract and general categories such as information source, message, transmitter, signal, noise source, receiver or destination (cf. 7, 34). A technological notion of media is also expressed by literary scholar and media theorist Friedrich A. Kittler. In his Discourse Networks 1800/1900 he identifies processing, storage and transmission of data as basic functions of media, which have pervaded their historical evolution from the “age-old medium of the alphabet” up to digital media such as the computer (370).

Semiotic and symbolic approaches, by contrast, regard the medium as a complex system of signs, codes or symbols effective in networks of communication and therefore see it as inseparable from its context. Language, music or painting, for instance, can therefore be considered as media in virtue of their intricate systems of signs such as words, sounds, forms and colours etc., all of which communicate meaning. Neil Postman, for example, emphasises the role of linguistic sign systems by observing that “our languages are our media” (15) and by claiming speech to be “the primal and indispensable medium” (9), the medium par excellence. In his ‘communicology,’ Vilém Flusser too expresses a semiotic and symbolic understanding by defining media generally as structures that function via codes (cf. 271) and by interpreting mediation as a process of “creat[ing] symbols and order[ing] them in codes” (37). Basically, according to Flusser, “the code as a medium of communication” (11) is any phenomenon that acquires a symbolic meaning (cf. 77) so that his examples, to name but a few, range from spoken language, the alphabet, the Morse code, the body, psychosomatic diseases, dreams, colours, sounds, numbers etc. (cf. 11, 77, 271) to the digital or “techno-codes” of photography, film, video and computer (40). The symbolic nature of media is also specifically relevant to approaches that consider media in terms of exchange values. In addition to Talcott Parsons’s symbolic media of money, power, influence and value commitments, for example, Niklas Luhmann’s sociological systems theory further introduces truth and love as symbolically generalised media of communication [“symbolisch generalisierte Kommunikationsmedien”] (28).

The notion of the communicative process as a complex system is also inherent in human-centred or corporeal approaches to the medium, common in disciplines such as anthropology, psychology and politics. Instead of focusing on inanimate, material or technical channels of communication these theories take the medium to denote a living agent or subject of communication and investigate the complex role of all kinds of anthropomorphic mediators or intermediary agents. These can be, for example, messengers, interpreters, go-betweens, intercessors, actors and – in religious or esoteric contexts – spiritualists (cf. “Medium,” OED Online, def. II.6.b). As a consequence, the human body is occasionally perceived as a primary or original medium which has been complemented or even successively superseded by other media. Marshall McLuhan, for instance, regards “all media [as] extensions of some human faculty – psychic or physical” (1967: 26; cf. 1964: 7, 45, 49). Following this idea, any medium becomes inseparably connected to the human body and mind to an extent that renders media “self-amputation[s] of our physical bodies” (1964: 45) as well as “extensions of our senses” (1964: 53). In this line of argument, a book can be seen as an “extension of the eye” (1967: 34), whereas “electric technology” such as the computer functions as an extension or “live model of the central nervous system itself” (1964: 43). Since McLuhan also assumes that the “‘content’ of any medium is always another medium” (1964: 8), media ought to be perceived as Chinese boxes with each medium containing an older medium down to the very core of media which is formed by the human body and its senses. With this all-encompassing concept of media McLuhan provides one of the broadest definitions of the term which has been repeatedly criticised for its vagueness. In like manner, French media theorist and philosopher Paul Virilio sees the human body and specifically the female body as the basic medium. With his understanding of media as devices for transportation and increasing velocity he regards women as primary media of transportation because they bear (i.e. ‘transport’) children and used to carry the men’s possessions in prehistoric times before being substituted by the use of pack animals and eventually by technological means of transportation such as trains, automobiles etc. (cf. Lagaay 152f.; Kloock, and Spahr 135). Thus, surprisingly, both McLuhan’s and Virilio’s human-centred definitions provide a link to technological approaches to the medium because they understand the human body as a historical precursor to technological media. However, where McLuhan welcomes these media as helpful extensions for overcoming limitations of the human body, Virilio sees them as external substitutes that are strange and essentially hostile to the human body (cf. Margreiter 2007: 151).

