Validating the Operated Performing Objects (OPO) Character Model Through Kentridge’s Black Box/Chambre Noire

Janine Lewis,* Mienke Fouché,** and Laetitia Orlandi***

Abstract

This paper introduces the term remote performing (id)entities, where the neologism (id)entity refers to a self-aware entity capable of distinguishing itself from others, emphasising agency in performance. It supports a characterisation model for operated performing objects (OPOs), defined as machine or robot performers that act independently, in contrast to contact performing objects (CPOs) which are extensions of human performers. As OPOs risk seeming mechanical without human contact, the model helps artists imbue them with perceived agency and character. The OPO character model is validated using South African artist William Kentridge’s Black Box/Chambre Noir (2005–2021) and includes an interactive online tool, the Degree of Agency (DoA), allowing users to assess the OPOs’ performative impact and compare their perceptions to the article’s analysis.

Keywords: William Kentridge, interdisciplinary performance, agency, performing objects, dramaturgies of technology, presence and absence 

Kentridge’s Black Box / Chambre Noire

Black Box / Chambre Noire is a model theatre film installation with drawings, mechanical puppets and projections that uses as its theme Namibia’s colonial war in what was then German Southwest Africa, and the genocide of the Hereros. The Herero people are inhabitants of parts of Southern Africa, primarily Namibia. Black Box / Chambre Noire references the 1904 massacre of Southwest African Hereros by German soldiers, believed to be the first genocide of the twentieth century (Guggenheim). Within the installation, the projections are drawings and animations by Kentridge of historical records related to the histography of the Herero genocide. The installation portrays this incident through the concept of trauerarbeit, meaning “grief labour.” Trauerarbeit is a term coined by Sigmund Freud that refers to the process of “mourning and melancholy” which upholds that the ‘‘work of mourning frees us from the melancholy induced by a trauma” (Liedenberger 90).

In Black Box I wanted to look at the political unconscious of [Mozart’s] The Magic Flute – looking at the damages of colonialism, which described its predations to itself as bringing enlightenment to the Dark Continent… It is not a sequel to The Magic Flute: rather [serves] as health warning to accompany it (Kentridge “Magic Flute and Black Box: Sarastro and the Master’s Voice”; Rosenthal).

In Mozart’s opera there are hints at the dangers and limitations of the the high priest’s character Sarastro, and his misplaced convictions. For this installation, Philip Miller took many of the musical themes of Mozart’s opera and reconfigured them, such as Sarastro’s singing recast as a military brass march, and the interweaving of different fragments of Herero music from Namibia (Kentridge “Magic Flute and Black Box: Sarastro and the Master’s Voice”).

The descriptions given to the characters’ in the Black Box / Chambre Noire give insight into the theatremakers’ intent for the installation. Skull represents the violence and genocide, while Megaphone positioned as the narrator of the piece, is depicted with a skew placard displaying the word trauerarbeit as body.

Divider’s role in the performance is to characterise colonial interest, represented through drawings relating to chartography and science depicting military expansion, planning and analysis. The character simply named “man” represents the Herero resistance; depicted in a performance environment that shows the progress of colonialism and its negative effects; whenever Man appears, he is accompanied by violent images and German advertisements and contained by a shower drawing and a landscape of corpses. In contrast, the character Woman 1, represents the survivor of the Herero genocide; her appearances are accompanied by footage of the forests, and lists of deceased Herero soldier names mutating into constellations of stars. “In Mozart’s opera, music is enough to tame the wildest beasts, and a rhinoceros becomes a pet that dances on cue. In Black Box that rhinoceros, now captured on archival film is hunted down. These two moments [Herero genocide and rhinoceros poaching] are the bookends of the work” (Kentridge “Magic Flute and Black Box: Sarastro and the Master’s Voice”).

The characters are performing objects accompanied and accented by drawings, and animations. These performing objects are intentionally symbolic and representative of metaphor. “Metaphors themselves are most simply explained as expressions that compare one concept to another” (Montgomery 22). Kövecses (4) explains how the cognitive linguistic view defines metaphors as “understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain.” Within this context, the OPO characters are visual metaphors, as they use the non-verbal dynamics and gesture to denote meaning, with the extra layer of being remote objects they are offering representation towards a visceral understanding of the conceptual domain through anthropomorphisation.^[1] Although shown with humanised features and movements (anthropomorphised) OPOs are not human performers, nor do they have direct human interaction in performance. Therefore, the characters’ agency needs to be instilled beforehand. Imbued through the creators’ mechanical mastery and the theatremakers’ intent; offering a visual metaphor for stimulating the viewers imagination and concretising interpretation.

