Don’t Bother Me I’m Twitching!
Online Bodily Co-Presence and Twitch.TV
As we continue our quarantine well into the Fall the idea of “online performances” has become an incredibly important discussion among theatre artists. Especially regional theaters across the United States trying to stay open (for real if you can go donate to a local arts organization they need you) However many theatre artists are too busy bemoaning the loss of live spaces to actually make an attempt at crafting a digital performance, I wont put myself on a pedestal, I’d kill to get into a rehearsal room. Since we cannot, here is an explanation of how it is possible to acchieve SOME of the same live feelings online. Primarily using Twitch
Twitch was a subsidiary to an online video platform called “Justin.TV” which allowed users to host a live broadcast about any topic they wanted. Twitch instead focused mainly on video game live streaming. Over time however, Twitch had seen many different categories, and genres introduced, and received more traffic than its parent website. Due to this rise in popularity Justin. TV’s main website was shut down, and the company was rebranded in 2014, becoming “Twitch Interactive.” Now users can broadcast on a variety of different topics all on the same website. From talk shows to art live streams, or cooking channels. This influx of new content helped advance Twitch’s popularity even more. While Google and Microsoft have competitors to Twitch in their sites YouTube Gaming and Mixr (rest in peace), their numbers pale in comparison to Twitch. Twitch is not a platform to ignore; last year alone Twitch viewers watched 9 billion hours of streamed content. Today, Twitch is in the top 30 websites on the Internet in terms of daily traffic and has an average viewer rate that rivals ESPN and cable news networks. As a Performance Studies, and theatre scholar I believe there is a lot of potential research in Twitch, but in my field, there are many scholars that feel that there is no reason to study Twitch, or online streaming in general. Many believe that Performance Studies theory cannot be applied to internet live streaming, due to the lack of what Erika Fischer Lichte calls “bodily co-prescience” (more on that in a second). Can Performance Studies theory be applied to internet live streaming, even though users of the website are not in the same room together? Is a stream on Twitch still a performative event? I would answer this question with this. While the spectators and actors do not have a traditional bodily co-presence like we think with live theatre. A live stream is still a performance due to an “online bodily co-presence.”
Cyber Space, and Digital Performance
One of the requirements for a performance is bodily co-presence. Bodily co-presence is the idea that both the actors, and spectators are existing in, and occupying the same space. So, what I mean by online bodily co-presence is the idea that an actor and a spectator’s online bodies are occupying the same “cyber space” during, say, a livestream, a chatroom or a massively multiplayer online game(MMORPG). The same theories of Fischer- Lichte’s co-presence can be applied to online bodily co-presence. In his book Digital Performance, A History of New Media in Theatre, Dance, Performance Art and Installation Steve Dixon defines “digital performance” in a broad way:
“To include all performance works where computer technologies play a key role.” He proclaims that new technologies — primarily the internet — have altered the development of what we can consider performance. It has created a new type of performance collaboration and distribution medium.”
I would argue that while Dixon focuses on the creation of new types of performance, he has ignored that it also becomes easier for the audience to engage with the new performances created. He ignores the feedback loop of performance in the quote above, but his feelings on the internet and performance are incredibly clear. That the content on the internet is a natural progression in performance.
Event-ness
Erika Fischer-Lichte describes performance in her book Theatre and Performance Studies as being an “event” she explains this “event-ness” with a few important caveats:
1. A performance can be seen as an event rather than artwork because it is created through the interaction of actors and spectators i.e. an autopoietic feedback loop.
2. An event is unique and unrepeatable.
3. A Performance is an event in so far as no individual participant controls it completely.
4. In performance, participants experience themselves as subjects who partially control, and are partially controlled by, the condition (Lichte. 41).
It is imperative to keep these concepts in mind as we discuss Twitch. Twitch unlike other forms of user-generated media online, such as YouTube, is performed in real time and broadcast over the internet by a “streamer” to an audience of “viewers”. Viewers are able to chat amongst themselves in a separate chat room dedicated to a specific stream that the streamer is also able to read. This allows for a form of interactivity between the streamer (performer) and the chat (viewers).
Liveness and Twitch.TV
The “liveness debate” has been a presence in the discourse of performance studies since the introduction of photography in the 1930s. The debate of “what IS a live performance?”
