We’re back in rehearsal. During the time we were down, I began to rethink the role of the audience on stage. Sungmyung Chun had thought of the idea in relation to Korean traditional circular theatrical space and I thought it was interesting because my last two works had also dealt with the audience and though I wasn’t sure about the how of that integration in this work, I was sure it was something I wanted to explore, something that I was already exploring.

A rendering of the stage space made during the first rehearsal period
But what is it, having some audience on stage? How does their activity and image relate to what the performers are doing? During the break that question kept gnawing at me. The first rehearsals had gone well. We had made some work that accurately captured the feeling of Chun’s sculptures. But like my experience with Laylah Ali’s work forming the basis for “figures on a field”, the replication of the painting’s visual composition alone as the performance narrative would, to me, result in something limited, and it would not take advantage of the true translation from one medium to another. That was solved by thinking about the larger environment. So what is the larger environment here, I thought.
We had decided on the circular space and having a few audience members on stage with us. I began to think that the offstage audience could think of the performers and the onstage audience together as a single community. If that were true, what would then make up the dynamics of our relationship? From this question came the idea that the performers are “hosting” the onstage audience and the interactions on stage create a spectacle for the offstage viewer that frames not only a translation of Chun’s work but also the community for which and from which it emerges.
More questions. Hosting is visually simple. What is its nature? What are the expectations between guest and host? How can that dynamic be heightened, made visible, commented on? I begin to think of ways an audience is engaged in performance. Virtuosity is the top of the list. If virtuosity is a traditional mode of communication then what is its role in the presentation of vulnerability, of experimentation? How is that related to Chun’s practice or mine. How do we expose and share our idea of rigor through the presentation? What is it that communities see in the individual’s presentation of “existential angst”…. themselves? others? mere indulgence? What is the role of sincerity, of cynicism, of abstraction?
I think about what Warhol said about life: “being born is like being kidnapped, and then sold into slavery.” I laugh, I think it’s true, but doesn’t that say something desperate and inevitable about our condition, our communities?
We’re in the third week of our second rehearsal period, we’re inviting guests and more questions.