Associations. Connections. In-between.
The distinction between shared spaces, let’s call them “public” spaces and the intimate, or “private” space, seems to be clearly indicated. That is to say that public spaces, described as “a range of social locations offered by the street, the park, the media, the Internet, the shopping mall, the United Nations, national governments, and local neighbourhoods” (Low, Smith 2006, 3), stand visibly in opposition to the private - connected to the minds of individuals — the thoughts, feelings, desires, and spheres that they create around such spaces. Politics, institutions, places of employment that belong to the “public” world are governed by shared norms and values and are separated from domestic and family relationships — the realm of intimacy, personal identity, and free will. However, is that distinction still as clear when we think about globalisation, the worldwide accessibility of information, and the ongoing intervention of social media in our daily routines?
The constant sharing of fragments of our intimate lives online through stories, reels, posts, and other forms of digital expression builds connections between what is “private” and “public”. The continuous exchange of daily news and live streaming give us the chance to be both in and out simultaneously, to observe people on the other side of the world, all whilst we sit at home drinking a cup of coffee The kitchen that we are sitting in might become an office when we join our co-workers on a video call. In the same space, we may choose to watch an online performance, thus becoming an audience member without taking a seat in a theatre.
Could performative art support a growing correlation between in-timate and public spheres? This seems to be a rhetorical question. Meredith Monk, recognisable as one of the most influential artists of our time, used to describe her work in outside spaces as follows: “What satisfied me most about working in a nontheatrical space was the process that became a dialogue between an environment that already existed and me. My task was to listen to what a particular space was saying to me. I liked that I was not constructing a reality that would be the same no matter where I went” (Arendell, Barnes 2016, 23). Putting her words into the context of developing modern public and non-public per-formance, it seems like every action that we take in outside spaces has the potential to change the environment. Performing in public opens up a space for dialogue between artists and the spaces that they are performing in. And as in every example of dialogue, the pro-cess happens on both sides. The human body performing in public changes the loading of the space, adding another layer to the place’s existing historical and cultural background. And the place indeed affects the performing human being as well – creating a base to refer to and influencing their actions, movements, and creation.