Live theatre is the only art form in which audiences engage with real humans, creating relationships, actions, behaviors, and emotions meant to be read as truthful. In much of contemporary theatre, perceptually, actors' behaviors are performed to be understood as close to real-life behaviors as possible. Authenticity is rewarded with critical approval, honors, and public admiration.
This perceptual authenticity has long led to popular beliefs about underlying inner reality: a mythos that there is truth under artifice (Benedetti Reference Benedetti2007; Stanislavsky Reference Stanislavsky1989). In certain mainstream styles of theatre, the combination of realistic perceptual cues while acting and popular conceptions of reality beneath performance may therefore cause audiences to react as if viewing real life, rather than as in an aesthetic space.
The Distancing-Embracing model endeavors to be art general and relies on top-down schemas to explain pleasurable negative emotions in art. Within distancing, the representation and fiction schemas allow audience members to separate themselves from artistically induced emotions, before experiencing the emotion itself. Within embracing, appreciation of aesthetic virtues allows audiences to welcome negative emotions specifically.
But the model does not account for watching live humans act out emotions, behaviors, and situations that look perceptually analogous to audiences' everyday experiences. Bottom-up automatic processes that occur in reaction to and in comprehending of such actions in real life may also occur while watching theatre (and, perhaps, only theatre). Therefore, autonomic contagious feelings of negative emotions may have to be reacted to, rather than prepared for (e.g., having a spontaneous, negative response to a real person standing next to you sobbing, and then reminding yourself that the person is just acting). Live theatre may additionally challenge the success of distancing and embracing processes in three ways.
First, live theatre erases the distance between “me” in the here and now and “art” in its time and place, considered key for the separation of momentary and reflective responses. Audiences in a theatre experience the play's events in real time, at the same time, in the same space as the actors. Newer theatrical movements in immersive theatre erase the distance of time and space more drastically. In many contemporary works, audience members sit on stage or walk around with the actors (e.g., recent productions of Spring Awakening, Sleep No More, Rocky [Brunner Reference Brunner2017; Dinesh Reference Dinesh2017]). Actors in character interact with audience members, bringing them into the world of the play in a fully realized, 360° experience. This erasure even disconnects theatrical acting from film or television acting.
Second, theatre (like all art forms) is not just art, but also something in itself. Visual arts, literature, dance, music, and film exist separately from the audience and create aesthetic depictions using metaphor and representation (canvas, written word, movement, musical note, screens). Live theatre is different. Unlike paint on canvas, or even musicians playing instruments or dancers moving in nonpedestrian ways, actors are not representations. Among heightened language, or elements of music and movement, the people in character are real.
Therefore, instead of creating aesthetic distance via fiction/representation, viewing actors may activate automatic processes that occur in the presence of real people. Any art general model must account for perception and reaction processes such as emotion contagion (Hatfield et al. Reference Hatfield, Cacioppo and Rapson1994), mood contagion (Neumann & Strack Reference Neumann and Strack2000), which occurs especially with negative emotions (Kelly et al. Reference Kelly, Iannone and McCarty2016), unconscious mimicry (Chartrand & Bargh Reference Chartrand and Bargh1999), and efficient belief mentalizing (Apperly & Butterfill Reference Apperly and Butterfill2009). These all occur in the physical presence of people, efficiently, immediately, and without top-down processes (Preston & DeWaal Reference Preston and De Waal2002). Emotion contagion, in particular, is fast, reflexive, and uncontrollable (Hatfield et al. Reference Hatfield, Bensman, Thornton and Rapson2014), even when there is no goal of sharing emotions (Neumann & Strack Reference Neumann and Strack2000). Theatre could activate all of these (and so may film [Coplan Reference Coplan2006]) before audience members have a chance to distance themselves. After experiencing autonomic emotions, audience members would then need to disengage.
