Some musings on the subject of performance

I was originally intending to start a dialogue on this very blog with Dave regarding... something. I don't exactly remember. That however will have to wait, as I have a new subject that I want to write down some concrete ideas on - namely, my honours dissertation. The current title I'm considering is, because I do love referencing Shakespeare and using incomprehensible words, "The World as Stage: The Phenomenology of Collaborative Improvised Performance."  This is about as easy to pin down a subject as one might expect, unfortunately.

The question of course is what is meant by "collaborative improvised performance", and it's this which I'm going to rant on for the next few paragraphs. The vital word is of course performance. OED as always gives us a good starting point;

An instance of performing a play, piece of music, etc., in front of an audience; an occasion on which such a work is presented; a public appearance by a performing artist or artists of any kind. Also: an individual performer's or group's rendering or interpretation of a work, part, role, etc. In extended use: a pretence, a sham.

 But this is still too limited, I feel, for the true understanding of performance. However, the idea of "an instance of performing in front of an audience" is a useful base concept. What does it mean to perform? Etymologically, performance has its root in the old french par-fornir - to completely provide. Performance then carries the connotations of a task carried out and finished in its entirety. A performance is a complete act contained with in itself - and yet paradoxically one with the potential to live beyond itself to the audience! Moving on, let us examine the idea of a performance as "an individual performer's or group's rendering or interpretation of a work, part, role, etc." The question may be asked, from this definition, if an audience is still required and this is a point which I believe to be of importance. I intend to propose that that in any given performance, the performer is his or her own audience -to borrow a word from Augusto Boal, a "spect-actor"- at least inasmuch as the performance is an authentic one. The idea of authenticity and inauthenticity in performance will require a further discussion which I do not have time to delve into here.

So we see that performance will be defined roughly as a self-contained activity of limited duration in which a performer or group renders an interpretation of work, part, role, or -an addition which may seem odd but which I intend to be crucial- an idea to an audience which may or may not be limited to the performers. Our work of defining is, however, only half completed - we need now understand what is meant by "collaborative improvisation."

This is simpler, right? We're discussing simply two or more people working together to make something up on the spot, aren't we? Sort of. Remember that this is in the context of performance - an interpretation of an idea. It may be improvised, but it is not without structure. It has purpose - the examination of the idea - and it has an audience - be it the people in the stalls at an improvised theatre performance or simply the participants themselves in a roleplaying game.

The sharp-eyed may be questioning the limited scope of my observations - I've steered rather clear of discussion of improvised music, for instance, a fact which may be glaringly obvious to jazz or blues fans. Although an area that fascinates me, I admit that I fear biting off more than I can chew. Whether such ideas will find their way into my dissertation is currently debatable.

I'm also concerned about rabbiting on and boring people, so I shall wrap up now. Does my definition line up with your own thoughts on the subject? If not, where do you think I've gone wrong? Look out for a follow-up later on when I've done a lot more research on this stuff...