Puppetry, Robotics, and Material Performance Studies

Performing objects are found as characters in theatre and installation art, realised through the creatives and theatremakers. These performing objects have been subcategorised as contact performing objects (CPOs) and operated performing objects (OPOs). This article concentrates on the branch of OPO, namely, remote performing OPOs. Remote OPOs are defined as machine or robot performers that are tele-operated, meaning that these objects are operated remotely without any direct physical contact with human agency. In other manifestations, OPOs perform without any real-time human involvement. Thus, OPOs are programmed and operated by a technician or are computerised. This article therefore refers to OPOs as being remote independently performing (id)entities (as opposed to CPOs that perform as an extension of a trained human performer). The remote performing (id)entities term, also used in the title, includes a neologism (id)entity which refers to a living entity that demonstrates an awareness of its own existence and the ability to distinguish itself from other entities which qualify its personal identification (ID for short) or (id)entity.^[2]

Often, OPOs are so technologically sophisticated that they are too complex for performers or theatremakers to animate and therefore are required to be operated either by a technician (who has the necessary expertise to programme or technologically animate the object yet does not or may not have a background in performance); or by an automatic mechanism that is switched on or “wound up,” or by a computer (Fouche 15-6). Jochum and Murphey further distinguish two types of OPOs based on how they are operated: automatons, which execute pre-determined actions as rote performance, and animatronics, which perform in real-time (313). During the design iteration process, both types of remote OPOs can benefit from consulting the OPO character model offered in this article.

Internationally recognised professor in puppetry, Polish historian and theoretician of the puppet theatre, theatre critic, playwright and translator, Henryk Jurkowski states that the human fascination with the magical nature of performing objects stems from the performing object’s instinctive or primaeval origins as moveable ritual idols (126). At an atavistic^[3] level, objects were revered for having a greater connection to the spirit realm. British writer, editor, lecturer, activist and advocate for puppetry, Penny Francis observes that subconsciously humans entertain a notion of atavism despite science’s gradual demystification of the phenomenon (6). In the case of OPOs the additional step of removing the source of articulation from performing objects results in a more spectacular experience as the objects appear to be moving entirely by themselves (Fouche 210).

Despite this magical quality OPOs may run the risk of appearing soulless and mechanical due to the lack of physical contact with a human agent. However, the OPO character model may be indicative of how this rote performance may be intentional and useful for interpretation. When applied within the iterative design process, the creatives and theatremakers may discern the agency level of the character according to the objectives and intent for their performance.

In developing these OPOs, creatives may follow a pragmatic reciprocal process often reliant on several iterative attempts edging closer to the theatremaker’s intent. To this end, Fouche’s study Affect and Agency in Anthropomorphising Operated Performing Objects: A Pragmatic Technician’s Model concluded the development of a characterisation model for OPO towards navigating a process of anthropomorphisation of performing objects. In so doing, Fouche identified the agency and type of character required for fulfilling the performative modes envisaged by the theatremaker.

The OPO character model was developed based on the artefact outputs already experienced globally in South African exponent William Kentridge’s performing objects from his artworks and installations (Fouche 18; Fouche, Lewis and Orlandi “Modelling Agency for Characterisation: Applying the Degree of Agency Tool” 8-10).^[4] This article serves to present this model and authenticate its efficacy by specifically focusing on William Kentridge’s characters in his art installation Black Box/Chambre Noire, originally created in 2005, with three other editions since then, the latest version completed in 2021.

Character Model for Anthropomorphising OPOs

The OPO character model is based on the concept of iconic affects (Fouche 216). “Affect” (as a noun) is derived from the Latin word affectus, meaning disposition, and is often used as a synonym for emotion, mood, or feeling (Shepard). However, Massumi (207, 210, 211) adds that affects are more complex than emotions:

[Affects] are thinking-feelings of the import of the situation at hand, replete with competing tendencies and alternative paths… Affect theory does not reduce the mind to the body in the narrow, physical sense. It asserts that bodies think as they feel on a level with their movements. This takes thinking out of the interiority of a psychological subject and puts it directly in the world: in the co-motion of relational encounter.

Affect is often used within theatremaking to ascertain the visceral response a spectator may have to an action that is intentionally conceptualised and performed for meaning-making. This in turn informs the dramaturgy “in the sense of both a process and a framework” (Montgomery 9) which governs the development of a performance. “As a framework, dramaturgy is principally concerned with conceptualising, defining, questioning, and engaging key terms and ideas… As a process, dramaturgy is a set of strategies, tactics, and methods used to analyse or apply a dramaturgical framework” (9).

