Herman Altena

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS.
Some introductory remarks to an elaboration of Patrice Pavis’
questionnaire for the analysis of performances of ancient drama

The fundamental question of analysis is to know

why and for whom it is being undertaken
Patrice Pavis 2003, 25

Performance analysis is a relatively young discipline in the field of Theatre Studies and
Classical Studies. Scholars were initially mainly interested in the historical reconstruction of
performances, performance traditions and performance contexts. However, in the 1970s
directions changed in the field of Theatre Studies, due to a fundamental reorientation on the
(theoretical) foundations of the discipline, especially in Germany. For classical scholars, the
study of modern productions expanded considerably in the 1990s, parallel to a growing
interest in recording the performance history of ancient drama. Databases of the Archive of
Performances of Greek and Roman Drama in Oxford, of the Open University in Milton
Keynes, and of the European Network of Research and Documentation of Performances of
Ancient Greek Drama in Athens, are a great stimulus to this new field of research.

In the 1960s the theatre practice faced a crisis, when many young directors turned away from the
risk-less divertissement offered by the theatrical establishment, and focused on an active and
direct role for the theatre in their contemporary society. Directors selected a play to tell a specific
topical story and were no longer interested in representing the umpteenth interpretation of its
historical dimension.1 For them, investigating the history of a play was no longer a prerequisite
for its production. These practitioners were interested in the immediate relations between actor
and spectator. Theatre was produced on various locations, new acting styles were developed,
happenings were organized. Through the incorporation of these new phenomena the definition of
‘theatre’ changed dramatically.

1
For this development, cf. Fischer-Lichte 1994, 19; Arnott 1981, 40; Vince 1989, 8.

1
These changes also affected discussions amongst scholars in Theatre Studies, especially in
German Theaterwissenschaft, about the definition of the discipline’s object. In the wake of
the theory-explosion in other disciplines, Theaterwissenschaft in the 1970s passed through a
major identity crisis, which is best reflected in two seminal articles by Arno Paul2. A strong
need was felt for a reorientation on the historical and literary-hermeneutic foundations of the
discipline3. Not only had the historical component lost part of its relevance for the theatre
practice, scholars were also dissatisfied with the limited results the historical-
reconstructionist approach had produced. Most historical performances are inadequately
documented, and even if a detailed record of a performance exists, it still is only a vague
reproduction of the performance itself4.
A remarkable ability for methodological self-reflection resulted in new proposals for a
proper theoretical and methodological apparatus. Theaterwissenschaft changed its course
dramatically in order to become a modern multi-disciplined profession with a theoretical-
empirical approach. It no longer focused exclusively on the history of the theatre, but
directed its focus to the contemporary theatre and more specifically to the processes5 which
occur in the communication between performers and receivers (empirical research in
audience response, for example, showed that performances do not produce a single
meaning6) and on sociological aspects of the theatre as an institution.7 Theories were no
longer derived from literary studies mainly, but from anthropology, psychology, communica-
tion and media studies, and adapted for theatre research. Fundamental discussions were
raised whether theatre studies should enlarge its object with other media, like film and
television drama.8

2
Paul 1971 and 1972.
3
Schoenmakers 1990, 185.
4
Vince 1989, 10; and cf. Hiss 1993, 12: “Selbst die beste Aufzeichnung bleibt eine Überzetzung des Theaters in ein
Medium, das völlig anderen Gesetzmäßigkeiten unterliegt.” Hans-Peter Bayerdörfer, amongst others, remarked that
the crisis in historical Theatre Studies reflected a general crisis in historical studies regarding the possibility of a
‘gesichertes historisches Wissen’ (‘unambiguous historical knowledge’;1990, 41). Documents that constitute
historical memory are seldom unambiguous and always open to interpretation and reinterpretation (1990, 47f.).
5
As advocated by Paul, cf. note 2.
6
Schoenmakers 1990, 190-4; cf. Hiss 1993, 12.
7
Schoenmakers 1990, 178-81.
8
“The boundaries of the discipline tend to expand in direct ratio to the intensity of the efforts to define and confine
it,” Vince 1989, 13. On the domain of Theatre Studies, cf. Reinelt & Roach 1992 and Fischer-Lichte 1994, 22-3;
Lazarowicz 1991, 28; Schoenmakers 1990, 193-4; Bayerdörfer 1990, 42-3.

2
Historical investigations were of course not abolished. Present-day theatre historians may profit
from theories and methods which have been developed in modern performance analysis and
which facilitate a more theoretically founded approach to distant theatres like that of ancient
Greece. Schoenmakers advocates a strong collaboration between historians and theorists:
“For theoreticians it is important to realize that a lot of generalizations cannot be made since many
results in theoretical theatre studies are only true for a limited number of theatrical works, or for
some periods, some cultures or some groups of spectators. For historians, collaboration with
theoreticians is important for them to become more attentive towards their own norms, values and
9
implicit ideologies which colour their interpretations of historical theatrical events”.

