Erika Fischer Lichte
Erika Fischer Lichte
Erika Fischer Lichte
69
70
scenic space, the bodily appearance of the actors, gestures, movements, language,
sounds, music, and so on, and in this sense as a textwhich does not mean the
literary text of a play but a text made up of heterogeneous signs. Thus, semiotic
methods could be applied to a performance.1
The central purpose of semiotic analysis was to search for possible meanings. It
stemmed from the assumption that an unequivocal meaning can never be accorded to
a performanceas it cannot to lyrics or a painting. It is ambiguous and polyvalent.
Accordingly, it is open to most diverse processes of meaning generation. It is never
the meaning of a gesture, action, scene, or the whole performance, but only one
possible meaning from a generally large number of meanings generated with regard
to the element in question. A semiotic analysis never strives to discover a unied
meaning of performance or any one element of it. Even if one particular meaning
is generated, this does not mean that all others are to be excluded. Rather, a choice
is made with a view to the particular problem, question, hypothesis, or perspective
under which the analysis is undertaken, for there is no such thing as a complete
analysis. An analysis will always neglect elements of the performance which do not
seem relevant in terms of the leading question of the analysis or which were simply
not perceived at all, rst and foremost because an analysis is a dynamic process of
relating elements of the performance to each other as well as to all kinds of elements
to which the analyst may refer. Theoretically, this process can never come to an end.
Instead, the end, created by the analyst, is somewhat arbitrary. Although theatre
semiotics is sometimes blamed for being static, reducing the full range of possible
meanings to one meaning only, for demanding clarity and not allowing ambiguity
or even contradiction, for demanding a unied meaning, all such reproaches are
pointless. If such a result has occurred, it has not followed from any restrictions in
the semiotic approach per se, but from an inadequate application of it.
Another reproach is that theatre semiotics ignores the particular materiality
of theatrical signs. This does not hold true either, for a semiotic analysis always
proceeds from the very materiality of the sign. However, it must be conceded that
it is only considered with regard to its potential to serve as a signto produce
meaning. This can, in fact, be seen as a certain limitation.
While the linguistic turn of the 1970s resulted in an understanding not only
of theatre but quite generally of culture as a text made up of signs that have to be
deciphered, the so-called performative turn of the 1990s brought forth another
metaphor which, in some ways, is opposed to that of culture as textthe
metaphor of culture as performance. In theatre studies, this resulted in a shift
of focus from the semioticity of a performance to its performativity. This shift
promised to overcome the limitations of theatre semiotics. From the perspective
of performativity the interest is less in what the acts, actions, and movements of
the performers mean than in how they are perceived and experienced, how they
affect the spectators, and what kind of impact they have on them. Therefore, the
Spring 2008
71
72
their own role in the performance. They were seated on the stagei.e., the place
reserved for the actors, and those arriving later, in fact, acted before the eyes of the
others. They were not free to decide on their own whether to become actors or to
remain spectatorsas in some sort of old-fashioned audience participationbut
rather in order to become spectators they rst had to act as performers. Stumbling
over a faintly lit stage and accidentally disconnecting lighting cables while sensing
the eyes of others staring at them, at least in some cases, resulted in a feeling of
insecurity and awkwardness. In this way, the very process of entering the stage
space in order to participate in a performance caused irritation. People who arrived
in order to act as spectators were suddenly forced into the role of actors, which
some apparently hated while others enjoyed the experience.
Moving over the stage in order to reach ones place stimulated some to try
and make sense of the whole procedure. What was the purpose of being made to
appear on stage? Was it meant to point to the permanent change between the role
of actor and performer we undergo in everyday life? Or did it hint at a particular
involvement of the spectators in the story to be acted out later on by the Volksbuehne
actorsperhaps in the sense of the old Tua res agitur? While for some the walk
over the stage might have been experienced as somewhat destabilizinghaving
their clumsiness exposed to the gaze of othersthe attempt to make sense of it
surely contributed to a re-stabilization.