Esstentially dramaturgy can be said to be harnessing affect towards meaning-making for all role-players: the designers, theatremakers and performers (human, CPO or OPO). In this article, affects describe the collective thinking-feeling and consequent behaviour of an entity. Iconic affects describe the thinking-feeling state of characters as recognised in their performed non-verbal behaviour.^[5] Therefore, these iconic affects are the thinking-feeling states as recognised in the OPO’s non-verbal performed behaviour.

As determined by Fouche, the anthropomorphisation of the OPOs (Figure 2) creates the illusion of the objects possessing agency (216-17)^[6] achieved through the combination of iconic affects and kinaesthetic output. Where kinaesthetic describes the gross motor or fine movement capabilities of an object, entity or being. Agency in OPOs may be determined through this anthropomorphisation process determined through the viewer’s imagination.

Viewers perceive the iconic affects (as input) through their observation of the kinaesthetic output programmed by the creators with the intent and purpose of meaning making and interpretation. Much like Fischer-Lichte’s claim that “a live performance is co-constructed by the bodily presence of both actors and spectators.” This is reliant on the presence and liveness of the OPO as actor which stimulates the viewer’s imagination to anthropomorphise the OPOs (Figure 2) – thereby the spectator perceiving and giving the OPO human-like qualities and responses informed by their imagination. However, Fischer-Lichte’s claim that “live performance is always shaped by the interaction between actors and spectators, where anything can happen” may not be as clear cut when it comes to remote OPOs. There is the bodily presence of performing objects as physical actor but they cannot participate in the co-creation of the liveness repriprosity of exchange in the performance. OPOs can only reinact the ascribed agency afforded them by the creative designers through the programming of their kinaesthetic output.

The affective input is directly relational to the kinaesthetic output, which encompasses six of the nine non-verbal codes used by humans to communicate as described by Bowman (41). These six codes include motion (both range of motion and energy), interaction, physical contact, visual focus, and speed of actions. These six codes may be defined as:

• Motion (kinesics) which is divided into two, the OPO’s range of motion and number of articulation points of which an object is capable; known as Kinesics complexity, while the performative energy levels in the motion is known as Kinesics dynamics.
• The OPO’s interaction with other objects is measured in the awareness of their intentional proximity to other characters, this is termed Proxemics.
• The type of physical contact between the OPO and a stimulus is measured by the amount of physical contact (if any), which is called Haptics.
• Observing how and where the OPO focuses its gaze, which may be direct or indirect focussed attention, is termed Oculesics.
• The speed or tempo of the OPO’s actions, and if the OPO can scale its tempo during activities, determines the Chronemics.

The technician as creative ascribes numerical values to the kinaesthetic output by assessing the physicality of the OPOs during the iterative design process. The creative along with the theatremaker then determine and ascribe quantitative values to the affects they perceive as initial spectators. The combined totals for the affective input and kinaesthetic output result in the degree of agency (DoA) performed by the object. Where the classification of agency displays a sliding scale for intelligence, awareness, and ability to interact (Fouche 11-14). It may be contested that the reliance on quantifiable scores risks narrowing artistic interpretation. However, the DoAT is intentional in its use of a series of Likert scale assessments, which is a rating scale used to measure opinions, attitudes, or behaviours; that is reliant on respondents choosing how they feel. It includes an emotional margin for nuanced responses. Also relevant are descriptive references to the visual and audible outputs, the theatremaker’s intent, and the performance environment.

The OPO character model (Figure 3) conceptualises iconic affects as a sphere reminiscent of French actor and acting movement coach Jacques Lecoq’s laws of motion which focus on the non-verbal communication techniques and principles of movement (Lecoq, Carasso and Lallias, 66-67, 73-75, 89). Lecoq’s laws of motion encourage performers not to perform themselves but rather to use their bodies or inanimate objects as the performative metaphor of self (Kemp 103-17). Aesthetically, in the OPO character model the ascribed metaphor provides an (id)entity through agency, where the sphere demonstrates movement as a continuous flow, illustrating the reciprocity between action and reaction.

The DoA reflected by the character through kinaesthetic output is directly related to the (id)entity level (Figure 3). The 0-4 range of agency per (id)entity level includes: 0= None; 1= Simple supporting character; 2= Complex supporting character; 3= Complex lead character; and 4= Exceptionally complex lead characters. The model may work both ways – if the character is only cast to perform in a simple supporting role, then the model may be used to determine the reduced level of iconic affect to be included in the OPO.

