(Dia)logics of difference : disability, performance & spectatorship

In this paper I examine the way artists with disabilities use performances in public spaces to encourage people to reflect on their own contribution to the construction of publics, or counter-publics, during and after the moment of encounter. I focus on Liz Crow’s Resistance on the Plinth. This is the title Crow gave her performance on the Forth Plinth in Trafalgar Square as part of Antony Gormley’s One and Other project in 2009. Described as a public art project presenting a portrait of the U.K., Gormley’s One and Other gave 2400 people selected at random via a lottery the chance to do whatever they chose for an hour on the vacant Forth Plinth in Trafalgar Square. In her hour, Crow chose to present herself in a Nazi uniform, in her wheelchair. In this paper, I discuss how Crow’s performance used a counterposition of images – the Nazi uniform, associated with eugenics and a desire to eliminate people who do not accord with the Arayan ‘norm’, counterposed with her wheelchair – to encourage passersby to “stop, look, think.” I examine how Crow used this counterposition to prevent passersby from attributing a single, stable, monologic meaning to the image – forestalling the risk that passersby would read the image as a Nazi on the Plinth – and instead draw passersby into a dialogue in which the impossibility of reconciling the contradictory images, ideologies and cultural logics Crow embodied encouraged people to continue thinking and talking about these cultural logics during and after the encounter.

(Dia)logics of difference disability, performance and spectatorship in Liz Crow's Resistance on the Plinth

In this article I examine how artists with disabilities use public-space performance to encourage passersby to reflect on the construction of public discourses about disability – and, therefore, the construction of publics that are potentially inclusive of people with disabilities. I concentrate on British storyteller, artist, filmmaker and activist Liz Crow's Resistance on the Plinth, one of four pieces Crow has produced over the past three years as part of the Resistance series, an examination of the Nazi regime's Aktion T4 programme, which resulted in the mass murder of a quarter of a million people with disabilities. Created in August 2009 as part of Antony Gormley's One & Other public art project, the piece featured Crow dressed in a Nazi uniform and seated in a wheelchair on the Fourth Plinth in London's Trafalgar Square. For Crow – who creates work in a British context where public debate about the eugenics of genetic testing, euthanasia and assisted suicide is prevalent in the media – the Nazi atrocity is still rich in confronting imagery, resonant and relevant in a contemporary context. In this article, I consider the challenges that Gormley's extremely public One & Other presented for professional artists like Crow, who are committed to intervening in public perceptions of identity, community and culture. I describe the structural choices Crow made to provoke debate about the cultural logics embodied in the image she presented, and analyse some of the spectatorial responses from online forums such as the One & Other website, Facebook and Twitter immediately following the event.

“That you would post such a thing implies that you are a despicable human being”: spectatorship, social media, & the struggle for meaning in disability performance

Artists with disabilities working in Live Art paradigms often present performances which replay the social attitudes they are subject to in daily life as guerilla theatre in public spaces – including online spaces. In doing so, these artists draw spectators’ attention to the way their responses to disabled people contribute to the social construction of disability. They provide different theatrical, architectural or technological devices to encourage spectators to articulate their response to themselves and others. But – the use of exaggeration, comedy and confrontation in these practices notwithstanding – their blurry boundaries mean some spectators experience confusion as to whether they are responding to real life or a representation of it. This results in conflicted responses which reveal as much about the politics of disability as the performances themselves. In this paper, I examine how these conflicted responses play out in online forums. I discuss diverse examples, from blog comments on Liz Crow’s Resistance on the Plinth on YouTube, to Aaron Williamson and Katherine Araneillo’s Disabled Avant-Garde clips on YouTube, to Ju Gosling’s Letter Writing Project on her website, to segments of UK Channel 4’s mock reality show Cast Offs on YouTube. I demonstrate how online forums become a place not just for recording memories of an original performance (which posters may not have seen), but for a new performance, which goes well beyond re-membering/remediating the original. I identify trends in the way experience, memory and meaningmaking play out in these performative forums – moving from clarification of the original act’s parameters, to claims of disgust, insult or offense, to counter-claims confirming the comic or political efficacy of the act, often linked disclosure of personal memory or experience of disability. I examine the way these encounters at the interstices of live and/or online performance, memory, technology and public/private history negotiate ideas about disability, and what they tell us about the ethics and efficacy of the specific modes of performance and spectatorship these artists with disabilities are invoking.