However, during the course of the performance, the spectators quickly
recognized that having arrived at the scaffolding, taken their seats, and thus regained
the role of spectator, they were by no means in a safe position. The four actors
repeatedly provoked interaction with the spectators. One of the actors (Hendrik
Arnst), a man of massive physical proportions playing the part of Frank, went
up to one or another spectator from time to time, violently stamping the ground
in a terrifying way, attacking her/him with aggressive remarks, bodily posture,
or gestures. He abused a female spectator in the upper rows as fucking bitch
and bellowed at her to stop her idiotic gawping. The reactions of the spectators
were different at each performance. One spectator who was attacked obviously
felt threatened and moved back, terried; he seemed to make himself smaller and
in this way invisible, while the other spectators burst out laughing. This seemed
to be a welcome pretext for the actor to launch another attack on the audience
by shouting to them: Shut up when the lady is going to speak! whereupon the
actress Kathrin Angerer, who played the part of Alison, took up her scolding aria
on Frank, the swine, a second time. At another performance, the man addressed
by the actor tried to ignore the attack, and the audience did not laugh. This time,
the actor went back to the playing area, and the actress began her aria anew. On one
occasion, during the performance rst mentioned, two spectators wanted to leave
before the end and tried to sneak out unnoticed by the actors. One actor (Matthias
Matschke) managed to run up to them before they could leave and took them to
Spring 2008
73
task. He interrogated them as to why they did not like the performance and asked
them to rethink their decision. When they determinedly opened the door and left
without saying a word, he sent after them the rudest abusewhich the audience
cheered. In any case, whatever happened, the spectators had a hard time claiming
the position of distanced observers. The production did its utmost to make them part
of the performance. The spectators experienced themselves as being determined
by the course of the performance as it was not in their power to prevent the actors
from addressing them directly, thus turning them into actors of the play. At the
same time they experienced themselves as being able to co-determine the course
of the performance by their observable reactions. On the one hand, this provoked
a number of physiological, energetic, affective, or motor states in the spectators
concerned; on the other, it raised the question of how to make sense of this kind
of forced audience participation.
The bodily co-presence of actors and spectator
One possible meaning might have been created by making the spectators
experience and, as a consequence, recognize that a performance always comes
into existence through the bodily co-presence of actors and spectators who
assemble at a certain time and place in order to share a situation, a moment in time.
While those who actreal actors or spectators in the position of actorsdo
somethingmove through the space, perform gestures, manipulate objects, speak
and singthe spectators perceive them and react.
It may well be the case that such reactions are at least partly internal
imaginative and cognitivei.e., purely mental processes. However, most of the
reactions and responses can be perceived by the actors and the other spectators, e.g.,
giggling, laughing, shouting, yawning, snoring, sobbing, crying, eating, drinking,
commenting on what is happening, getting up, running out, and slamming the
doors. The perception of such responses, in its turn, results in further perceptible
reactions. Whatever the actors do, it has an effect on the spectators; and whatever
the spectators do, it has an effect on the actors and other spectators. It can be
concluded from this situation that a performance only comes into being through
the interactions between actors and spectators. Hence it follows that its course
cannot be completely planned or predicted and is, in fact, different each night. It
is kind of an autopoietic process, which is characterized by differing degrees of
contingency. Anything that occurs in the course of a performance cannot be entirely
foreseen at its beginning. Many elements emerge in the course of a performance
as a consequence of certain interactions.
Of course, the actors on stageand the director behind themset the decisive
preconditions for the progression of the performancepreconditions that are xed
by the process of mise-en-scne. As director, Castorf decided on the place of the
performancethe stageand the special kind of opening ceremony that turned
74
most spectators into actors. And it was the actor Hendrik Arnst, for example, who
decided when, how, and which of the spectators to address directly. Nonetheless,
neither was in a position to control the course of the performance entirely. In the
end, it is all participants together who generate the performance.
Therefore, the performance opens up the possibility for all participants to
experience themselves in its course as subjects that are able to co-determine the
actions and behavior of others, and whose own actions and behavior, in the same
way, are determined by others. The individual participantswhether actor or
spectatorexperience themselves as subjects neither fully autonomous nor fully
determined by others, subjects who accept responsibility for a situation which they
take part in but have not created. This demonstrates that a theatre performance is
also to be regarded as a social process in which different individuals and groups
encounter, negotiate, and regulate their relationships in different ways.
This interpretation is backed up at the end of the performance. The actors tried
hard to draw as much applause from the audience as possible in order to extend the
performance. Moreover, they not only jumped and smiled and stretched out their
arms, they also stopped spectators who tried to steal away in order to ask why they
were leaving so soon, whether they did not like the performance, or to scold them
for being so stingy with applause. They mingled with the spectators, shakingor,
in the case of female spectators, kissingtheir hands, and said, Thank you. In
other words, they fraternized with the spectators and tried all means to prevent
them from leaving, extending the play into a clearly social situation and thus
prolonging the performance. At the end, the spectators decided on the conclusion
of the performance: it was only over when the last spectator left. This kind of
ending unmistakably stressed that the performance had come into being through
the encounter of actors and spectators.
By playing with and exploiting some of the possibilities that are given with the
bodily co-presence of actors and spectators, the interplay between the performative
and the semiotic dimension was also highlighted. It was the bodily experience
of such co-presence which led to transformations of the physiological, affective,
energetic, and motor states of the spectators and, following from that, to the semiotic
processes by which spectators tried to make sense of such an experience.
The materiality of the performance
This interplay was also decisive with regard to the materiality of the
performance as will be shown with regard to spatiality and corporeality.