When it comes to the liveness debate today most people fall onto one of two corners. One being represented by Phillip Auslander who represents the idea that liveness can incorporate new forms. Philip Auslander is a Performance Studies scholar with a particular interest in technology and the documentation of performance. Auslander is an extremely influential scholar in the field of media and performance studies. He theorizes that theatre and media do not need to be polar opposites, or separate field of study. He believes that “liveness” is ever changing, and cannot have a singular, never changing definition. In a presentation titled “Digital Liveness” Phillip Auslander argues that the word “live” has already been molded to assimilate digital media “The phrases live broadcast and live recording suggest that the definition of live has expanded well beyond its initial scope, as the concept of liveness has been articulated to emergent technologies.” live is a word that is ever changing, and can be applied to new technologies. Liveness does not have to only apply to a group of people in the same room together.
The other corner of the modern liveness debate is represented by Peggy Phelan. Peggy Phelan is a performance studies scholar who argues that the “actor/audience relationship” is only possible in the “present” and by “present” she means physical proximity. One could easily compare Phelan’s points to Benjamin’s. She argues: “Performance implicated the real through the presence of living bodies.” It’s easy to see how these two scholars opinions and theories are in direct contrast with one another. Both scholars make excellent points about the relationship of new media and live performance. Peggy Phelan has an outspoken opinion on the differences between live performance and streaming online.
“Now we have streaming video, web casts, all sorts of media capable of recording and circulating live events. They can give us something that closely resembles the live event, but they nonetheless remain something other than live performance. Live performance remains an interesting art form because it contains the possibility of both the actor and the spectator becoming transformed during the events unfolding” (Phelan “Live Culture and Things of the Heart”).
I partially disagree with this quote. Using the characteristics of event-ness that Fischer-Licthe uses. A pre-recorded video does not have the actor/spectator relationship, or a feedback loop, this is true. However- Twitch, in fact, does. I discovered this through interviews, and a phenomenological approach. I started by watching streams on Twitch! Through my discussions and own observations, I examined the potential relationship between the streamer and the viewer. I also took the opportunity to interview a user of the website.
I spoke with Emily Chow who goes by “Celtisu” on Twitch. An up and coming personality on Twitch, Emily Chow is a visual/digital artist who broadcasts live streams of her drawing on the platform. I asked her about the formats of her live streams, and she had this to say. “My streams are very focused on chatting, people often joke that I talk more than I actually draw, and it’s a little true, but it’s because my chats are very engaging. We’re always talking about a lot of stuff, and I learn a lot just by chatting with them” (Chow). Emily Chow is beginning to scratch the surface of the interactivity of her streams. Notice that she talks more about her interactions with her spectators in her chat as opposed to her actual stream. She went on to elaborate:
It kind of blurs the edge sometimes. There’s still a distinction of I am the streamer, and people in the chat are viewers, right? They’re the audience, but we do kind of play around on that edge, where it becomes a little more casual as a hang out, but still maintains that distinction that I’m here to share something with these people, and they’re there to consume that media, and sometimes participate directly with it (Chow).
Going back to Erika Fischer-Lichte’s theory; the very first caveat of “Event-ness” is the dynamic relationship between actor and spectator. Erika Fischer-Licthe said: “The event-ness of performance opens up a very specific sort of experience for its participants […] In performance participants experience themselves as subjects who partially control, and are partially controlled, by the conditions.” When we apply these conditions to Emily’s streams, the audience, the viewers, her followers, are partially controlled by the content of the stream. Emily decides what she is going to draw, and initially starts the live stream, however her audience has a kind of agency over the content of the stream, due to being able to directly interact with her, and vice versa. Due to this interaction between Emily and her audience a feedback loop forms that changes the course, and rhythm, of the overall stream. This intrigued me, and I dove a little deeper. I asked her if sometimes she might take her attention off of herself to put it on someone in her chat. “I’d definitely say that, whether it’s something interesting that they found to bring to the conversation I’ll say oh that’s cool and direct people’s attention to that.” (Chow) The content is directly influenced by the spectator of her stream.