The more complex the character role, the more visible kinaesthetic outputs can be built into or purposively generated for the OPO through non-verbal communicative modes. The visible outputs in turn support the spectator to anthropomorphise the OPO in their ‘viewer’s imagination’ (Figure 2). Leading roles have greater and more affects with more complex forms of kinaesthetic expression, while minor roles have limited or no discernible affective expression with less kinaesthetic output.

OPO Character Model

Pragmatically, it would be a waste of resources to create supporting objects as complex as leading objects. As such, the positive correlation can be grouped according to complex lead, complex supporting, and simple supporting character requirements that correspond with their affective and kinaesthetic capabilities. Thereby assigning performance roles to the OPOs through their demonstration of agency.

The Degree of Agency Tool – DoAT^©

The DoAT^© (Fouche, Lewis and Orlandi, Performing Emotions through Technology) is designed to measure the degree of agency performed by OPOs to avoid soulless mechanical performance. This tool is intended for non-verbal remote OPOs because these objects are considered the most complex to provide with agency. The non-verbal element of OPOs further complicates agency creation because contextualisation must be created through movement and audio effects in the absence of spoken dialogue (4).

These aspects in combination are also included in the DoAT^© tool to document the circumstances within which the OPO’s agency and characterisation is contextualised (Fouche, Lewis and Orlandi, Modelling Agency for Characterisation).

Kentridge’s Characters as a Neo-pragmatic Consideration

The thematic description of Kentridge’s OPOs provides insights into neo-pragmatic displays of the theatremakers’ intentions. Kentridge studied under Jacques Lecoq at the L’École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq and still employs Lecoq’s non-verbal communication techniques to anthropomorphise his performing objects (operated or otherwise) (Wendel-Poray 158). Therefore, it is not surprising that Kentridge is known to demonstrate the character’s movement with his own body, and the technicians translate these movements into the mechanics of the OPOs (Fouche, Lewis and Orlandi “Modelling Agency for Characterisation” 8-10; 14-17).

This movement translation may be seen as a demonstration and interpretation of mimesis into kinesis. This neo-pragmatic approach shows the involvement of perception for the creative developing the OPO, as in the technician being the first interpretative spectator during the iterative design process. Also, the neo-pragmatic approach to the OPO exhibits the idea that our sensory states are information-bearing and may be manipulated towards being representational. It is the perspicacity that the anthropomorphisation happens in the interpretation of the viewer/spectator, which in turn is manipulated by the visual and temporal activities programmed as the OPO’s remote (id)entity performance.

This confirms that the development and manipulation of the anthropomorphisation of Kentridge’s OPOs takes place during the iterative design of the objects. By the time the objects perform for viewers, their characters have been pre-determined and developed through movement texturing and nuanced actions contextualised in the performance making or ‘rehearsal’ environment.

Francis writes that, compared to others in the field, one can witness within the work of Kentridge “almost unlimited opportunities for the proposal of imaginative, unrealistic ideas and their ingenious solutions” (85). Even though Kentridge is the source of “imaginative, unrealistic ideas,” his team provides the “ingenious solutions.” According to Wendel-Poray, Kentridge and his production team achieve Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk, the unity of all art forms in theatre, “musical, poetic, and visual work” (166). This notion of gesamtkunstwerk extends out of performance into the studio’s conceptual process.

The OPO characters are developed by Kentridge in collaboration with engineers for their use in film, theatre, and exhibitions (Blazwick and Bretiwieser 226). New projects are conducted under intense workshopping conditions over the course of several weeks (Wendel-Poray 166). Kentridge relies extensively on the input of all members, “[he] relishes (and openly appreciates) the collaboration” (Gregory 34). The quality of Kentridge’s work derives from his collaboration with qualified and accomplished people (Fouché, Lewis and Orlandi “Modelling Agency for Characterisation” 10). Within their respective fields of expertise, the collaborators manage the technological aspects of Kentridge’s work of which he is not adept.

The analysis of Kentridge’s OPOs provides insights into these OPOs’ performances through a neo-pragmatic approach that reveals the relationship between affective input and kinaesthetic output and demonstrates a positive correlation (Fouché, Lewis and Orlandi “Modelling Agency for Characterisation”). The more affective input is transferred to objects, the greater kinaesthetic output is required for performance. This correlation was directly observed in the roles performed by the OPO samples of Kentridge (Fouché, Lewis and Orlandi “Modelling Agency for Characterisation” 1013). Most notably were the six characters found within the art installation Black Box/Chambre Noire (Kentridge Studio) because they offer a range of perspectives on their DoA.