The space
The playing area on the stage was formed by an almost empty space. In the
back, where the curtain usually hangs, and at the right side, there were screens on
which lm clips were shown as, for instance, pictures of a landscape in spring, lmed
from the window of a moving train, or a documentary on Nico Icon, the singer of
Spring 2008
75
Velvet Underground. Music was played not only during the lm and video clips, but
also in all parts of the performance. It included recordings by Velvet Underground,
Iggy Pop, and Lou Reed, as well as Karel Gott (a Czech-German pop-singer born
in 1939, who mostly performs easy listening music with folksy tunes and themes),
and Arnold Schoenberg. There were only a few objects on stage: an iron bed where
Alison was positioned during the whole performance, a baby doll, a toilet bowl, a
Union Jack, and, on the oor, the lighting equipment mentioned above, laid out as
it is used on construction sites. With the exception of the lights on the oor, none
of the objects were in the playing area as the spectators made their entrance but
were pushed on or brought in later by the three male actors.
The atmosphere which dominated the space changed several times during the
course of the performance. Right from the start the spectators sensed a particular
atmosphere, which was brought about by the huge dimension of the whole stage
space with the naked wall behind only faintly lit. This, and the lighting equipment
on the oor at the front and center stage, was reminiscent of a construction site,
an atmosphere that was felt to be unpleasant. The atmosphere changed when the
actors made their entrance, when the bed was pushed in, or when the toilet bowl
was brought on stage. It also changed when the lm and video recordings were
presented or when music lled the space. However the atmosphere changed, it was
always felt to be something one could not escape.
As the philosopher Gernot Boehme has shown, atmosphere, although not
bound to a particular place, pours into the space. It is not tied to the objectsor
peoplefrom which it seems to emanate or to those who enter the space and
sense it physically. Usually, atmosphere is the rst thing that spectators perceive,
tingeing them and thus allowing for a very specic experience of the space. An
experience such as this cannot be explained by taking recourse to the single elements
in spaceits extension, particular objects, sounds, smells, or anything else. For it is
not these individual elements that create the atmosphere but the interplay between
all of them which, in theatre productions, is usually carefully calculated. Boehme
denes atmosphere as spaces, in that they are tinged by the presence of objects,
of human beings or environmental constellations. They are themselves spheres of
the presence of something, its reality in space.2 The phrase spheres of presence
describes a particular mode in which objects are perceived. Boehme explains the
mode in which a thing appears in a particular way as present, as an ecstasy of the
object. Not only its colors, smells, or sounds are conceptualized as ecstasiesi.e.,
the so-called secondary qualities of a thingbut also its primary qualities such
as extension and form. The ecstasy of things inuences their environment; they
attract, even demand attentionas do the iron bed or the toilet bowland they
appear to those who perceive them as present in a particularly intense way. They
force themselves into their eld of attention.
Atmosphere contributes considerably to the creation of spatiality. Through
76
the atmosphere, which seems to permeate the space and the things, the things and
the space appear to the subject who enters or who is present while it changes, as
present in a highly emphatic sense. Not only do they present themselves in their
so-called primary and secondary qualities; moreover, in the atmosphere, they even
invade the body of the perceiving subjectwhich is mostly experienced through
light, smells, and sound. For the spectator is not confronted with an atmosphere,
is not distanced from it; rather, s/he is surrounded by it, s/he is permeated by it. In
this sense, atmosphere is something which is physically sensed.
On the other hand, an atmosphere is able to work on the perceiving subject
in a particular way because for the subject it connects with particular meanings
which contribute to the feelings of, for example, uneasiness, awkwardness, or
threat. As a result, the subject will accord various meanings to the atmosphere
which it senses. It may well be that the particular shade of the atmosphere sensed
deviates from any that have already been experienced in one respect or other. Thus
the subject is challenged to nd a new meaning which will inform the experience
of the atmosphere at a later date, when it is sensed again. Therefore, atmosphere
appears as a kind of phenomenon in which the performative and the semiotic
dimensions are intertwined in a way that it is hard to separate themand possible
only for heuristic reasons.
The actors body
Because of the bodily co-presence of actors and spectators, corporeality plays
an essential role in performances. In Trainspotting this was not only effective
when one of the actors went up to a spectator and addressed him or her directly,
intimidating by his mere physical presence. It dominated the performance right
from the very rst entrance of the actors. The three male actors/junkies sat down
side by side and ung their words out in a way that what they said was almost not
intelligible. Instead, how they uttered it had an immediate effect on the spectators.
The rhythm of their choric speech, the volume, the particular quality of the
voices, the harmony or disharmony of their voices, and most of all the energy of
the speakers had a physiological, affective, and energetic effect on the spectators.
It seemed as if a stream of energy emanated from the actors, transferred onto the
spectators, and energized them in their turn. In a particular way and with a particular
intensity the actors were experienced as PRESENT.
