Introduction

THE HISTORY OF LIVENESS is contentious, and particularly so in the theater. There is no definitive consensus on what “liveness” is exactly, but the term is most often used as a shorthand to describe the ephemeral quality attributed to a so-called live play. This usage suggests spontaneity or uniqueness, the idea of a performance existing for a limited time only, as well as the opportunity for error, surprise, or interaction with an audience, all within a shared time and space. However, in the last thirty years, competing and often contradictory definitions of liveness have provoked fierce debate within the field of theater studies, particularly as digital tools, platforms, and cultures have become increasingly commonplace in performance-making practices across the world. During the COVID-19 crisis, which began shortly before the completion of this article, many theaters and other traditionally live performance venues responded creatively to lockdown and social distancing policies by broadcasting livestreamed performances on social media platforms or digging into their archives to share recordings made of past productions. This response has, unsurprisingly, received mixed reviews: for some, these digitally mediated forms of live performance are an acceptable substitute in times of necessity; for others, they are a valuable, enjoyable mode of performance in their own right; and there are also many audience members who consider these digital modes of performance to be wholly unsuccessful.

In this article, I examine the use of digitally mediated performances as a replacement or substitute for traditionally live performances at the Berliner Theatertreffen in the years 2017–19 and argue that liveness is contextual, contingent, and often a socio-political tool, rather than a fixed, ontological state. Matthew Reason and Anja Molle Lindelof write that “the status and significance of the live in contemporary performance has become contested: perceived variously as a marker of ontological difference, a promotional slogan or a mystical evocation of cultural value,” and propose that it is more important to ask how liveness matters, and to whom, rather than to focus upon what precisely liveness is. In this spirit, I consider the ways in which the Theatertreffen confers value upon different forms of liveness, and argue that the hierarchy of cultural values created in this way is explicitly political.