From Liveness to “Lifeness”: Autopoiesis and an Enactive View of Performance
Maiya Murphy
Log in to download the full text for free
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Context: Unsettled issues within the theatre and performance liveness debates include how to account for co-presence, what to make of intangible and elusive qualities often attributed to live encounters, and how to account for the coexistence of concrete and intangible phenomena within liveness. Problem: The problem is two-pronged: (a) the liveness debates in theatre and performance remain ripe for further development beyond these unsettled issues and (b) theatre has not yet been fully explored as an experimental platform for researching human-made systems and their consequences. Method: Through three case studies of different kinds of performance, I home in on three main conceptions of systemic life in performance - biological, cybernetic, and enactive - anchored in conceptions of autopoiesis. Results: I show how an enactive view with a cybernetic flair can usefully redefine the elusive phenomena of “liveness” as concrete biocognitive synchronicities between the larger system of the performance and the individual system of the spectator, no matter the performance style. Implications: This systemic view reorients what might be considered “live” in the discipline of theatre and performance, moving the liveness debates to matters of process, organizational structure, and observation. By resituating these debates in theatre and performance, performance events themselves are revealed as robust and diverse platforms for researching processes and consequences of systemic resonances between human and human-made systems. Constructivist content: This article suggests that an enactive view of “liveness” in performance, complemented with the cybernetic interest in observation, can make use of the explanatory power of biological and cybernetic accounts of autopoiesis, while explicitly pointing toward the resonances between biology, cognition, and the sense-making practices of theatre and performance. Key words: Autopoiesis, cybernetics, enaction liveness, performance, theatre.
Citation
Murphy M. (2021) From liveness to “lifeness”: Autopoiesis and an enactive view of performance. Constructivist Foundations 17(1): 070–081. https://constructivist.info/17/1/070
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
References
Aebischer P., Greenhalgh S. & Osborne L. E. (eds.) (2018) Shakespeare and the “live” theatre broadcast experience. Bloomsbury, London.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Alston A. (2016) Beyond immersive theatre: Aesthetics, politics and productive participation. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Auslander P. (2008) Liveness: Performance in a mediatized culture. Second edition. Routledge, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Barker M. (2016) Coming a(live): A prolegomenon to any future research on “liveness.” In: Reason M. & Lindelof A. M. (eds.) Experiencing liveness in contemporary performance. Routledge, New York: 21–33.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Birringer J. (2008) Performance, technology, and science. PAJ Publications, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cook A. (2019) Cognitive contagion: Thinking with and through theatre. Gestalt Theory 41(2): 129–140.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Di Paolo E. A. (2018) The enactive conception of life. In: Newen A., De Bruin L. & Gallagher S. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxon: 71–94.
https://cepa.info/5608
Diamond D. (2007) Theatre for living: The art and science of community-based dialogue. Trafford, Victoria.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fischer-Lichte E. (2008) The transformative power of performance. Routledge, Oxon. German original published in 2004.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fritz B. (2012) InExActArt – The autopoietic theatre of Augusto Boal: A handbook of theatre of the oppressed practice. Translated by Lana Sendzimir & Ralph Yarrow. Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart. German original published in 2011.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T. (2011) From second-order cybernetics to enactive cognitive science: Varela’s turn from epistemology to phenomenology. Systems Research and Behavioural Science 28(6): 631–645.
https://cepa.info/449
Hunter L. B. (2019) “We are not making a movie”: Constituting theatre in live broadcast. Theater Topics 29(1): 15–27.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kukkonen K. (2020) Probability designs: Literature and predictive processing. Oxford University Press, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lepage L. (2008) Posthuman perspectives and postdramatic theatre: The theory and practice of hybrid ontology in Katie Mitchell’s The Waves. Culture, Language, and Representation 6: 137–149.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lutterbie J. (2011) Toward a general theory of acting: Cognitive science and performance. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lutterbie J. (2013) Wayfaring in everyday life: The unravelling of intricacy. In: Shaughnessy N. (ed.) Affective performance and cognitive science: Body, brain and being. Bloomsbury, London: 103–116.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lutterbie J. (2020) An introduction to theatre, performance and the cognitive sciences. Methuen Drama, London.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (2002) Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 9: 5–34.
https://cepa.info/685
Nedelkopoulou E. (2016) Reconsidering liveness in an age of digital implication. In: Reason M. & Lindelof A. M. (eds.) Experiencing liveness in contemporary performance. Routledge, New York: 215–228.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Petlevski S. (2017) An early concept of the theatre of interplay: The relevance of Branko Gavella’s theory for the development of performance philosophy. Performance Philosophy 3(1): 216–232.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Phelan P. (1993) Unmarked: The politics of performance. Routledge, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Power C. (2008) Presence in play: A critique of theories of presence in the theatre. Rodopi, Amsterdam.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Reason M. & Lindelof A. M. (eds.) (2016) Experiencing liveness in contemporary performance: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Scott J. (2016) Intermedial praxis: Practice as research: “Doing thinking” in practice. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sofia G. (2019) Systems theory, enaction and the performing arts. In: Kemp R. & McConachie B. (eds.) Routledge companion to theatre, performance and cognitive science. Routledge, Oxon: 195–202.
https://cepa.info/6716
Stone A. (2016) Not making a movie: The livecasting of Shakespeare stage productions by the Royal National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Shakespeare Bulletin (34) 4: 627–643.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wardle J. (2014) “Outside Broadcast”: Looking backwards and forwards, live theatre in the cinema – NT Live and RSC Live. Adaptation 7(2): 134–153.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
White G. (2013) Audience participation in theatre: Aesthetics of the invitation. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Zarrilli P. B. (2009) Psychophysical acting: An intercultural approach after Stanislavski. Routledge, Oxon.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.