Third, top-down processing of the aesthetic experience of theatrical acting may cause a lack of embracing. It is uncomfortable to watch someone wrestle with real mental illness, shame, or embarrassment (e.g., Krach et al. Reference Krach, Cohrs, de Echeverría Loebell, Kircher, Sommer, Jansen and Paulus2011). In the theatre, audience members may speculate that only an actor who is already troubled can portray mental illness (as, anecdotally, audiences already do for film and TV [Gerbner & Gross Reference Gerbner and Gross1976]), or that an actor can only portray joy, extreme sadness, or pain while actually experiencing it (e.g., Goldstein & Bloom Reference Goldstein and Bloom2015; Goldstein & Filipe Reference Goldstein and Filipe2017). Therefore, audiences may believe the emotions and behaviors they are seeing performed onstage are really happening to the actor, keeping them from finding pleasure in the experience. Although the sets, costumes, and lighting of theatre are certainly aesthetic, it is an open question whether humans, acting, are processed as such.
Given these features that only exist in live theatre, it can serve as an excellent test case. One way to test distancing, for example, is to systematically vary the realism of actors' portrayal and measure autonomic belief reasoning, emotion contagion, and other reactions. Research could compare audience responses with more or less realistic acting to investigate automaticity of emotional reactivity. Variance in the fictionality or representational nature of technical aspects of theatre could also test distanced versus bottom-up reactions. If realism makes a difference, automatic processes would occur more frequently and intensely for more (but not less) realistic portrayals. To test embracing via aesthetic appreciation, audience member belief (that actors must experience what they portray) could be manipulated before performance. If audiences believe actors must experience what they portray, they may have an inability to take pleasure in a “real” occurrence, when compared with believing they are watching pretense.
Level and type of representation, activation of automatic responses, and understanding of aesthetic virtues are different in theatre than other art forms, and call the generality of this model into question. Yet very little research has investigated live theatre or compared it with film, dance, music, and visual arts. Manipulating theatrical factors would clarify the ordering of distancing and embracing and empirically test key components of this model.
Live theatre is the only art form in which audiences engage with real humans, creating relationships, actions, behaviors, and emotions meant to be read as truthful. In much of contemporary theatre, perceptually, actors' behaviors are performed to be understood as close to real-life behaviors as possible. Authenticity is rewarded with critical approval, honors, and public admiration.
This perceptual authenticity has long led to popular beliefs about underlying inner reality: a mythos that there is truth under artifice (Benedetti Reference Benedetti2007; Stanislavsky Reference Stanislavsky1989). In certain mainstream styles of theatre, the combination of realistic perceptual cues while acting and popular conceptions of reality beneath performance may therefore cause audiences to react as if viewing real life, rather than as in an aesthetic space.
The Distancing-Embracing model endeavors to be art general and relies on top-down schemas to explain pleasurable negative emotions in art. Within distancing, the representation and fiction schemas allow audience members to separate themselves from artistically induced emotions, before experiencing the emotion itself. Within embracing, appreciation of aesthetic virtues allows audiences to welcome negative emotions specifically.
But the model does not account for watching live humans act out emotions, behaviors, and situations that look perceptually analogous to audiences' everyday experiences. Bottom-up automatic processes that occur in reaction to and in comprehending of such actions in real life may also occur while watching theatre (and, perhaps, only theatre). Therefore, autonomic contagious feelings of negative emotions may have to be reacted to, rather than prepared for (e.g., having a spontaneous, negative response to a real person standing next to you sobbing, and then reminding yourself that the person is just acting). Live theatre may additionally challenge the success of distancing and embracing processes in three ways.
First, live theatre erases the distance between “me” in the here and now and “art” in its time and place, considered key for the separation of momentary and reflective responses. Audiences in a theatre experience the play's events in real time, at the same time, in the same space as the actors. Newer theatrical movements in immersive theatre erase the distance of time and space more drastically. In many contemporary works, audience members sit on stage or walk around with the actors (e.g., recent productions of Spring Awakening, Sleep No More, Rocky [Brunner Reference Brunner2017; Dinesh Reference Dinesh2017]). Actors in character interact with audience members, bringing them into the world of the play in a fully realized, 360° experience. This erasure even disconnects theatrical acting from film or television acting.