Disability, public space performance & spectatorship : Unconscious performers

Why would disabled people want to re-engage, re-enact and re-envisage the everyday encounters in public spaces and places that cast them as ugly, strange, stare-worthy? In Disability, Public Space Performance and Spectatorship: Unconscious Performers, Bree Hadley examines the performance practices of disabled artists in the US, UK, Europe and Australasia who do exactly this. Operating in a live or performance art paradigm, artists like James Cunningham (Australia), Noemi Lakmaier (UK/Austria), Alison Jones (UK), Aaron Williamson (UK), Katherine Araniello (UK), Bill Shannon (US), Back to Back Theatre (Australia), Rita Marcalo (UK), Liz Crow (UK) and Mat Fraser (UK) all use installation and public space performance practices to re-stage their disabled identities in risky, guerilla-style works that remind passersby of their own complicity in the daily social drama of disability. In doing so, they draw spectators' attention to their own role in constructing Western concepts of disability. This book investigates the way each of us can become unconscious performers in a daily social drama that positions disability people as figures of tragedy, stigma or pity, and the aesthetics, politics and ethics of performance practices that intervene very directly in this drama. It constructs a framework for understanding the way spectators are positioned in these practices, and how they contribute to public sphere debates about disability today.

Theatre, social media and spectatorship : translating commentary, critique and controversy across media

The occasional ArtsHub article asking spectators to show respect for stage by switching all devices off notwithstanding, in the last few years we have witnessed an clear push to make more use of social media as a means by which spectators might respond to a performance across most theatre companies. Mainstage companies, as well as contemporary companies are asking us to turn on, tune in and tweet our impressions of a show to them, to each other, and to the masses – sometimes during the show, sometimes after the show, and sometimes without having seen the show. In this paper, I investigate the relationship between theatre, spectatorship and social media, tracing the transition from print platforms in which expert critics were responsible for determining audience response to today’s online platforms in which everybody is responsible for debating responses. Is the tendency to invite spectators to comment via social media before, during, or after a show the advance in audience engagement, entertainment and empowerment many hail it to be? Is it a return to a more democratised past in which theatres were active, interactive and at times downright rowdy, and the word of the published critic had yet to take over from the word of the average punter? Is it delivering distinctive shifts in theatre and theatrical meaning making? Or is it simply a good way to get spectators to write about a work they are no longer watching? An advance in the marketing of the work rather than an advance in the active, interactive aesthetic of the work? In this paper, I consider what the performance of spectatorship on social media tells us about theatre, spectatorship and meaning-making. I use initial findings about the distinctive dramaturgies, conflicts and powerplays that characterise debates about performance and performance culture on social media to reflect on the potentially productive relationship between theatre, social media, spectatorship, and meaning making. I suggest that the distinctive patterns of engagement displayed on social media platforms – including, in many cases, remediation rather than translation, adaptation or transformation of prior engagement practices – have a lot to tell us about how spectators and spectator groups negotiate for the power to provide the dominant interpretation of a work.

Book review : "Artificial Hells: participatory art and the politics of spectatorship by Claire Bishop"

In the years since Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics (1998) was published, a plethora of books (Shannon Jackson’s Social Works: Performing Art, Supporting Publics [2011], Nato Thompson’s Living as Form: Socially Engaged Art from 1991–2011 [2011], Grant Kester’s Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art [2004], Pablo Helguera’s Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Material and Techniques Handbook [2011]), conferences and articles have surfaced creating a rich and textured discourse that has responded to, critiqued and reconfigured the proposed social utopias of Bourriaud’s aesthetics. As a touchstone for this emerging discourse, Relational Aesthetics outlines in a contemporary context the plethora of social and process-based art forms that took as their medium the ‘social’. It is, however, Clare Bishop’s book Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship (Verso), that offers a deeper art historical and theoretically considered rendering of this growing and complicated form of art, and forms a central body of work in this broad constellation of writings about participatory art, or social practice art/socially engaged art (SEA), as it is now commonly known...

To see and be seen : cinematic constructions of gender and spectatorship in contemporary screen-based art

To See and Be Seen: Cinematic Constructions of Gender and Spectatorship in Contemporary Screen-Based Art addresses how gendered representation can be structured within visual art practice through a series of creative moving-image works. Using the aesthetic language of French New Wave cinema as its primary point of departure, this research project investigates how gendered representations are constructed by cinematic language. In doing this, it proposes latent possibilities present within the dominant gaze created by patriarchal relations of power. This project, in a series of creative works, demonstrates how the 'masculine' authorial gaze is learnt culturally, and by examining the gendered syntax of film, reveals how this can be recontextualised by the female artist.

Theatre, co-creativity & co-creative spectatorship

Theatre is a socially and politically aware artform. It participates in the construction – and, potentially, the contestation – of a community’s history, identity, and ideals. It does this live, in the moment, where artist, artwork and audience meet here, now, together. This, most theatre makers think, gives theatre special power to make spectators think about the stories it stages. But it also creates challenges.

