Theatre vs. Performance vs. Britney Spears

I want a performance theory discussion from the perspective of a theatre artist

So... performance... it's basically everything someone could do, right?

I mean. Yes.

In class I was slightly bewildered by the notion that essentially everything is performance. There was something vague about all of this "twice-done behavior," "not-me and not-not me," and Carlson's assertion on pages 6 and 7 that performance has brought a certain theatricality into all of the human sciences. It was handy to dig deep into my own thoughts on the matter. Upon reflection, I will maintain that performance is an all encompassing umbrella for human behavior after all! Indeed, I will further assert that, as Dr. Fletcher had suggested in his post, theatre is not different than performance but rather a specialized sub-category of performance.

Let's start with an ELI5 conceptualization of performative behavior. I know I need it.

I found it helpful to view performance as the action that is being examined, judged, or observed. For example, when Jerry has a performance review at his new job at the zoo, performance does not mean acting on the stage, how he performs traditional masculinity, or how he performs being American on a cultural level. Rather, the performance his superiors would be discussing would be things like the action of his behaving in an accomodating manner toward guests (which he doesn't) and his effectiveness (or lack thereof) in keeping the animals' enclosures sanitary.

I mean, come on, Jerry! The monkeys didn't get dysentery on their own. 

So where does theatre come in?

Okay. Like all things in life, I'm starting this by putting it in terms of cats. If performance is saying something is a feline (felidae), then theatre is like specifying that the feline in question is a tiger. To expand on this idea for those of you who do not speak fluent cat lady, the two things that make theatre its own distinct category in my estimation are as follows:

1. As a work of art, there is an apparent significance beyond the literal in theatre. That is to say, we are to espouse States' binocular view of the world (page 8 from the reading) but take it a step further to include his idea of theatre as "predatory... not just mirror up to Nature but also consumes it." This implies a certain hunger or need for expression of what human life is like. If you want to get really extra about this point, I think Nietzsche described it well (if a touch histrionically) in The Birth of Tragedy: "his oneness with the primal nature of the universe is revealed to him in a symbolical dream-picture (5)."
2. Everyone involved is aware that what is being performed has fictitious elements. This goes beyond an acknowledgement of the mimetic or semiotic; it is also important to note that neither the performer nor the observer(s) believe the theatrical event itself has direct supernatural consequences (thereby excluding things like ritual, shamanism, etc). I realize that this would put Greek plays in a position of straddling the line as the plays were a part of a religious festival. However, these theatrical productions were not thought to individually bring about something in a straightforward fashion (in contrast to, say, a shamanistic gut releasing a spirit or sacrificing bulls in order to petition a god for a favor).

But you're dying to know how football isn't theatre

I appreciate your enthusiasm, you cheeky MFAs.

Okay, so football isn't theatre because it certainly doesn't meet both requirements. First of all, there are few (if any) performers or observers who believe any given sporting event is fictitious. The players are real. The game is real. The dislike I have for the Dallas Cowboys is real. Furthermore, football is fairly literal with regard to what the audience is meant to interpret. Compared to something like Death of a Salesman, you are going to have a substantially more difficult time finding deeper meanings and themes in a game of American football through the lens of being a work of theatrical expression. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you'd have a time of it.

Crossroads (2002) would be somewhere on the spectrum of deeper meaning about our humanity. I'll leave it to you to decide where.

Emily and Britney Spears, you did your best but I'm still feeling a bit unclear

That's okay. I get it. This is a mind-boggling topic and I am an acquired taste. Here is an extremely helpful and concise guide on Schechner's distinctions by Calvin Ashmore: http://www.icosilune.com/2009/01/richard-schechner-performance-theory/

(Side note) If you're hanging out with our poor extraterrestrial friend, it might be helpful to point out that theatre has a handful of frequently used conventions that are decent indicators that said alien is probably watching something under the performance sub-heading of theatre. A particular favorite of mine would be that if people are engaged in mimesis of a story that follows the Hero's Journey as outlined by Joseph Campbell, it's a pretty safe bet that it's some variety of work of theatrical art. Theatrical events don't always follow this pattern (and I'm sure there are exceptions within the heroic formula-- I'm looking at you, elaborate rites for monomyth-type deities), but bloody hell it sure happens a lot!

I just hope we all learned something today