Performance analysis and semiotic theory

Performance analysis in the 1970s and 1980s leant heavily on semiotics and communication
theory. It was based on the assumption that theatre artists send messages by means of signs
employed in the performance, and that spectators, as long as they apply the appropriate codes,
are able to read these signs and decode the messages. Accordingly, researchers tried to dissect
the performance into its smallest signifying units. These units are characterised by the
simultaneous presence of multiple signs and sign systems, each of which had to be described,
decoded and interpreted individually, as well as in connection to the other signs and sign
systems.
In order to deal with the overwhelming amount of signs, scholars developed taxonomies,
ranging from thirteen to twenty-three different systems, each having its own semantic
features10. The ‘umbrella-model’, which I present as an attachment to this introduction, shows
nineteen sign systems which I consider relevant to the majority of modern western theatre
productions. It starts from the theatre venue, distinguishes between stage and audience,
between animated and inanimated sign vehicles, and so on, until we reach the individual sign
systems on the bottom line. The indications ‘t’ and ‘p’ stand for ‘predominantly temporary’
and ‘predominantly permanent’ respectively.

Classes

9
Schoenmakers 1990, 198. Cf. Fischer-Lichte 1994, 21, who also points to the necessary partiality and
individuality of every scholarly work; and cf. Hiss 1993, 10; Vince 1989, 9-13.
10
Cf. e.g. Kowzan 1975, Elam 1980, Pfister 1988, Fischer-Lichte 1988.

3
Signs belong to different classes: some sign systems are iconically organised (a photo, a
prop), others symbolically (language). Various relations are possible between icons and
symbols, and the theatre makes ample use of these possibilities. Hiss gives the example of an
actress who carries a laurel wreath. She can (1) hold a real laurel wreath and say (a) “this
laurel wreath”, or she can say (b) “this thing”; she can also (2) hold a metal ring, and say (a)
“this laurel wreath”, or (b) “this thing”; to this, I would add that finally she can (3) hold
nothing, and say (a) “this laurel wreath”, or (b) “this thing”.11

1a is usually explained as an example of redundancy: two sign systems convey the same
information. On closer examination, however, the icon complements the symbol, since the
words ‘this laurel wreath’ do not tell us anything about its size, the freshness of its leafs,
etcetera.
1b exemplifies determination of the symbol by the icon (complementary use)
2a exemplifies determination of the icon by the symbol (complementary use)
2b exemplifies vagueness (solitary or contradictory use)
3a and 3b exemplify even greater vagueness (solitary use)
The dialectic between the vague and the specific determines the constitution of meaning in the
theatre.

Codes
What meaning spectators attach to signs in a performance, depends on the codes they (are
supposed to) apply. These may range from narrow theatrical codes, determined by the
performance proper, to broad cultural and intercultural codes.12 The virtual involvement of
such a great variety of codes, makes performance analysis a difficult enterprise. Guido Hiss,
and with him many others, concluded that the analysis of theatre performances faces three
main problems, which are all connected to the nature of the medium:
(1) every performance consists of a diversity of materials, ranging from text (prose or
poetry), to music, to movement and dance, images, sound, film, etcetera. About every single
material, book cases have been filled. And what is more: all of these materials are presented

11
Hiss 1993, 60-61 (without the examples 3a and 3b).
12
Cf. Fischer-Lichte 1988.

4
simultaneously (synchronic axis), with shifting dominancies throughout the performance
(diachronic axis).
(2) no score exists of this layered and disparate art form, and even the best video
registration cannot convey the actuality of a performance.
(3) every spectator makes his or her own performance, creates his or her own meanings,
depending on his or her specific socio-cultural frame of reference, his or her ideas about what
theatre is or should be.13 This frame of reference can be quite different from that of the
director, and lead to interpretations a director may never have foreseen. This is not to say that
these interpretations are invalid, it only shows that the idea of intentionality on the side of
theatre artists, does not reflect the production of meaning or the emotional involvement of the
spectator in a performance.

