A larger group than 15 people is defined as a crowd.An audience in a conservative performance would generally fall into this category. In early descriptions of collective behavior, Gustave Le Bon claims in his contagion theory that crowds cause people to act in a certain way, no matter who ‘the individuals [are] that compose it, however like or unlike be their mode of life, their occupations, their character, or their intelligence, the fact that they have been transformed into a group puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would feel, think, and act were he in a state of isolation.There are certain ideas and feelings which do not come into being, or do not transform themselves into acts except in the case of individuals forming a group.' 7 Later theories, such as convergence theory, emergent-norm theory and social identity theory seem more relevant to apply to an audience in a performative situation. Convergence theory claims that ‘crowd behavior is not a product of the crowd itself, but is carried into the crowd by particular individuals.Thus, crowds amount to a convergence of like- minded individuals.’8 The emergent-norm theory developed by Ralph Turner and Lewis Killian points out that people in a crowd take on different roles and states that ‘social behavior is never entirely predictable, but neither are crowds as irrational. If similar interests may draw people together, distinctive patterns of behavior may emerge in the crowd itself. Crowd behavior reflects the desires of participants, but it is also guided by norms that emerge as the situation unfolds.‘9 Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979, involves three central ideas: Categorization, identification and comparison.We categorize objects and people in order to understand them and define appropriate behavior by reference to the norms of the groups we belong to.We identify with groups that we perceive ourselves to belong to. John Turner’s self- categorization theory, which is part of the social identity theory, holds that ‘at different times we perceive ourselves as unique individuals and at other times as members of groups and that these two are equally valid expressions of self’.10 The first is referred to as personal identity, the latter as social identity.

Group dynamics is a general term used for describing particularly small group processes. It is the area of social sciences that focuses on the nature of groups.11For interactive performances and installations which are often dealing with a smaller audience at a time, this field is probably more relevant as I will attempt to show in the next part of this essay. In group dynamics theories, several issues are discussed such as team roles, conforming and decision-making.

To anticipate an audience’s behavior it can be interesting to look specifically at theories concerning groups and change. In relation to strategies of audience interaction I particularly want to point out motivation theories such as consistency theory, control theory (later renamed as choice theory), influence, persuasion and reactance.

Consistency theory states that ‘behavior which is at odds with an established attitude demands change.This change usually takes the form of altering the original attitude to conform more with the actual behavior. Accordingly, when a person behaves differently, he will also change his attitude about himself.’12 Consistency is the norm; we have a strong preference for things to be consistent. Inconsistency creates dissonance, which is an uncomfortable and confusing state. In attempting to restore consistency we will therefore resort to a variety of options including denial or change of attitude and beliefs. Choice theory deals with people’s need for power and control.A way to use it can be to give people certain things to control, which then makes them feel more at ease and possibly more open to what you want them to do. Influence and persuasion both concern change, but differ from each other in that influence may achieve external change, i.e. behavior without changing someone’s internal attitude. Persuasion requires communication- verbal or non-verbal and seeks to change attitudes because they drive behavior13. It follows that influence can be used for short-term change whereas to produce lasting changes one such-minded must use persuasion.An interesting issue of influence is the effect it can have if used unreasonably.When people feel that their freedom to choose an action is threatened, they resist, demonstrating what in sociology is called ‘reactance’.This also motivates them to perform the threatened behavior, thus proving that their free will has not been compromised.14

Guiding an audience

In our three examples of performance, audience interaction manifests itself in very diverse ways. However, in each of these works, the artists have clear ideas of what they want their audience to experience.They guide, or to use a more negative word, manipulate their audience towards a certain range of actions or possibilities.

Let us first look at Blast Theory’s piece ‘Uncle Roy all around you’.At first glance it may seem quite open to external influences.The structure of the piece is that of a game. It takes place simultaneously in a real city and on its virtual map on the internet, enabling you to take part online or on the street. If you choose for the latter, you enter a theatre, are asked to leave your belongings behind, are given some instructions, a handheld computer and are released onto the streets.The experience of an online player is different from a street player.There is less of a threshold or commitment for an online player. However, street players and online players need to collaborate to achieve the aim of the game, which they are told is to find Uncle Roy’s office.

Now consider the possible actions that a street player can take in this piece. If you decide you don’t want to leave your belongings at the theatre, you may not take part. This so-called threshold already enables Blast Theory to ascertain a level of commitment, securing you as a participant in the work and binding you to return to the theatre to pick up your things. If you accept these conditions, it is likely that you are interested and curious as to what will happen- you won’t go off to sit in a café for an hour, but will try to follow the instructions.

As you walk along the streets, you can choose to chat with online players.You have been told that the aim of the game is to find Uncle Roy’s office. Because of your level of commitment, we can expect you to actually try to do that by following the leads and messages you get from online players and from Uncle Roy himself.