In a much broader sense, this human-centred definition of the medium leads over to a physiological understanding. This encompasses the notion of “environment” or milieu either as a person’s “social setting” and “condition of life” or as the biological or ecological habitat of an organism (“Medium,” OED Online, def. II.5.b). It also extends to physical or natural substances that transmit light or sound and trigger sense perceptions, as well as to abstract entities such as time or air (cf. “Medium,” OED Online, def. II.5.a). This understanding is common specifically among German media philosophers such as Fritz Heider (cf. Mersch 2006:10) or Walter Seitter (cf. Margreiter 2007:177f.), and it is occasionally expanded to include cognitive media such as the human senses themselves, as suggested by Reinhard Margreiter (cf. 2003:156f.; 2005: 239), Dieter Teichert (cf. 201) and Frank Hartmann (cf. 2000: 27).

Although this typology of different approaches to the term ‘medium’ arranges the various semantic layers of the term ‘medium’ in some systematic order, it necessarily simplifies the matter because, in practice, the individual categories overlap and are often not quite as distinct from each other as they might seem in theory. Not only are human-centred and technological definitions of the medium linked by McLuhan’s and Virilio’s approaches, but the boundaries between the terms ‘medium,’ ‘art’ and ‘sign’ are also frequently blurred, causing some phenomena simultaneously to fall into several subcategories. Theatre and film, for example, could be considered as aesthetic media with regard to their status among the arts, as institutional media in terms of their position in the media industry, as semiotic media due to their use of various sign-systems, as human-centred media based on the actors’ bodies, and finally as cognitive media offering multi-sensory experiences. Additionally, film qualifies also as a technological medium.

The allocation of a single phenomenon to more than one subcategory of the term ‘medium’ may not be problematic as such. Yet, obviously a definition of the medium that takes into consideration all of the above-mentioned approaches in combination is too vast and will hardly be of any use as an analytical tool. Such a definition would subsume phenomena that, intuitively, should not be assigned to an overarching category under the notion of ‘medium.’ Instead, it would seem appropriate to establish a definition of the medium that incorporates all aspects conventionally associated with the term ‘medium,’ while allowing the demarcation of boundaries between distinct media as well as between ‘media,’ the ‘arts’ and ‘signs.’

In a first step, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the notions of ‘medium’ and ‘sign’ or ‘sign system.’ Whereas ‘medium’ refers to the materiality and mediality, the term ‘sign’ focuses on the semiotic or semantic qualities of a means of communication. Accordingly, a medium makes use of signs or semiotic systems and is thus a carrier of signs rather than the sign itself (cf. Rippl 2010: 52; 2005: 42f., 45; 2004: 47ff.). Signs, in other words, are essential constituents of media. Since any medium makes use of one or more sign systems, distinct media can therefore be differentiated according to their characteristic choices of signs. Whereas some media are thus restricted to the use of a single semiotic system, other media are defined by their characteristic inter-semiotic mixture or combination of signs (e.g. theatre as a combination of sounds, words, movement, gestures and – potentially – any other signs).

Furthermore, a terminological distinction between ‘media’ and the ‘arts’ seems useful because, as Joachim Paech observes, both are often treated as synonyms (cf. 1998: 17). While ‘medium,’ as mentioned above, is meant to refer to the material aspect, ‘art’ expresses an aesthetic focus. Moreover, where a medium best serves its purpose when remaining unobtrusive and imperceptible, the arts deliberately (and sometimes self-reflexively) highlight their own artistic status or quality (cf. P. M. Meyer 82). Yet, ‘medium’ and ‘art’ are closely related and could also be seen as two sides of the same coin, differentiated only by the respective focus or perspective. A single phenomenon may therefore be categorised as both ‘medium’ and ‘art’ depending on the point of interest. Film, for instance, could be considered an art with regard to its aesthetic quality or a medium with regard to its technical materiality. This multiple labelling should, however, not be regarded as problematic because it renders possible a more detailed description of composite or multimedial arts such as theatre, that can combine a potentially unlimited amount of distinct media, based again on their respective sign systems, while never losing its status as a dramatic art. Besides, the distinction between ‘medium’ and ‘art’ allows to shift the emphasis between material and aesthetic criteria and to analyse the material interactions in intermedial phenomena without necessitating value judgements with regard to artistic quality or aesthetic consequences.