What was sensed here was the phenomenal body of the actors, not their semiotic
bodies that represented the junkies. While up to now the semiotic body representing
dramatic gures in performances has attracted and received much attention, the
phenomenal body of actors and spectators, i.e., their bodily being-in-the-world, has
only seldom come into view. This is all the more surprising since the phenomenal
body and the semiotic body are inextricably bound to each other; it is possible to
think of the phenomenal body without referring to the semiotic body but not the
other way round. It seems productive to relate them to one another via the concept
Spring 2008
77
78
Spring 2008
79
80
points to the threshold between the spaces, to the state of liminality into which the
performance transfers all those who participate in it.
Since such pairs of dichotomous concepts serve not only as tools for the
description and cognition of the world but also as regulators for our actions
and behavior, their destabilization not only upsets our perception of the world,
ourselves, and others but also shatters the rules and norms that guide our behavior.
Different frames can be deduced from the pairs of concepts, for instance, This
is theatre/art or This is a social or political situation. Such frames prescribe an
adequate behavior in the situation they encompass. By letting opposite or only
different frames collide, by thus allowing different, even completely opposite values
and claims to stand side by side so that they are all valid while at the same time
they annul each other, performances create liminal situations. They transport the
spectators between all these rules, norms, orderssometimes they even transfer
them into a crisis.
The performance transfers the spectators into a state, which alienates them
from their everyday life and from the norms and rules valid in it. Such a state can
be experienced as a pleasure as well as a torment. The transformations undergone
by the subjects can be most diverse. Mainly, they are temporary transformations,
which last only for a limited time span in the performance. These include changes in
the bodys physiological, affective, energetic, and motor states, a well as changes in
status such as those from the status of a spectator to that of an actor, or the building
up of a community between actors and spectators or only among the spectators.
Such changes take place during the performance and are perceptible; after the
performance has come to an end, however, they usually do not continue. This marks
the difference between liminal states in ritual and in artistic performance. While
in a ritual the transformation undergone is irreversible and the change of status
requires social acceptance, this is not the case in an artistic performance. From
this, it follows that although both ritual and aesthetic experience can be dened as
liminal experience, they are by no means the same. While in a ritual the state of
liminality is the path to gain a new status or identity, in an artistic performance it is
an end in itself. However, although aesthetic experience does not result in a socially
accepted change of status and identity, it may well cause a change in the perception
of reality, self, and others in individual participants which will also inuence this
individuals action and behavior. This applies not only to the artists involved but
also to the spectators. In this sense, the event may result in a transformation of the
participants, which can even outlast the end of the performance.
As has become evident, performances always have a performative and a
semiotic dimension. Both interact constantly, so that it is sometimes impossible
to distinguish one clearly from the other. However, in the mise-en-scne of a
performance as well as in the perception of individual spectators there may be a
tendency to privilege one over the other. For instance, particular staging strategies
Spring 2008
81
may be intended and applied that strive for privileging one dimension and for
guiding the spectators perception in such a way that either the performative mode
outweighs the semiotic one or vice versa. Nonetheless, such guidance does not often
prove successful, and spectators may respond in an unpredictable way. On the other
hand, there will always be spectators who tend to privilege one dimension, even if
the staging strategies privilege the other. Whatever they perceive, they will either
rst ask what it means or, on the contrary, try to get immersed in the atmosphere,
respond to the stream of energy which emanates from an actor and allows them to
be energized, and vibrate with rhythms set by the mise-en-scne, without asking
for meanings. In both cases, the rather neglected dimension will also always be
effective since, as we have seen, both are inextricably intertwined.
This has to be kept in mind when undertaking a performance analysis. It
depends on the leading question, the main problem, or the initial hypothesis as to
whether the analysis will consider both dimensions equally well or one more than
the other. In any case, it is wise to consider both even if to a different degree and
in differing depth. For we are never to forget that it is the particular interplay of the
performative and the semiotic dimension which constitutes performance.
Notes
1. Cf. Erika Fischer-Lichte, The Semiotics of Theatre, tr. Jeremy Gaines and Dores L. Jones
(Bloomington: Indiana U P, 1992).
2. Gernot Boehme, Atmosphaere. Essays zur neuen Aesthetik (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1995)
33.
3. Regarding this concept see Thomas J. Csordas, Embodiment and Experience. The Existential
Ground of Culture and Self (Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1994) and Erika Fischer-Lichte, Embodiment
From Page to Stage: The Dramatic Figure, Assaph: Studies in Theatre No. 16 (2000): 65-75.
4. Regarding the concept of liminality cf. Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (Chicago:
Chicago U P, 1960, originally 1909) and Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure
(Chicago: Aldine, 1969).
5. Turner 95.
82