Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...
Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...
Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
artificial hells<br />
bring to bear on <strong>the</strong> contemporary discourse <strong>of</strong> socially engaged art, which<br />
is frequently characterised by an aversion to interiority <strong>and</strong> affect: it can<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten seem that <strong>the</strong> choice is between <strong>the</strong> social or <strong>the</strong> solipsistic, <strong>the</strong> collective<br />
or <strong>the</strong> individual, with no room for manoeuvre between <strong>the</strong> two. It is<br />
perhaps telling that Bogdanov, <strong>the</strong> most fundamentalist <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proletkult<br />
<strong>the</strong>orists, was trained not in art but in medicine; it is tempting to ascribe his<br />
willingness to jettison past culture, <strong>and</strong> his plodding directives for proletarian<br />
art, to an innate lack <strong>of</strong> sympathy for <strong>the</strong> arts. (Indeed, he returned to<br />
medicine after he left <strong>the</strong> Proletkult in 1921, <strong>and</strong> died following an unsuccessful<br />
blood- transfusion experiment in 1928.)<br />
But how did <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>oretical debates play out in <strong>the</strong> works<br />
produced under <strong>the</strong> Proletkult’s guidance? In insisting upon <strong>the</strong> collectivism<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>atre ‘as <strong>the</strong> art closest <strong>and</strong> most comprehensible to <strong>the</strong><br />
working class’, <strong>the</strong> Proletkult built upon innovations in anti- hierarchical<br />
participation that had already begun in <strong>the</strong>atre prior to <strong>the</strong> Revolution. 42<br />
Vsevolod Meyerhold, for example, had been experimenting with such<br />
<strong>the</strong>atrical forms since 1910: removing <strong>the</strong> proscenium, introducing different<br />
stage levels, attempting to create a unity <strong>of</strong> action between actors <strong>and</strong><br />
audience. His production The Dawn (1920) featured free admission, news<br />
bulletins, <strong>the</strong> walls hung with placards, an audience showered with political<br />
leafl ets, <strong>and</strong> a harsh white light to dispel illusionism, all <strong>of</strong> which served to<br />
augment <strong>the</strong> content (a Symbolist verse drama about proletarian uprising<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Belgian poet Emile Verhaeren). In order to deal with <strong>the</strong> stage direction<br />
requiring a crowd, Meyerhold suggested involving <strong>the</strong> audience itself,<br />
which he presented as an educational mission, a way <strong>of</strong> training <strong>the</strong> populace<br />
to be actors. Even more successful than The Dawn was Meyerhold’s<br />
collaboration with Vladimir Mayakovsky, Mystery- Bouffe, fi rst performed<br />
in 1918 <strong>and</strong> rewritten in 1921 to increase its relevance to events since <strong>the</strong><br />
Revolution. The play concerns a universal fl ood <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> subsequent joyful<br />
triumph <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘unclean’ (<strong>the</strong> proletariat) over <strong>the</strong> ‘clean’ (<strong>the</strong> bourgeoisie),<br />
<strong>and</strong> combined folk drama <strong>and</strong> avant- garde experimentation in <strong>the</strong> service<br />
<strong>of</strong> a revolutionary message. Once again, Meyerhold dismantled <strong>the</strong><br />
proscenium to reveal <strong>the</strong> scenery mechanisms; <strong>the</strong> stage was taken up by<br />
platforms on different levels, interconnected by steps, <strong>and</strong> a big ramp<br />
sloped down to <strong>the</strong> fi rst row <strong>of</strong> seats. Throughout <strong>the</strong> performance, <strong>the</strong><br />
audience were allowed to come <strong>and</strong> go as <strong>the</strong>y liked, <strong>and</strong> to respond to <strong>the</strong><br />
acting with interjections; in <strong>the</strong> last act, <strong>the</strong> performance spread into boxes<br />
in <strong>the</strong> auditorium <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> audience were invited to mingle with actors on<br />
stage. 43<br />
Although <strong>the</strong>se <strong>the</strong>atrical experiments attempted to erode <strong>the</strong> distinction<br />
between performers <strong>and</strong> audience, by contemporary st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>the</strong>ir respective<br />
roles always remained fairly clear. It was Proletkult <strong>the</strong>oreticians such<br />
as Platon Mikhailovich Kerzhentsev (1881– 1940) who were instrumental in<br />
developing a more total form <strong>of</strong> collective <strong>the</strong>atre for revolutionary ends.<br />
53