The definition of the medium is not only problematic because of the variety of approaches and the terminological proximity to the terms ‘sign’ and ‘art.’ What further complicates the definition is the fact that the medium per se – for example the media ‘theatre,’ ‘film’ or ‘video’ in their ‘pure form’ – only exists as a theoretical construct derived from repeated concrete manifestations of the respective medium (cf. Rajewsky 2004: 67; Krämer 2003: 85). Nevertheless, users or recipients of media develop general ideas with regard to the typical properties and characteristics of individual media based on their own media experiences. Although these shared notions of distinct media undergo historical and subjective changes over time, they establish a general consensus from which conventional conceptions or mental “frames” of the medium or of distinct media are derived (cf. Rajewsky 2004: 70ff.).

Werner Wolf’s often-quoted definition of the medium similarly regards media as “conventionally and culturally distinct means of communication” based on a shared cognitive “frame of reference” (2008: 19; 2002: 165; cf. also Rajewsky 2004: 72f.). It aptly captures most of the above-mentioned aspects of the ‘medium’ without, however, clearly distinguishing between the terms ‘medium,’ ‘sign’ and ‘art.’ In fact, it explicitly “encompasses the traditional arts but also new forms of communication that have not or not yet advanced to the status of an ‘art’” (Wolf 1999: 36; cf. 2002:165). I will therefore adopt his formula (cf. Wolf 2008: 19; 1999: 35f.) with slight modifications and define the medium as the material quality of a means of communication that can be identified by its characteristic and conventionally established use of specific signs or semiotic systems.

Obviously, a definition of the medium that takes into consideration cultural, conventional and sometimes intuitive notions of the term remains subject to historical change. Not only are new media occasionally invented and added to the canon, but existing media are also in flux and continue to renegotiate their cultural status. As different times bring forth their own media, these media come to coexist with already established media, imitate, improve or replace them, or they are, in turn, superseded by subsequent inventions. Since the scope of media theories ranges from theories that try to cover the history of media in a trans-historical approach to those that are restricted to a specific historical period, both the corresponding notion of the medium and the attitude towards historical changes of media vary. Media scholars can thus roughly be divided into those who try to offer neutral accounts of the evolution of media, those who praise media history as a success story of progress and finally those who paint apocalyptic visions of the future of media and are alarmed by what they consider as their threatening impact on everyday life, society and culture (cf. Lagaay, and Lauer 22).

But not only has the historical development of media repeatedly altered their conventional meanings; the term ‘medium’ as such has also gained new relevance directly proportional to the increasing diversity of available media. Kittler argues therefore that the notion of medium only became indispensable when it became necessary to distinguish between different media. He holds that as long as writing represented the only and uncontested “universal medium” there was as yet no need for a “concept of medium,” but the evolution of distinct media such as literature, television, radio, telephone etc. made such a concept inevitable (1999: 5f.). Yet, with the invention of computers which reduce all information to digital numbers and make it possible to transform any medium into any other medium, Kittler predicts that the concept of the medium will become altogether redundant and superfluous (1999:1f.). Thus, the “universal medium of computation” (1997: 126) will not only “erase[...] the differences among individual media” but “will erase the very concept of medium” (1999:1f.). Rajewsky also points out the problematic role of digital media when commenting on computer technology and its potential to simulate other media and completely to level out their differences. She reminds us that this poses a challenge not only to the distinction of media but by extension also to the concept of intermediality, because the idea of a transgression of medial boundaries presupposes the existence of medial differences in the first place (cf. 2005: 62).

Kittler sees the fusion of formerly distinct media as a new phenomenon characteristic of the current age of increasing digitalisation, while other media theorists claim that media have never existed in isolation. This idea is expressed, for example, by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin’s notion of ‘remediation’ and Jens Schröter’s...