Credits for the Black Box/Chambre Noire (2005)

Black Box/Chambre Noire (Kentridge, Black Box / Chambre Noire, Mechanical Theatre) is an automatic theatre that performs a twenty-three-minute art installation. The performance features six automaton OPOs (in order of appearance): Megaphone, Divider, Man, Woman 1, Skull, and Woman 2. An online experience of this piece can be found both at the Kentridge Studio and in the public forum of Youtube. 

Black Box/Chambre Noire (2005) was co-commissioned by Deutsche Bank and Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation for the exhibition William Kentridge: Black Box/Chambre Noire at Deutsche Guggenheim October 29, 2005 – January 15, 2006 Liebieghaus Skulpturen Sammlung (Kentridge, Kentridge Studio; Kentridge, Black Box / Chambre Noire, Mechanical Theatre; Liebieghaus). The original 2005 art installation is credited as an animated 35 mm film transferred to video, projected front and back onto model theatre with drawings and mechanical puppets including the following collaborators: musical composition is by Philip Miller; mechanical design by Jonas Lundquist; the performance includes singers Alfred Makgalemele, and Vevangua Muuondjo; with the musical recordings completed in Namibia by Minette Mans, and Philip Miller; the programming for mechanical objects was done by Ronald Halgren; editing was done by Catherine Meyburgh; and lighting by Ann-Charlotte Fogelström. William Kentridge’s Black Box/Chambre Noire is part of the permanent collection of the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Humlebæk, Denmark. The museum acquired this work in 2018 with support from the New Carlsberg Foundation. From September 24 to December 11, 2022, Black Box/Chambre Noire was featured as a key installation in the Royal Academy of Arts’ major retrospective of Kentridge’s work.

Apply the OPO Character Model: Determine the DoA of OPOs in Black Box/Chambre Noire

Fouche’s OPO character model (Figure 3) was designed in a South African context and based on the work of theatremaker and artist William Kentridge (216). This factor may also be detrimental to the model, in that it was designed within one cultural context. And although South Africa embraces 11 official languages, that denote as many cultures, this model may not translate across international or global cultural contexts. Kentridge’s work has transcended the cultural boarders and has a global reach, however, that just speaks to the appreciation of the modes used to engage the themes and topics he utilises in his artmaking.

Kentridge is an internationally celebrated artist, but his work is rarely analysed in terms of robotics, automation, or remote performance. Whereas this article is tapping into the personal-cultural and socio-cultural perspectives of the viewer (as spectator) through measuring their opinions and interpretations of their affect. It is therefore only apt that the efficacy of the tool is validated by you, the reader, through witnessing one of Kentridge’s documented artworks, the Black Box/Chambre Noire. This provides you with the opportunity to experience the pragmatics and assessment process first-hand through immersing yourself in the creativity.

Try out the DoAT^© for yourself HERE. Determine your DoA score for the OPO characters to see if you agree with the analysis included in this article. Your analysis will shed new light on this particular installation but also opens up broader perspectives on how performing objects operate within Kentridge’s and other artists’ practices.

DoAT scores for the six OPO characters in the Black Box / Chambre Noire

Compare your assessment of the DoA for each character with the DoAT originator’s score generated when she developed the OPO character model. The six OPO characters in the Black Box/Chambre Noire each display an individual degree of agency on the template scale.

There are three characters that display a positive DoA, including Megaphone, Divider, and Man; and three that display a negative DoA, namely Skull, Woman 1, and Woman 2 (Fouche, Lewis and Orlandi, “Modeling Agency for Charactersation” 10-13).

The characters displaying a positive DoA indicate a natural performance and entity-ness (Figure 6). The character Megaphone shows the highest DoA score of 15/24, rendering it at a purposeful level, which means that it appears to be aware of itself and appears to anticipate responses from its environment. As such, the mechanics of Megaphone are articulated to allow for purposefully directed focus while its range of emotions signals the mood of each vignette in which it appears. Divider character had a DoA score of 8/24, rendering it at an aware level, which means that as a character, it appears to be aware of its environment. Divider performs motions that are moderately complex, lively, and fast. The sample performs awareness of its surroundings and uses its appendage to indicate its focus. The last character showcasing a positive degree of agency is the Man character. It has a low score of 3/24 which makes this character merely somatic in that it appears to be in control of its basic functions. Man performs simple, lively, and moderately fast motions that are affected by events in the performance environment (such as the shower drawing containing Man). However, Man does not indicate an awareness of this, giving no indication of observing or noticing what takes place in its performance environment.

