Jacob -- fascinating double perspective, on the symmetry/asymmetry relations, and also on the unequal perceptibilties you mention, or could we say the "invisibilization" of part of the work (sorry, i am here using a pun on a theory I was just beginning to read and dwell in, a book by Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos on "Spatial Justice: Body, Lawscape, Atmosphere" (Routledge, 2015) -- a book that digs into some fundamental questions of understanding how law or legal norms work (and hide themselves)...... this might not be an uninteresting angle if we were to look at asymmetry also in reference to the themes and cultural dislocations mentioned by Nilüfer and Henry. your second point stunned me --- an "audience residency" or workshop? That's brilliant. Naturally, i do remember that in some arts and technology collaborations over the past years, especially when these involved so-called interactive installations (and perhaps also social scientists/psychologists on the team interested in behavioral responses, these collaborative teams would invite performance and non performance artists to be user testers, come an try out the setting and let the software programmers and designers watch how peope engage the work. But how to build/find a pool of people interested in being user testers. I guess you are right, students and unemployed people do got to psychology/neuroscience test experiments, so why not to participatory theatre experiments. testing relational aesthetics. very cool. regards Johannes >>> [Jacob schreibt] It’s awesome seeing the discussion evolve. I thought I would throw in a few things that have emerged out of my recent projects (mainly Jacqueries — http://jqrs.org). 1) Asymmetrical audience experiences By analogy to ‘information asymmetry’ in game theory: chess is totally information-symmetric, poker is largely information-asymmetric (players do not have the same information about the state of the game). Traditional theatre (proscenium or otherwise) aims at information symmetry. I have been exploring highly asymmetrical works, using parallel tracks of action, of which an audience member can only see one. Sometimes we use mediated elements (videos cued on the audience’s iPhones) to show them some of what they’re not seeing live. This creates a huge amount of dialogue after the show, as people compare their experiences. It also encourages a videogame-like ‘replayability’ as audience members will frequently stay for a second show (we run twice a night) to see what they missed the first time. 2) Audience in Residence A dance company here in Toronto which makes highly adventurous / participatory works got foundation funding to create an ‘Audience In Residence’ program. It’s a pool of people who act as a test audience: they’re given specific training in communication and the nature of creation, and then invited to join the creation process at various points where their presence is useful to the performers / creators. They receive a stipend (although some donate it back to the company). In my experience so far this has been an absolute bolt of genius. The pool of people is large enough that it’s not always the same gang. The stipend encourages substantial participation by poorer and disabled people. The resulting sessions have proved hugely valuable to me in the creation of participatory and tech-enabled work. Hopefully that pays back some of my lurking time... xJ