Pr13t 066

The Unsuspecting Audience explored the interstices between social and theatrical experience. Beginning with the premise that some social situations are performative we set out to observe degrees and kinds of audience engagement in an uncontrolled public environment – and to question the concept of audience. This was a continuation of last year’s research project, The Invitation, in which we explored the tipping point between the theatrical and the social, in a controlled and private environment.

Both last year and this year costumes were the root of the performance.

Whereas last year we examined the performative qualities of a group of people by dressing them up, this year we turned our attention to the responses and actions of an audience in the larger unsuspecting world. Over a period of three days we dressed ourselves in a variety of different costumes that ran the gamut from invisibility to extreme visibility.

In the audience we sought to observe: Their level of engagement with us The cues the costume gave them that they were witnessing something that is deliberately performed.

Ownership - to what degree they felt the performance was for their benefit.

Their response, whether reasoned or emotional.

How they themselves ‘performed’ – how they played along with whatever they considered the performance to be, or pretended not to notice.

What we sought to observe in ourselves: How visible we perceived ourselves to be in each costume and each venue, and how much space we felt we took up.

How we fell into the role elicited from us by the costume or the audience.

Our level of comfort in the combined qualities of the costume and venue.

Our level of comfort with the different kinds of attention we received.

THE COSTUME WE WORE Pyjamas and slippers Twins: matching

WHERE WE WENT AND WHAT WE DID THERE 1. sat in the subway during morning rush hour 2. had coffee at Starbucks 3. went shopping at Winners 1. rode the subway during afternoon rush hour

brightly coloured contemporary clothing Victorian period dresses with corsets and crinolines

2.

1.

2.

Uniforms, navy blue sailor type with red stars on our chest White bear suit and lady in business suit

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

4.

pretending not to know each other went shopping at Winners walked through the PATH underground mall, looking at a map, and occasionally asking directions, sat on the steps, ate breakfast in the food court walked through the offices at Roy Thomson Concert Hall held the door open for people at the Union Station subway during evening rush hour went to the smoking area and asked to light people’s cigarettes held the door open for people in the skywalk went for lunch at Marché Restaurant, BCE Place got money from the bank machine had coffee at Starbucks walked in the street

Some of our Observations: Day 1 Morning – Pyjamas: 1 – In the subway we sat down on the bench, a lot of people were walking by and most of them ignored us. There was the occasional stare, an even rarer nod or wink of complicity. The TTC police came to find out what we were doing almost immediately, they were worried that we were ill or crazy and looked for our hospital wrist bands They went away and then returned about 10 minutes later saying that they had received concerned calls about us, and they asked us to leave.

2 - At Starbucks we sat in front of the fireplace and requested that the ‘fire’ be turned on. At first people seemed to enjoy our presence, but soon they seemed to stop noticing anything untoward. It was as if ‘morning, pyjamas and coffee’ – created a familiar picture.

3 – While shopping at Winners, the store employees seemed to go out of their way to ignore us. There were only a couple of other shoppers there, who also completely ignored us.

Late Afternoon – Twins 1 – We began along the Yonge subway line by getting on the on the same subway car from different stations. We didn’t acknowledge each other and exited separately seeming to go our own way. We repeated permutations of this. When people noticed us they did a very comical double take but quickly looked away. There was no engagement at all. This is the only costume in which no one asked us what we were doing or talked to us at all.

2 – Winners. We sought out and tried on a variety of matching clothes in the store, then went to the change room to try on some more. Then we bought nylons. Again, there was no overt response or kind of engagement from anyone in the store.

In the performances of Day 1 we could divide the passersby into three categories: those who noticed us, those who didn’t notice us, and those who pretended not to. In our pyjamas people engaged with us, stared at us, made passing comments or asked us questions whereas with twins they didn’t.

In the pyjamas we went from very visible (in the subway) to invisible (in Starbucks). We wonder if this was because we became more comfortable as time passed or if it had to do with the context in which we placed ourselves.

With twins there was less of a range, of both comfort level and visibility.

People were worried about us when we were in the subway in our pyjamas.

Apparently many didn’t think it was a performance, but they did feel like they should do something through the police, take responsibility.

They thought we were either crazy or had Alzheimers. They were looking for our wrist bands, as if we were missing a piece of our costume. In Winners in both costumes people avoided us. When we forced contact they acted as if the situation were perfectly normal though our accomplice and photographer, Aiden, witnessed a conference about us where the staff discussed whether they should do something.

In our pyjamas we almost felt like we were enacting a precept of Artaud.

Though we got more response in our pyjamas, we felt that Twins was perhaps a more interesting performance .We could see we were evoking people’s curiosity even though they chose not to talk to us. And in this way it

might have been more ‘theatrical’. Is it still an audience if they pretend not to look?