The other three characters fall within the negative degree of agency spectrum, which indicates an increase in mechanical performance and object-ness (Figure 5). The character Skull had a DoA score of -2/24, which rendered this character at an autonomic level. This depicts that the character does not appear in control of its basic functions. Skull performs simple, lively, moderately fast, and aggressive motions which are separated from and seemingly unaware of its performance environment or other OPOs in the vignette in which it appears. Skull’s repetitive performance of the same Basic Affect is consistent and is indicative of its negative kinaesthetic score. Respectively, Woman 1 and Woman 2 characters were each -4/24 and -5/24, which depicts these characters as Unaware and Unresponsive—the characters are either unaware of their environment or unresponsive to the characters’ environment (Figure 5). Woman 1 performs the same Nuanced Intense Affect using remarkably simple, moderate, and slow motions. The sample remains detached from the performance environment and other performing objects. Woman 1 does not indicate an awareness of the events that transpire in its performance environment. The low kinaesthetic output score is consistent with the performance of the same Nuanced Intense Affect. Woman 2 performs remarkably simple, moderately energetic, moderately paced, and directionless motions. Its performance is separated from and seemingly unaware and non-responsive to its performance environment and the other OPOs in the vignette in which it appears. This is in keeping with the Indiscernible Affect of Woman 2’s portrayal.

Conclusion

The OPO character model and DoA tool are offered here in this article as a neo-pragmatic approach for digital dramaturgy and creative theatremaking where performing objects are the primary storytellers within non-literal or abstract narratives. Applications originate in the iterative design process to fully determine the intentions of the characters within theatre, art installations, or a hybrid context (as witnessed with Kentridge’s applications). As discussed there are various integrative approaches to performing objects as characters, most notably moving towards the remote OPO, digitised and even the AI robotic generated characters. It serves then to acknowledge this model and tool be used to determine agency in designing such characters, to open up broader perspectives on how OPO operate within the design practice towards performance.

These design DoA modes may, therefore, further serve towards interdisciplinary studies of liveness, where ‘the medium of performance became more diversified and convergent over time, the notion of liveness accordingly became complicated’ (Kim). Such as Fischer-Lichte’s discussions on ways in which “the bodily co-presence of actors and spectators in a physical space situates interactions which are themselves constitutive of performance” (37). Where spectators and actors co-construct the liveness through action and reaction, supported by communication theorist Watslawick’s principles that ‘one cannot not react to the other’ (Fischer-Lichte 43).

Auslander countered this statement by his insistence on historial perspectives found within digitised liveness as “the idea of what counts culturally as live experience changes over time in relation to technological change” (Auslander). This brings in the dimension that performative commentary on histography already biases the liveness of experiencing the performance, through memory and personal opinion or recall of the cultural event.

Now more than a decade later, digital dramaturgies no longer focus on the how as much as the what and why of integrating technology into the dramaturgical performance space and theatremaking. The digitised performer or remote OPO can only offer up their rote performance as a mirrored response to the individualised interpretation of the spectator. As contained in Fischer-Lichte’s explorations:

[of how] meanings emerge for spectators while, as perceiving subjects, they shift their focus between the live actor’s phenomenal, material body, and their perception of the character being embodied. Therefore, the meaning and value of a performance are derived not only from the representation of a dramatic text or a fictive character created in another genre, prior to the event. Shifting one’s perception to focus on actors’ actual bodies has been even more prevalent… since the specific corporeality of actors’… bodies could be seen as the “locus and epitome of their ‘presence’ (147).

One such answer would be the temporal aspect that performance embraces, and the OPO offering an experience that is both non-literal and non-linear through the integration of characters that advance perspectives on multiple moments of being; to be able to coexist in a single experience. The OPO characters are only made real through the viewers affect input and interpretation of the kineasthetic output towards anthropomorphisation afforded by the spectator’s imagination.

Further this speaks directly to ‘bringing the absence in presence into view’ (Jannarone). The OPOs unambiguously represent the human ontology in performance. Allowing for a distancing to the thematic material by the theatremaker/spectator in the absence of real humans. However, the OPO characters presence in performance is unmistakable through the use of symbolism and metaphor, extending an invitation to the spectator to “wrestle with the ontological questions of what is live” (Kim). Further, Kim extends the derivative semantics of liveness, such as “live,” “alive,” and “life” which point to the ontological dimension of the terms as they collectively articulate the “ephemerality, mediation, reproduction, and representation” to question “presence, absence, liveness, the real and the only partially real, the authentic and the copy, the form and the representation” (Sack 13).

Jannarone contextualises performance as the co-presence of absence and presence. Allowing for the intersciplinary space for studies of liveness in the areas of “ideology, technology and ontology of performance, which are by no means fixed terrains” (Kim), but rather overlapping and validating spaces reflecting the transformative notions of liveness. Where the construct of ‘multiple moments of history coexist in space’ (Jannarone). So too for the OPO in Kentridge’s installations.