The limitations of semiotic analysis

Despite these fundamental problems, early semiotic theory gave enormous impulse to the
analysis of theatre performances, providing scholars with a framework for description and
recollection. Yet, it has not become the ultimate explanatory model providing a complete
understanding of the processes that govern or even may predict the cognitive and emotional
reactions of an audience. In his recent book titled Analyzing Performance (Pavis 2003),
Patrice Pavis recapitulates the main points of criticism against semiotic theory as an all-
explaining model: the dissection of a performance into individual sign systems and self-
contained units of description and interpretation, tend to fragment it, without doing justice to
the continuity of the dynamic relations between signs and sign systems. The concept of
smallest signifying unit turns out to be its Achilles heel, because in the end it is impossible to
determine what constitutes the smallest unit. The theory is not equipped to cope with sensory
impressions that cannot be related to specific signs. Also, the current categorisations of signs
reflect an outdated, too ready-made system that obscures rather than illuminates the
experience of and reflection on many modern performances, because they reflect a theatre
tradition (the Western “illusionist and bourgeois realist theatre”) “whose aesthetics and
division of labor no longer have much in common with current practice”.14

13
Hiss 1993.
14
Pavis 2003, 15-16, 24.

5
New direction
Pavis proposes to approach performances from the opposite direction, without dismissing the
concept of signs and sign systems. Instead of the fragmented bottom-up method of current
semiotic analysis, Pavis advocates a global top-down model, according to which signs and
sign systems are no longer considered self-contained units, but interrelated in networks,
“within which each sign only has meaning through the dynamic that relates it to other
signs”.15 Focusing on such major networks liberates the researcher from giving an exhaustive
description of all individual signs, dominant and marginal, at each individual moment of the
production. It forces the researcher to focus on larger systems of meaning, to reconstruct
networks, while taking into account the possibility that arbitrariness and chance may be part
of every mise-en-scène. The method requires openness to the materiality of the performance
and emphasizes the importance of a purely aesthetic experience of this materiality, instead of
researchers reducing it immediately to a set of abstract signs; it requires the researcher to
postpone the process of signification as long as possible, “until the spectator’s desire is bound
to be vectorized; the arrow will inevitably reach its target, transforming the object of desire
into its signified. Paradoxically, therefore, reading the signs in a performance means resisting
their sublimation”.16

Objects and methods of analysis

Pavis distinguishes between two objects of analysis: (1) the actual performance “in all its
materiality and the particular context of its enunciation” which is the empirical object of
analysis, and (2) the mise-en-scène, which is the ultimate object of analysis, defined as “an
abstract theoretical concept, a more or less homogeneous network of choices and constraints
sometimes designated by the terms metatext or performance text. […] The metatext is an
unwritten text comprising the various choices of a mise-en-scène the director has consciously
or unconsciously made during the rehearsal process, choices that are apparent in the final
product”.17
For the analysis of these objects, Pavis mentions two methods: analysis as reportage and
analysis as reconstruction. In an ideal situation, the first method reproduces all immediate

15
Pavis 2003, 17.
16
Pavis 2003, 18-19
17
Pavis 2003, 8-9.

6
reactions of spectators during the performance proper, in terms of their focusing and of their
emotional and cognitive engagement in the performance, in other words, it records their
immediate aesthetic experience. This type of research is still immature, mainly due to the
methodological difficulty of registering in real time the immense variety of impressions every
single moment of a performance makes on a variety of spectators.
The second method, according to Pavis, relates to “historical reconstructions of past
productions”. It relies on secondary evidence other than the actual experience of a live
performance, such as previews, reviews, interviews, photo’s, video registrations, and so on.18
Therefore, the most it can offer us is “a mediated and abstract relationship with the aesthetic
object and the aesthetic experience”.19 It can never restore the authentic event, but only, and at
best, its main principles. Thus, analysis as reconstruction can never reach the full status of
performance analysis, although it can constitute a useful framework for studying partial
elements.

Questionnaire
For the recollection and analysis of live performances, Pavis developed a questionnaire,
which has been gradually improved through its use by students over a period of more than a
decade. The questionnaire is meant to be used after attending the performance, and helps
students to organize and articulate their aesthetic experiences.
I have elaborated this questionnaire for the analysis of performances of ancient drama.
Because it is not only intended for theatre students, but also for students who are less familiar
with performance analytical tools, I have added more detailed questions than Pavis gives.
Also I have accommodated several sections to the specific character of ancient drama (e.g. the
role of music, masks, the chorus). The questionnaire can be used to reflect on theatre
performances, whether long forgone or experienced only five minutes ago. Both reflections
require an ordering system, a system of watching and registering, a system that structures
consciousness, a system that is able to account for all those theatrical impulses that can not be
expressed by words, and a system that takes into account the fundamental problem of
contexts.

18
For the use of reviews as source, cf. Hardwick 1999.
19
Pavis 2003, 9 ff.

7
 With respect to these last two issues, the questionnaire needs further elaboration. The fact
that contexts change in the course of time, makes reconstructive analysis even more
precarious. Also the analysis of a live performance involves multiple contexts, due to the
influence of the cultures and subcultures that determine the referential frames of both the
artists and the spectators individually.

8
9