When you do find his office, you are free to look around at the carefully composed space.You may write an answer to the question on the postcard that is left there for you. Later, you are taken on a limousine ride with a man who asks you if you would be willing to commit to a total stranger and give him or her your phone number to keep for a year and use if they need someone to talk to.This relates back to the question on the postcard, which you already wrote an answer to. In this way, Blast Theory makes you think and reconsider some of the values you have of the world around you. In other words, returning to the sociological definitions, they create dissonance and have worked on your attitude to change behavior. In fact, you have already put your trust in several strangers while playing the game; leaving your things behind, following instructions from online players, getting in the car...Whether or not you actually leave your name and phone number is arguably not the most important question here. In my opinion, Blast Theory wants you to consciously consider it and make an honest decision.As Matt Locke writes in his essay:‘How many small acts of trust do I commit to every day without thinking about it? How many promises, phone calls, emails, letters? What kind of network is formed by these pushes and pulls – how many knots, how many loose ends? And finally, how come its taken a stranger to make me think about this?’15

What you experience during your 60 minutes of ‘Uncle Roy’ is what the artists of Blast Theory want you to experience.The area is carefully monitored, all scenarios have been thought through and the game has been tested in many phases before going public. Variable factors, such as the weather or your mood, might affect your actions, but Blast Theory ensure that what they want with the piece is always achieved, namely for you to reflect on trust.The fascinating thing here is that although the artists have total control in this work, there is still room for real interaction between the participants, between them and the actors and ultimately between the participants and the artists.They allow them to alter and affect the game in several instances.You could contend that Blast Theory is using William Glasser’s choice theory in creating the illusion of a sense of control for the participants.And yet, at the same time there is a genuine becoming in this work, equivalent to how Andrew Murphie uses the word in describing the nature of interactivity in performance.16

If we consider Sasha Waltz’s piece ‘Insideout’ there is also an illusion of choice but it seems to me that the audience has much less impact on what the work is and what it means. Spectators are seemingly free to wander around as if in an installation. Each performance is potentially different; the viewer builds his own storyline based on his choices.17 But there is a key issue here- although there may be several storylines going on simultaneously, giving you as a spectator the feeling of an immense amount of action going on at once, it is a carefully choreographed scenario.As a spectator you are confronted with a vast amount of choices of where to look. Since there is no central perspective you are bound to miss certain things by choosing to look at something else. This is clearly the intention of the choreographer. On reading the review by Raymond Frenken18, it seems evident that ‘Insideout’ is a well-rehearsed event, timed and cued. Waltz creates an illusion of freedom in allowing the audience choice, but she dictates the rules of what they can choose from.

‘Insideout’ is a collage of carefully composed scenes. It is of less importance which scenes you choose to look at, since they have all been created to be part of a whole experience.This is a very different way of interacting with the audience than in ‘Uncle Roy’.The audience is witnessing a series of events they can’t really affect. One could argue that there is no true interaction happening here, since the audience is merely given the choice of what to look at and not able to change of influence it.

Even in work where audiences are seemingly more free than in ‘Uncle Roy’ or ‘Insideout’, it is probable that the artist has gone through all kinds of scenarios and determined which ones are acceptable to him or her.Which ones work with his ideas and what kind of action will not be allowed, how does he build up the framework to facilitate what he wants? In William Forsythe’s installation ‘Scattered crowd’, the atmospheric sound is of huge importance. It affects the mood and the mind of the spectators. Most walk around rather sedately, moving a balloon every now and then.The atmosphere of the installation is meditative, calm and has an aquatic quality with the balloons floating in mid-air.19 Dana Caspersen writes: the viewer inhabits and alters, through their stillness or speed, their sense of proportion and time, the configurations that make up this constantly shifting, ecstatic world.20 Here, the audience can have an affect on the installation by physically moving the balloons and by placing themselves in space. Forsythe limits the impact the audience can have on ‘Scattered Crowd’ but attempts to further a sensitivity to interrelative issues and decision-making. Gerald Siegmund writes:‘ ...the choreography has a situational origin by means of the constantly changing relations between the participants. It is based on the participants’ decisions, and made visible by changes in space.’21

Conclusion

It seems to me that we can make an assumption here that goes for any piece of art or performance. If a person comes to the theatre and chooses to watch or take part somehow, you can expect a certain level of commitment. In today’s society it is so easy to just leave if you don’t like or want something.We are used to surfing the Internet and

browsing through information. If something is not interesting to us, it doesn’t hold us- we move on. In a similar way, people who are not interested in seeing an installation by Forsythe or participating in a game by Blast Theory most probably won’t come.This degree of engagement is one of the key issues in anticipating audience behavior. Because of it, artists are able to analyze possible scenarios, for example by using some of the theories and ideas I have mentioned in this essay.

Due to the very fact that we are dealing with groups and with the people inside it, certain actions may be socially unlikely even if theoretically possible to the particular artist.An example could be someone deciding to paint a part of the balloons in ‘Scattered Crowd’ black.Would he or she be refrained from doing so by security or by the fellow visitors? The other spectators would probably regard him or her with some suspicion. Interestingly we are here entering a discussion on authorship and anarchist acts in performance, which may or may not be accepted by the artist. My own assumption is that in a truly interactive work, where the audience is viewed as being part of the piece, this is a possible course of action. In anticipating the behavior of visitors to the installation, I doubt that this particular scenario possibility would have been taken under consideration.The reason for this would most likely simply be an issue of probability.As in the example of BlastTheory binding their audience and counting on them not selling the portable computer on the street, as artists in interactive performance, we keep judging what is plausible against our social analysis of the world. In the case of the ‘Scattered Crowd’ balloon-painter, if I were the artist I would be very curious as to what kind of person thought of such a thing as bringing black paint and a brush to the installation.