Day 2 Morning – Victorian Dresses 1 - We walked through the PATH underground shopping mall from Queen and Yonge to Wellington and Simcoe. On the way we drank coffee sitting on a staircase. We carried maps of the underground maze with us, and at most intersections stopped to consult them. When we did this someone usually stopped to offer assistance. Two ladies even escorted us to the food court, where we bought and ate breakfast.

2 - Roy Thompson Hall The first person we encountered was the security guard who was expecting us. She launched into a long story about her mother trying to make her wear fancy dresses when she was a kid and how that just wasn’t her style. We went through the bowels of the building escorted by Sean Baker. We went alone into the administration offices where no one took notice of us. One woman had to get up from her desk to let us pass in our giant dresses and made no comment or even eye contact. We went to the box office and made inquiries about an upcoming programme. In this environment of ‘Theatricality’ we seemed to be a non-event.

Afternoon - Uniforms 1 - We held the doors open for people at Union Station. Lots of people said thank you politely in what felt like quite a formal interaction. Security arrived quite quickly and asked us to stop. They said we looked like we were promoting something, and added that if they wanted someone to open the doors they would have hired someone.

2 - In the smoking area no one let us light their cigarettes. We had a conversation with a woman about this fact, and she said that it was because if they did so then they would have to give us something in return.

3 - We became quite mundane when we were opening doors at the skywalk, and felt like ushers. People were polite, assumed we were employed there, and asked us for directions quite frequently. There, in this costume, we assumed both an authority and a function.

In our period dresses we were completely visible, with a very clear audience, like we were performing for them, and they had every right to engage with us at their will. This must have been greatly affected by the Christmas season when our research took place. There was a certain overt commercial appeal to the costumes as if we were performing what they imagined a ‘work of art’ to be. In this way the costume really was recognized as a costume. People quite willingly gave us directions.

Interestingly, this is the one experience that didn’t vary from our expectations. We both liked sitting on the stairs sipping our coffee.

Wearing uniforms, on the other hand, was nothing like we expected it to be.

In fact it was quite heartbreaking. We didn’t expect to meet with such a cold reception when performing helpfulness. We felt very much like we were performing a predefined role and that we were not social peers of the people we interacted with. We consider uniforms to have their own class. But that somehow they evoked something beyond the costume itself. In the hostile interaction with security it felt like a uniform against uniform confrontation and they were considerably less nice than the cops were in the subway station the day before. We have speculated on performing the same actions in different costumes and what kind of costumes might have elicited a different response. People were more comfortable, more open to our helplessness in our dresses than to helpfulness in our uniforms.

People had a very definite idea of what we were doing or who we were, as if it didn’t even require a second thought (unlike day 1). Dresses because of the season and the period style aligned with Xmas pageantry, Uniforms evoked something official and familiar as though we were part of something bigger. The fact that their assumptions were wrong was irrelevant. We have reflected that in both uniforms and dresses there was a tacit expectation that we were selling something. Interesting that no one minded us being there in our Victorian dresses (we got directions from a security guard) whereas we were asked to leave when in our uniforms.

Day 3 noon – Bear suit and business lady When we arrived at Marché Restaurant we were greeted with enthusiasm by the staff and the patrons. They felt free to stare, smile, and come up and talk to us, though in reality they talked almost exclusively to Moynan (the business lady). Several people wanted pictures taken with us. We performed

a number of fairly mundane activities, and the responses of our ‘audience’ were remarkably consistent throughout. There was a consistent clear sexual (heterosexual) overtone from the adults and a fascination mixed with fear from the children.

Though it wasn’t one of our initial interests, by day 3 we were attuned to the responses of the authorities. Aiden saw them hovering and checking us out, but they did not approach us.

This one was very fun and a good note to end on. Our ‘audience’ was completely there for us. Though our presence must have been on some level absurd, in some way we completely blended in, in a way that we did not at all anticipate. No one seem to question why we were there; their response seemed to be unmitigated enjoyment. They did, however, make a lot of sociological assumptions – everyone assumed that Sherri (in the bear suit) was a man and that we were on a date.

Conclusions: 1. Endorsed culture vs. surreptitious culture. This experiment articulated for us that the kind of work we’re interested in exploring is one where people have an absolute choice whether to have a theatrical experience or not.

People count on life being mundane; it is in the chinks of this mundanity that interesting theatre can exist.

2. Popular intellectual concepts say that value doesn’t exist – that it’s all marketing generated. The work denies that.

3. They are the audience because we decided that they’re the audience.

4. Theatrical research yes, but psychological and social research too If we had been completely scientific about it, and if we had had more time we would have done the same action in each costume. And done each costume at different times of the day.

(We realize that this is unfinished….would love your input)