Second, theatre (like all art forms) is not just art, but also something in itself. Visual arts, literature, dance, music, and film exist separately from the audience and create aesthetic depictions using metaphor and representation (canvas, written word, movement, musical note, screens). Live theatre is different. Unlike paint on canvas, or even musicians playing instruments or dancers moving in nonpedestrian ways, actors are not representations. Among heightened language, or elements of music and movement, the people in character are real.
Therefore, instead of creating aesthetic distance via fiction/representation, viewing actors may activate automatic processes that occur in the presence of real people. Any art general model must account for perception and reaction processes such as emotion contagion (Hatfield et al. Reference Hatfield, Cacioppo and Rapson1994), mood contagion (Neumann & Strack Reference Neumann and Strack2000), which occurs especially with negative emotions (Kelly et al. Reference Kelly, Iannone and McCarty2016), unconscious mimicry (Chartrand & Bargh Reference Chartrand and Bargh1999), and efficient belief mentalizing (Apperly & Butterfill Reference Apperly and Butterfill2009). These all occur in the physical presence of people, efficiently, immediately, and without top-down processes (Preston & DeWaal Reference Preston and De Waal2002). Emotion contagion, in particular, is fast, reflexive, and uncontrollable (Hatfield et al. Reference Hatfield, Bensman, Thornton and Rapson2014), even when there is no goal of sharing emotions (Neumann & Strack Reference Neumann and Strack2000). Theatre could activate all of these (and so may film [Coplan Reference Coplan2006]) before audience members have a chance to distance themselves. After experiencing autonomic emotions, audience members would then need to disengage.
Third, top-down processing of the aesthetic experience of theatrical acting may cause a lack of embracing. It is uncomfortable to watch someone wrestle with real mental illness, shame, or embarrassment (e.g., Krach et al. Reference Krach, Cohrs, de Echeverría Loebell, Kircher, Sommer, Jansen and Paulus2011). In the theatre, audience members may speculate that only an actor who is already troubled can portray mental illness (as, anecdotally, audiences already do for film and TV [Gerbner & Gross Reference Gerbner and Gross1976]), or that an actor can only portray joy, extreme sadness, or pain while actually experiencing it (e.g., Goldstein & Bloom Reference Goldstein and Bloom2015; Goldstein & Filipe Reference Goldstein and Filipe2017). Therefore, audiences may believe the emotions and behaviors they are seeing performed onstage are really happening to the actor, keeping them from finding pleasure in the experience. Although the sets, costumes, and lighting of theatre are certainly aesthetic, it is an open question whether humans, acting, are processed as such.
Given these features that only exist in live theatre, it can serve as an excellent test case. One way to test distancing, for example, is to systematically vary the realism of actors' portrayal and measure autonomic belief reasoning, emotion contagion, and other reactions. Research could compare audience responses with more or less realistic acting to investigate automaticity of emotional reactivity. Variance in the fictionality or representational nature of technical aspects of theatre could also test distanced versus bottom-up reactions. If realism makes a difference, automatic processes would occur more frequently and intensely for more (but not less) realistic portrayals. To test embracing via aesthetic appreciation, audience member belief (that actors must experience what they portray) could be manipulated before performance. If audiences believe actors must experience what they portray, they may have an inability to take pleasure in a “real” occurrence, when compared with believing they are watching pretense.
Level and type of representation, activation of automatic responses, and understanding of aesthetic virtues are different in theatre than other art forms, and call the generality of this model into question. Yet very little research has investigated live theatre or compared it with film, dance, music, and visual arts. Manipulating theatrical factors would clarify the ordering of distancing and embracing and empirically test key components of this model.