Theatre, networked performance, and notions of ‘democratised’ spectatorship

The potential to cultivate new relationships with spectators has long been cited as a primary motivator for those using digital technologies to construct networked or telematics performances or para-performance encounters in which performers and spectators come together in virtual – or at least virtually augmented – spaces and places. Today, with Web 2.0 technologies such as social media platforms becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and increasingly easy to use, more and more theatre makers are developing digitally mediated relationships with spectators. Sometimes for the purpose of an aesthetic encounter, sometimes for critical encounter, or sometimes as part of an audience politicisation, development or engagement agenda. Sometimes because this is genuinely an interest, and sometimes because spectators or funding bodies expect at least some engagement via Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. In this paper, I examine peculiarities and paradoxes emerging in some of these efforts to engage spectators via networked performance or para-performance encounters. I use examples ranging from theatre, to performance art, to political activism – from ‘cyberformaces’ on Helen Varley Jamieson’s Upstage Avatar Performance Platform, to Wafaa Bilal’s Domestic Tension installation where spectators around the world could use a webcam in a chat room to target him with paintballs while he was in residence in a living room set up in a gallery for a week, as a comment on use of drone technology in war, to Liz Crow’s Bedding Out where she invited people to physically and virtually join her in her bedroom to discuss the impact of an anti-disabled austerity politics emerging in her country, to Dislife’s use of holograms of disabled people popping up in disabled parking spaces when able bodied drivers attempted to pull into them, amongst others. I note the frequency with which these performance practices deploy discourses of democratisation, participation, power and agency to argue that these technologies assist in positioning spectators as co-creators actively engaged in the evolution of a performance (and, in politicised pieces that point to racism, sexism, or ableism, pushing spectators to reflect on their agency in that dramatic or daily-cum-dramatic performance of prejudice). I investigate how a range of issues – from the scenographic challenges in deploying networked technologies for both participant and bystander audiences others have already noted, to the siloisation of aesthetic, critical and audience activation activities on networked technologies, to conventionalised dramaturgies of response informed by power, politics and impression management that play out in online as much as offline performances, to the high personal, social and professional stakes involved in participating in a form where spectators responses are almost always documented, recorded and re-represented to secondary and tertiary sets of spectators via the circulation into new networks social media platforms so readily facilitate – complicate discourses of democratic co-creativity associated with networked performance and para-performance activities.

Practice as method : the ex/centric fixations project

In the past decade, scholars have proposed a range of terms to describe the relationship between practice and research in the creative arts, including increasingly nuanced definitions of practice-based research, practice-led research and practice-as-research. In this paper, I consider the efficacy of creative practice as method. I use the example of The Ex/Centric Fixations Project – a project in which I have embedded creative practice in a research project, rather than embedding research in a creative project. The Ex/Centric Fixations project investigates the way spectators interpret human experiences – especially human experiences of difference, marginalisation or discrimination – depicted onstage. In particular, it investigates the way postmodern performance writing strategies, and the presence of performing bodied to which the experience depicted can be attached, impacts on interpretations. It is part of a broader research project which examines the performativity of spectatorship, and intervenes in emergent debates about performance, ethics and spectatorship in the context of debate about whether live performance is a privileged site for the emergence of an ethical face-to-face encounter with the Other. Using the metaphor of the Mobius strip, I examines the way practice – as a method, rather than an output – has informed, influenced and problematised the broader research project.

The moment of exchange : risk, vulnerability, responsibility

Any cycle of production and exchange – be it economic, cultural or aesthetic – involves an element of risk. It involves uncertainty, unpredictability, and a potential for new insight and innovation (the boom) as well as blockages, crises and breakdown (the bust). In performance, the risks are plentiful – economic, political, social, physical and psychological. The risks people are willing to take depend on their position in the exchange (performer, producer, venue manager or spectator), and their aesthetic preferences. This paper considers the often uncertain, confronting or ‘risky’ moment of exchange between performer, spectator and culture in Live Art practices. Encompassing body art, autobiographical art, site-specific art and other sorts of performative intervention in the public sphere, Live Art eschews the artifice of theatre, breaking down barriers between art and life, artist and spectator, to speak back to the public sphere, and challenge assumptions about bodies, identities, memories, relationships and histories. In the process, Live Art frequently privileges an uncertain, confrontational or ‘risky’ mode of exchange between performer, spectator and culture, as a way of challenging power structures. This paper examines the moment of exchange in terms of risk, vulnerability, responsibility and ethics. Why the romance with ‘risky’ behaviours and exchanges? Who is really taking a risk? What risk? With whose permission (or lack thereof)? What potential does a ‘risky’ exchange hold to destabilise aesthetic, social or political norms? Where lies the fine line between subversive intervention in the public sphere and sheer self-indulgence? What are the social and ethical implications of a moment of exchange that puts bodies, beliefs or social boundaries at ‘risk’? In this paper, these questions are addressed with reference to historical and contemporary practices under the broadly defined banner of Live Art, from the early work of Abrovamic and Burden, through to contemporary Australian practitioners like Fiona McGregor.

