Week Three Debate: Chairpersons Report

“There is no inherent opposition between live and mediated performance”


Given this heavily contested topic to debate, the affirmative and negative teams immediately began researching their position on the subject matter. Lengthy email conversation flowed within and between both groups, and myself, with researched findings, ideas on points of attack and the formation of succinct arguments. Deconstruction of the reading was evident from both parties, as they effectively addressed the key concepts and concerns of both Auslander and Phelan. The organization within the teams was efficient and proved a successful and enlightening debate.

The affirmative team opened the debate with a strong argument; Liz effectively introduced her team’s standpoint and clearly laid out their plan of attack. The points introduced succinct and enthusiastically addressed the main concepts raised by Auslander. Notions of audience- desensitisation, intimacy, expectation and an overall emphasis on the role of television in shifting the way in which we (viewers, consumers, audience, spectators) conceive of what the ‘live’ constitutes and the way in which broadcasting has altered the perceptions of immediacy and ontological processes.

First speaker for the negative, Alex, hit back, refuting the notion that broadcast does in fact have a strong ontological base and that the disappearance of VHS (a further example raised by Liz) paved the way for new forms of recording and playback, such as DVD, Youtube, TiVo etc. And that the process of viewing material through these mediums can not be considered a truly live performance- thus causing it to be in opposition to mediatised performance. Alex then invoked Peggy Phelan, reiterating her views on the disappearance of live performance through the intervention of mediated forces. That human subjectivity, memory and personal experience can only truthfully be had during the experience of the moment, being in the presence of the actual performer- it can only be a unique, personal encounter once- and once it has been recorded it becomes something else, a different visual/audio experience.

The affirmative quickly contested the notion that ‘live’ only exists in an embodied experience, as the idea of what ‘live’ means has been altered, and it can no longer simply be defined by a physical presence. Belle continued to argue that the live and mediated are mutually dependent, that there is an inherent liveness and sense of co-presence in all performances, especially in the heavily mediated virtual, liveness is no longer considered physiotemporal as again, the notion of what a performance is has altered, reinforcing the teams position that there is no opposition between live and mediated performance, that they are mutually dependant.

Brent began by rebutting the idea of virtual ‘liveness’ as an example of a live performance, as the performing entities are solely existing/communicating through a medium- thus by being mediated it is no longer considered ‘live’. He continued by adding that the unpredictable nature of live performance can not be captured or compared to that of recorded footage- that the mediated version is remediated, becoming something entirely new, finally reinforcing the notion that live and mediated performances are in opposition.

XiXi, the 3rd and final speaker for the affirmative, began by counter arguing Brent’s example of the ‘liveness’ in a concert (Beyonce), adding that audiences expect some level of mediation, either through sound, microphone usage, speakers, large screens, emphasising the mutually dependant nature of live and mediated performance. She then effectively wrapped up her team’s position, clearly reiterating the notion that modern society is desensitised and audience expectation itself has been changed and remediated, finally reinforcing the mutual dependency of live and mediated performance.

Finally, Jan, the 3rd speaker for the negative, opened with emphasising that live and mediated performance does exist separately, and that, yes, mediation is n extension of the live, however they are not always mutually dependent. Concluding with the notion that live performance can not be mediated, as it defeats the purpose of the ‘live’, thus inturn creating something new, a remediated experience – neither better or worse, just different.


As the adjudicators mulled over their decisions, I engaged the class in brief discussion on their views on the subject matter and whom they believed should be the winning team. Surprisingly it was quite an even spread of hands for both teams, and after considering why certain individuals where swayed either way, the general consensus was that those who agreed with the affirmative already shared that view because of their prior knowledge and preformed opinion of the Auslander reading, however those who sided with the negative, did so because the arguments came with a fresh perspective including examples that they themselves had not conceived of before.

This proved to be evident within the adjudicators result as they awarded the negative team the winners, reasoning that the argument they presented was the most original and creatively thought of. They appreciated the innovative examples and interesting standpoint, enlightening them and the audience with notions not previously thought of or researched from Auslander.

Overall I would say the debate was extremely successful and an interesting way to flesh out the readings, the concepts and the key notions between the two opposing views.

- Jessica Falkholt