The Big League Stew reported that at a recent Oakland A's v. Baltimore Orioles game, two fans with LED jackets (one scrolling the message "Go Orioles") were asked by the umpire to turn them off. We can't have fans "disturbing" the game from up in the stands (or, more like it, disturbing the paid neon advertising), right?
I've written about this before--see Name That Audience 7, Fans on the Field, and Football's Continuous Ovation. What fans can and can't do is policed today far more than in the past. I wonder if it just might be better if they didn't attend games at all. Then athletic competition could proceed in its utmost purity: isolated and silent, except for the occasional grunt of physical exertion or the crystal call of an umpire.
Of course, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it....
what is the role of "the reverential gaze" beyond the fourth wall? I wonder?
ReplyDeleteAs an erstwhile performer, flashes, titters, whispers and phone-glow are irritating (and of course dangerous to some performances and a deal-breaker for some performers--e.g. Robert Fripp +Keith Jarrett, and perhaps Nicol Williamson--i believe he has berated audience members but also apologised TO them as well during performances).
But, the audience is a part of the performance, yes? I know this was a big debate in the 60's among Grotowski and others, But even really, improv interactions music hall ,etc. there is no performance without an audience.
I am also reminded of the stories of classic Shakespearean performances fro the groundlings to frontier productions with audience members miming dialogue. We sit in cathedral-like settings dumbstruck.
I recent have many discussions with broadway actors about the threat of technology and changing standards. Can we maintain zero tolerance with young audience changing the rules? I have heard that there are teen only film presentations in the UK where all texting etc is allowed.
You crave the reactions but only on your terms?