Emily has about 7,000 followers on Twitch , for further research I watched some of the most popular streamers on the platform. One of whom was Maximilian Christiansen, who goes by Maximilian Dood on Twitch. His profile has about 710,000 active followers, however his streams have accumulated more than forty-five million views. His streams are a little different from Emily’s. Emily has a smaller audience, which allows her to have more in depth interactions with her spectators. Maximilian’s audiences are much larger. Just his streams that I watched had around 10,000 viewers on each stream. It would be nearly impossible for Maximilain to both focus on the content of the stream while also interacting with his chatroom. There are too many people in the chat, which makes it really hard to follow. The direct one on one interactions that Emily has with her audience on her channel cannot happen as often on Maximilian’s channel. One of the fascinating ways we see participation from the spectator in these larger streams is monetary donations from viewers. On Twitch once a streamer has reached 50 followers, they can accept monetary donations, and most streamers automatically show a banner across the screen when a person donates. The banner has the donators name on it, and the streamer verbally thanks them for donating. This is a common practice on Twitch, which is a free website, and interrupts the pre-established flow, or rhythm of the stream. The spectator who donates, and the streamer themselves, have a feedback loop. The spectator donates, and the streamer gives them a shout-out. This shout-out causes a shift in the performance. The donator is briefly the focus of the performance, after which the focus shifts back to the streamer, or the next donator. The donator has the ability to directly interact with the performance they are viewing, and thereby alter the rhythm of the performance itself. They then walk away feeling energized, due to having a direct interaction with the performer, and the performer feels energized due to being positively reinforced by the spectator.
I asked Emily why stream live on Twitch instead of just creating a video and uploading it somewhere else, such as YouTube?
“It depends on the type of experience you want to provide for people, YouTube, you can have a highly edited piece, and have a more concise and informative piece… Whereas on Twitch there is definitely the emphasis on direct communication, so that people can ask me in live time… in real time… It’s a lot more direct, and I definitely recommend Twitch for that kind of live performance.” (Chow)
I liken the Twitch and YouTube comparison to a film and theatre comparison. Many uninformed people would ask a theatre artist “why create theatre, when you can create a movie and reach a larger audience?” and a well experienced theatre artist would probably (hopefully) say that film is missing the direct communication that happens between the actor and spectator that you do not achieve by watching a film. Liveness requires a feedback loop and an exchange of energy, as well as bodily co-presence. Some would argue that interacting through the internet does not provide these things. I brought these topics up to Emily, and she had this to say.
Sure, in Theatre they have that snap reaction to things, and there is a different experience when you’re in the same room as someone, but I wouldn’t say that Twitch is excluded from that experience. While the individual viewer isn’t in the same room as you, they are still experiencing the same sounds and visuals as you are, and there’s still also a group of other people, despite them being in rooms all over the world, there are still people there to watch something and experience that thing with multiple others (Chow).
What Emily is saying is that- through the Internet- it is still possible for an exchange of energy, and a type of presence. A performance requires a certain type of presence with the actor and spectator; Yes, the actor/performer has to have control over the space of said performance, in which the performer is able to captivate the attention of the spectator, but performance also requires a stronger type of presence. The spectators need to be able to feel a power, or energy emanating from the performer. This energy draws the spectator even further in, allowing for an exchange of energy from both the performer and spectator. Further study needs to be conducted on online performances. There are actually aspects of performances in cyber space that other types of performances do not have. One example being the communities that form during a live stream. Thanks websites and apps like Skype, YouTube comments or chat applications such as Discord, communities that form during a live stream can move to these other platforms allowing spectators to chat with each other or the streamer. Discord is the most popular, Discord is an online chat app that allows users to create a chat room server that allows anyone to connect and chat either over text or over voice. Most streamers on Twitch have a link to join their discord server on their twitch channel. What does it mean for a performance studies scholar when the community that forms during a stream can continue into Discord and the community still keeps going, unlike a live performance at a theatre. Once the show is over the audience goes home, and the community dissolves.
“Total Work of Art” and the Democratization of Content on the Internet
Richard Wagner (1813–1883) was a German composer, theatre director, and conductor who was primarily known for his operas. Wagner’s concept of the total artwork (Gesamtkunstwerk) was the idea that all aspects of a performance were no longer separate pieces, but every aspect of a performance, it’s medium, the audience relationship to the actor, any music or artwork used E.T.C are combined into one singular performance instead of being separate pieces of media. In his essay The Artwork of the Future Wagner makes strong statements about the artwork of his time. “If we consider the relation of modern art to public life, we shall recognize at once its complete inability to affect this public life in the sense of its own noblest endeavor… Art has become the private property of an artist caste” (Wagner 75). Analyzing this quote, and his idea of total artwork, what the internet has allowed in terms of performance is a democratization of performance and content. A performance is not controlled by an “artist caste” like Richard Wagner claims the art of his time was. It is controlled by what the majority of the spectators enjoy, allowing for a free-flowing stream of what kind of content is popular, and what works for the performer in a live stream. A live streamer can alter the content of their live streams based on current trends with the spectators allowing for an open and free flowing cycle of content creation. As performance studies scholars why would we consider online performance as a different category? Using Wagner’s “total artwork” approach we shouldn’t use the fact that the performance is streamed over the internet as a detriment. It is just part of the performance. And like discussed above, the concept of event-ness still applies to an online stream on Twitch thanks to online bodily-copresence. What needs to happen with relation to performance studies and the internet is a discussion as if the Internet is a place, a cyberspace. I realize that this idea is easy to criticize. Someone could easily point out that you don’t leave your room when you sit at your computer. In order to discuss cyberspace, and online bodily co-presence we need to get over the idea that the internet is a space where live interactions cannot happen. The idea is more of a metaphor, this concept can help us to analyze online performances and interactions just like we would in normal day to day life. People saying the “met up online” or “met online’ is becoming more common. We need to start analyzing these kinds of interactions just like we would analyze real life events. Going back to Dixon, he says this: “A web address gives no clue to the geographical positioning of its server, but it could be seen as a type of coordinate, defining a specific location and meeting place on the network.” This proposes the idea that we can analyze an online space just like we would analyze a physical space.