The Black Box/Chambre Noire installation discussed as a case study in this article certainly points to these performance studies perspectives on representation of histography through liveness and the dichotomy of presence/absence. It considers the story of the Herero genecide without holding back, yet through the dramaturgy of the remote OPO characters, the violence of colonialism becomes bearable to watch whilst commanding the desired visceral response in the spectator. The spectator becomes implicit in the action through their affect input towards activation of their imagination to anthropomorphise the OPO, and make meaning from the installation. This is further enhanced by the effective integration of agency in the characterisations of the OPO. Thereby, rendering the objective for this article – to validate the OPO character model as a neo-pragmatic approach to remote (id)entity performance. Which further recommends the application of DoA at the intersection of puppetry, robotics, and material performance studies.

---

Endnotes

^[1] Anthropomorphisation is the psychological act of attributing human qualities to non-human entities (whether animals or objects). Servais (1) confirms that a person anthropomorphises by noting behaviour patterns in non-human entities that are recognisable as human-like. The noting of patterns of behaviour relates to the psychological theory of Behaviourism that posits that thought becomes observable in behaviour (Watson 11). Anthropomorphisation results from inferring human-like thoughts, feelings, and behaviours from actions of non-human entities.

^[2] The term remote (id)entity performance further speaks to infusing OPO’s to include reference to Freud’s the id as a component of our psyche driven by instincts and desires, which operates on an unconscious level yet is functional within an id-ego matrix (Lapsley and Stey 5). Therefore, the neologism intends to incorporate id, entity, and identity in a juxtaposed formulated term (id)entity.

^[3] Atavistic refers to the relating or characterising of something by referencing something ancient or ancestral.

^[4] William Kentridge is one of South Africa’s most recognised artists and theatremakers, and is “a world-class star in contemporary art, media, and theatre” (Taylor) and has an oeuvre that spans over fifty years (Kentridge and Taylor). Kentridge uses a wide range of performing objects in his work and directs technologically sophisticated OPOs developed and operated by technicians. Kentridge studied under Jacques Lecoq at the L’École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq and still employs Lecoq’s non-verbal communication techniques to anthropomorphise his performing objects (operated or otherwise) (Wendel-Poray 158).

^[5] The performance of Iconic Affects is meant to provide the required cues to stimulate the imagination of viewers towards the anthropomorphisation of the OPO (Fouche, Lewis and Orlandi, Performing Emotions through Technology).

^[6] Agency is the degree of intelligence, awareness, autonomy, and independence displayed by an entity.

Bibliography

Alexander, Mary. “South Africa Gateway – The 11 Languages of South Africa.” South Africa Gateway, 2018.

Blaswick, Iwona, and Sabine Breitwieser. William Kentridge: Thick Time. Whitechapel Art Gallery, 2016.

Bowman, Joel M. Nonverbal Communication: An Applied Approach. Taylor & Francis, 2020.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika. “Shared Bodies, Shared Spaces: The Bodily Co-presence of Actors and Spectators.” The Transformative Power of Performance. Routledge, 2008, p. 37.

Fouché, Marie. Affect and Agency in Anthropomorphising Operated Performing Objects: A Pragmatic Technician’s Model. PhD diss., Tshwane University of Technology, 2023.

Fouché, Marie, J. Lewis, and L. A. Orlandi. “Modelling Agency for Characterisation: Applying the Degree of Agency Tool (DoAT) to William Kentridge’s Operated Performing Objects.” Contemporary Theatre Review, vol. 2025, pp. 1–19.

———. “Performing Emotions Through Technology: Towards a Degree of Agency Tool (DoAT) for Assessing and Applying Agency to Operated Performing Objects.” South African Theatre Journal, vol. 34, no. 3, 2022, pp. 131–49.

Francis, Penny. Puppetry: A Reader in Theatre Practice. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020.

Gregory, Bronwyn. “Unique Prints, Woodcuts, Etchings.” William Kentridge: Right Into Her Arms, edited by Annandale Galleries, Annandale Galleries, 2018, pp. 32–44.

Guggenheim Museum. “William Kentridge: Black Box / Chambre Noire.” Guggenheim Museum, 2007.

Jannarone, Kimberly. “The Co-presence of Absence and Presence.” Cambridge Core Blog, 30 Nov. 2022.

