Audience Immersion and the Experience of Scenography David Richard Shearing Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Performance and Cultural Industries April 2015 i Intellectual Property and Publication Statements The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. Sections of this thesis (‘Immersion as Landscape’) have been published in one solely authored article. The article appears in the bibliography as: Shearing, D. (2014) ‘Scenographic landscapes’, Studies in Theatre and Performance, 34(1), 38–52. Sections of this thesis (‘Perceiving Background Sound’ and ‘Touching the Wind’) have been published in a forthcoming solely authored book chapter. The chapter appears in the bibliography as: Shearing, D. (2015) ‘Intimacy, Immersion and the Desire to Touch: The Voyeur Within’ in Rodosthenous, G., ed., Theatre as Voyeurism:The Pleasures of Watching, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. © 2015, The University of Leeds, David Richard Shearing. ii Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to my inspirational and generous supervisors, Dr Joslin McKinney and Scott Palmer, for their sustained support and critical insights throughout this project. It has been a privilege to conduct this research with such dedicated and passionate colleagues and friends. Thank you. I could not have completed this project without the support of my colleagues (both academic and administrative) at the School of Performance and Cultural Industries, University of Leeds. I would like to thank my colleague, friend and office-mate Dr Katie Beswick; it has been an honour to share this journey with you. Theatre is a collaborative art form and I would not have been able to conduct the practice without the incredible support from other artists, students and technicians: Steve Ansell, Jessica Arthur, Matthew Baker, Sam Berrill, Helen Russell Brown, James Bulley, David Cartwright, Laura Dantas, Paul Halgarth, Rosie Hannis, Ian Lindley, Chris Megginson, Andrew Mills, Al Monks, Dr James Mooney, Chloë Jayne Oldridge, Laura Price, Jessica Rowland, Phoebe Rutherford, Florence Simms and Isla Watton. I like to offer a special thanks to Kamal Hussain for his love and creative insights, and also to my friends Emma Purvis, Graeme Cockburn and Charlie Broom for being there all the way and offering a friendly voice and a home in London. Finally, I would like to thank my mum and dad, Angie and Bob, for their continuous encouragement, support and love in helping me follow my passion. Thank you. This is for you… iii Abstract This study sits at the intersection of two fields of academic enquiry into performance practice: audience reception of scenography and the rise of ‘immersive’ theatre. Using my own scenographic practice as a tool, I illuminate the understanding of audience experience of scenography in environmental performance and question how scenography might act as an agent for audience immersion. I examine the nature of sensory and imaginative engagement in the context of performance installations in black-box studio spaces where audiences are central to the composition. This practice-based study is composed of two parts: the presentation and development of a series of three performance installations (VOID/ROOM, If anyone wonders why rocks breakdown, and it all comes down to this…) and this supporting written thesis. In this thesis I present an original model of audience immersion that elucidates how audiences might become entwined with the scenography of performance. My three- part model of audience immersion consists of interlinking concepts expressed as Immersion as Landscape, Immersion as Weather and Immersion as Journey. The main theoretical perspectives have been developed through my readings of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Drew Leder and Tim Ingold. As part of my findings, I explain how ‘mindfulness/awareness’ developed through Ellen Langer, Eleanor Rosch, Evan Thompson and Francisco Varela can act as a mode of audience engagement that might afford deeper relational encounters between the participant and design material. iv Documentation of Practice The outcomes of the practice-based component to this thesis are presented on the USB drive. Viewing of this material is recommended at the start of PART TWO of this written commentary. The documentation on the USB drive is presented as an offline website and can be assessed by clicking the ‘Index.html’ file on the USB device. The USB drive also contains the ethesis (digital version of this written commentary) as a PDF file. v CONTENTS Table of Figures ........................................................................................................... ix PART ONE (Context and Method) ............................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 The Rise of Immersive Events ............................................................................... 2 The Problems of Immersion ................................................................................. 11 Active Scenography ............................................................................................. 13 RESEARCH CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 15 Expanded Scenography ........................................................................................ 15 Perspectives on Immersion .................................................................................. 18 1. IMMERSIVE PERSPECTIVES: Space ...................................................... 19 Environmental Theatre (Relations and Transactions) .................................. 19 Defining Spatial Immersion ......................................................................... 22 Journeying Through Space ........................................................................... 24 2. IMMERSIVE PERSPECTIVES: Bodily/Sensory ....................................... 26 The Production of Affect ............................................................................. 28 (Syn)aesthetics ............................................................................................. 30 3. IMMERSIVE PERSPECTIVES: Cognitive/Imaginative ............................ 32 Attention and Distraction ............................................................................. 33 Immediacy and Hypermediacy .................................................................... 35 Mindfulness .................................................................................................. 37 Defining Immersion ............................................................................................. 38 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................................... 39 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 41 Practice-led Research ........................................................................................... 41 Action-Reflection: Cycles and Iterations ............................................................. 42 Research Framework and Journey ....................................................................... 46 Practitioner Knowledge ........................................................................................ 48 Critical Reflection – Audience Response ............................................................ 49 The Audience ....................................................................................................... 52 vi PART TWO (Outline of Practice) ............................................................................ 54 CYCLE ONE: VOID/ROOM ..................................................................................... 56 Aims ..................................................................................................................... 56 Description ........................................................................................................... 56 Aesthetic Influences and Research Intentions ...................................................... 59 Method ................................................................................................................. 62 CYCLE ONE: Reflection ..................................................................................... 65 Reflection on Audience Response ................................................................... 65 Reflection on Practice and Method .................................................................. 66 CYCLE TWO: If anyone wonders why rocks breakdown ....................................... 69 Aims ..................................................................................................................... 69 Description ........................................................................................................... 69 Aesthetic Influences and Research Intentions ...................................................... 74 Method ................................................................................................................. 76 CYCLE