Conclusion
The magic of what we do as theatre artists and performance studies scholars — as opposed to other entertainment fields, and media studies — is our ability to create a sense of community. While film and television have communities around specific tv shows, movies or subcultures, live performance creates a community experiencing the same performance together. We create a liminal space, a space between the beginning of a performance, and the end. In this space people can come together as communities, and the community breaks apart when the performance is over. This can happen whether that is in an online space, or a live theatre space. What they experience together in this space cannot be replicated, which is one of the caveats of event-ness. Even if they see the same show, or watch the same streamer again, or even watch a recording of a stream. They will never experience it with the same group of people, and they will not have specific interactions with that specific live stream. It is over, it has ended, and that specific community has disbanded. Waiting for another notification of a live stream so that they can hop directly into a different community. Stating that an online stream is not performance ignores the entire feedback loop of the streamer and their spectators in their chat. It also ignores the chat’s ability to directly interact with the streamer and affect the content of the stream. The liveness debate is a never-ending discussion in performance studies. However, we have to acknowledge that the technology that we have now — compared to the technology ten years ago — has advanced so rapidly that our concept of liveness and what performance is has to evolve with it. Now more than ever it’s important to ask ourselves the question “what constitutes as theatre?” if we are to survive as an art form.
Works Cited
Auslander, Philip. “Digital Liveness: Philip Auslander (Us) about Digital Liveness in Historical, Philosophical Perspective.” Vimeo, https://vimeo.com/20473967. Accessed 1 Dec. 2019.
— -. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. 2nd ed, Routledge, 2008.
Cassillo, John. “Twitch’s Average Streaming Audience Draws Closer to ESPN, Cable News.” TV[R]EV, 15 Feb. 2018, https://tvrev.com/twitch-amazon-streaming-cable-news-espn-million/.
Dixon, Steve, and Barry Smith. Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation. MIT Press, 2007. Open WorldCat, http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3338680.
Dood, Maximillian. Maximilian_DOOD — Twitch. https://www.twitch.tv/maximilian_dood. Accessed 1 Dec. 2019.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika, et al. The Routledge Introduction to Theatre and Performance Studies. English Language edition, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.
Khalid, Amrita. Twitch Grows as Non-Gamer Live-Streaming Expands on the Platform — Quartz. https://qz.com/1747158/twitch-grows-as-non-gamer-live-streaming-expands-on-the-platform/. Accessed 1 Dec. 2019.
Minotti, Mike. Twitch Viewers Watched 9.36 Billion Hours of Content in 2018 | VentureBeat. https://venturebeat.com/2019/02/01/twitch-viewers-watched-9-36-billion-hours-of-content-in-2018/. Accessed 1 Dec. 2019.
Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. Routledge, 1993.Phelan Peggy. Performance, Live Culture and Things of the Heart. Journal of Visual Culture. SAGE. 1 December 2003
“Philip Auslander, Ph.D. — Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts.” Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts at Georgia Tech,https://www.iac.gatech.edu/people/faculty/auslander. Accessed 1 Dec. 2019.
Rose, Mike. Gamasutra — Twitch Parent Company Rebrands as Twitch Interactive. https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/210384/Twitch_parent_company_rebrands_as_Twitch_Interactive.php. Accessed 1 Dec. 2019.
Wagner, Richard. “The Art-Work of the Future.” Richard Wagner, translated by William Ashton-Ellis.