Celebrating difference/censoring difference? : Marie Chouinard’s bODY rEMIX

This paper examines performances that defy established representations of disease, deformity and bodily difference. Historically, the ‘deformed’ body has been cast – onstage and in sideshows – as flawed, an object of pity, or an example of the human capacity to overcome. Such representations define the boundaries of the ‘normal’ body by displaying its Other. They bracket the ‘abnormal’ body off as an example of deviance from the ‘norm’, thus, paradoxically, decreasing the social and symbolic visibility (and agency) of disabled people. Yet, in contemporary theory and culture, these representations are reappropriated – by disabled artists, certainly, but also as what Carrie Sandahl has called a ‘master trope’ for representing a range of bodily differences. In this paper, I investigate this phenomenon. I analyse French Canadian choreographer Marie Chouinard’s bODY rEMIX/gOLDBERG vARIATIONS, in which 10 able-bodied dancers are reborn as bizarre biotechnical mutants via the use of crutches, walkers, ballet shoes and barres as prosthetic pseudo-organs. These bodies defy boundaries, defy expectations, develop new modes of expression, and celebrate bodily difference. The self-inflicted pain dancers experience during training is cast as a ‘disablement’ that is ultimately ‘enabling’. I ask what effect encountering able bodies celebrating ‘dis’ or ‘diff’ ability has on audiences. Do we see the emergence of a once-repressed Other, no longer silenced, censored or negated? Or does using ‘disability’ to express the dancers’ difference and self-determination usurp a ‘trope’ by which disabled people themselves might speak back to the dominant culture, creating further censorship?

Duplicity/complicity : misperforming the social drama of disability

In this paper, I investigate the (mis)performance of ‘passing’ in the context of bodies with disabilities. The desire to conceal, control or contain a body’s idiosyncrasies can be a deceitful act, complicit with dominant cultural assumptions about the benefits of fitting in. Passing, and the performative tricks, techniques and prostheses that support the ‘lie’ of passing, upholding a social contract in which a closeting-as-cure approach accommodates discomfort with difference. In this paper, I consider moments of non-passing, where people are caught out by mistakes or deliberate misperformances of the daily social drama of ability and disability. I reference the work of disabled artists Bill Shannon, Aaron Williamson and Katherine Araniello, who re-perform their daily personal interactions in the public sphere as a sort of guerilla theatre. Their work brings hidden assumptions about how disabled people should act and interact to the brink of visibility. It challenges passers-by to confront their complicity in these discourses by pressing them to re-perform their own spontaneous reactions to bodies that misperform the ‘lie’ of normalcy.

Orchids : intersex and identity in documentary

Orchids: Intersex and Identity in Documentary explores the creative practice challenges of working with bodies with intersex in the long-form auto/biographical documentary Orchids. Just as creative practice research challenges the dominant hegemony of quantitative and qualitative research, so does my creative work position itself as a nuanced piece, pushing the boundaries of traditional cultural studies theories, documentary film practice and creative practice method, through its distinctive distillation and celebration of a new form of discursive rupturing, the intersex voice.

Uncertainties that matter : risk, response-ability, ethics and the moment of exchange in Live Art

This article examines the moment of exchange between artist, audience and culture in Live Art. Drawing on historical and contemporary examples, including examples from the Exist in 08 Live Art Event in Brisbane, Australia, in October 2008, it argues that Live Art - be it body art, activist art, site-specific performance, or other sorts of performative intervention in the public sphere - is characterised by a common set of claims about activating audiences, asking them to reflect on cultural norms challenged in the work. Live Art presents risky actions, in a context that blurs the boundaries between art and reality, to position audients as ‘witnesses’ who are personally implicated in, and responsible for, the actions unfolding before them. This article problematises assumptions about the way the uncertainties embedded in the Live Art encounter contribute to its deconstructive agenda. It uses the ethical theory of Emmanuel Levinas, Hans-Thies Lehmann and Dwight Conquergood to examine the mechanics of reductive, culturally-recuperative readings that can limit the efficacy of the Live Art encounter. It argues that, though ‘witnessing’ in Live Art depends on a relation to the real - real people, taking real risks, in real places - if it fails to foreground theatrical frame it is difficult for audients to develop the dual consciousness of the content, and their complicity in that content, that is the starting point for reflexivity, and response-ability, in the ethical encounter.