Jochum, Elisabeth A., and T. Murphey. “Programming Play: Puppets, Robots and Engineering.” The Routledge Companion to Puppetry and Material Performance, edited by Dassia N. Posner, Claudia Orenstein, and John Bell, Routledge, 2015, pp. 308–21.

Jurkowski, Henryk. “Puppetry Aesthetics at the Start of the Twenty-First Century.” Aspects of Puppet Theatre, edited by Penny Francis, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 126–32.

Kemp, Rick. Embodied Acting: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Performing. Routledge, 2012.

Kentridge, William, and Jessica Taylor. William Kentridge: That Which We Do Not Remember. Naomi Milgrom Foundation, 2018.

Kentridge, William. Black Box / Chambre Noire. Guggenheim Museum, 2005.

———. Kentridge Studio, Jan. 2020.

———. “Magic Flute and Black Box: Sarastro and the Master’s Voice.” Kentridge Studio, 2009. Accessed 25 Sept. 2025.

Kim, Seung-Yun. “Liveness: Performance of Ideology and Technology in the Changing Media Environment.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Literature. Accessed 29 Mar. 2017.

Lapsley, Daniel K., and Paul C. Stey. “Id, Ego and Superego.” Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, edited by V.S. Ramachandran, Elsevier, 2011, pp. 393–400.

Lecoq, Jacques. Theatre of Movement and Gesture. Routledge, 2006.

Lecoq, Jacques, Jean-Gabriel Carasso, and Jean-Claude Lallias. The Moving Body: Teaching Creative Theatre. Routledge, 2001.

Liebieghaus, Skulpturn Sammlung. 10 Jan. 2018. Accessed 18 May 2025.

Liedenberger, H. Situating Opera: Period, Genre, Reception. Cambridge UP, 2010.

Massumi, B. Politics of Affect. Polity Press, 2015.

Rosenthal, Mark. William Kentridge: Five Themes. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and Yale UP, 2009.

Sack, Dan. After Live. U of Michigan P, 2015.

Servais, Véronique. “Anthropomorphism in Human-Animal Interactions: A Pragmatist View.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, 2018, article 2590.

Shepard, Benjamin. “Affect.” Theory TCSOM: Media Theory Keywords, 22 Aug. 2019.

Taylor, Jane. William Kentridge: Being Led by the Nose. U of Chicago P, 2019.

Watson, John. Behaviourism. Routledge, 2017.

Wendel-Poray, Daniel. “‘Le Théâtre as Son Double.’” William Kentridge: Thick Time, edited by Iwona Blaswick and Sabine Breitwieser, Whitechapel Art Gallery, 2016, pp. 157–67. 

---

*Janine Lewis, as a National Research Foundation (NRF) rated associate professor, has experience in curricula transformation and programme design, and inter-disciplinary learning centred teaching. Lewis holds a doctorate in devising as WARPING (re)conceptual theatre making. Additional qualifications include PGDip HE Pedagogy and MBA HE management from University of Haaga-Heila, Finland, and Touch for Health kinesiology. Lewis also serves as a board member on AfTA, and TAU, as a vice-chair for SACIA and is the chairperson for the DHET Creative Output Performance, Dance & Theatre subpanel. She has presented at various conferences in countries across the world and South Africa, and published widely in the fields of theatre, dance, performance, and higher education. 

**Mienke Fouché, is a design-led performance scholar whose research explores scenographic affect, object performance, and technologically mediated storytelling. Her work investigates how space, gesture, and animated objects (that range from marionettes to digital game environments) evoke emotional and embodied responses. With a background in puppet design and a keen interest in minimalist aesthetics, Fouché examines how nonhuman agents perform character, agency, and presence in both live and virtual contexts. An experienced educator with over a decade of teaching, Fouché lectures in set design and critical thinking. She is a past recipient of the NRF Innovation Master’s Scholarship and has presented her research nationally and internationally. 

***Laetitia Orlandi completed the Doctor of Music with Music Performance degree at North-West University, BMus, BMus (Hons), and MMus degrees in Performing Arts at the University of Pretoria, and the Teacher’s and Performer’s Licentiates in Piano, Chamber Music, and Vocal Accompaniment at UNISA. Laetitia was a lecturer for 24 years and Assistant Dean (Teaching & Learning) for 3.5 years in the Faculty of Arts & Design at TUT. She is an at-large board member of SANATS (National Association of Teachers of Singing, South Africa Chapter), and a Steering Committee Member of MSW (International Network for Music, Spirituality and Wellbeing).

Copyright © 2025 Janine Lewis, Mienke Fouché and Laetitia Orlandi
Critical Stages/Scènes critiques, #32, December 2025
e-ISSN: 2409-7411

This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution International License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.