{"id":894,"date":"2026-05-29T18:25:42","date_gmt":"2026-05-29T18:25:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/?p=894"},"modified":"2026-06-15T18:19:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-15T18:19:03","slug":"re-writing-theatre-spectatorship-and-technology-in-the-age-of-digital-expansion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/re-writing-theatre-spectatorship-and-technology-in-the-age-of-digital-expansion\/","title":{"rendered":"Re-Writing Theatre: Spectatorship and Technology in the Age of Digital Expansion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Adelina-Laura Buliba\u0219a<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In the early 1960s, Jerzy Grotowski and the Polish Laboratory Theatre developed the theoretical concept of via negative<\/font>, in which the essence of theatre was defined as what remains when everything else is stripped away, such as d\u00e9cor, costumes, lighting, music, and in some cases, even the dramatic text, leaving only the actor\u2019s voice and body. In 2007, Steve Dixon defined digital performance as \u201cvia positive,\u201d<\/font> a process of adding new technologies to performance, new interactions, new effects, or new bodies. Theatre and performance art, like any other artistic practice, are being influenced and reshaped by the rapid technological advancements of our era. Today, through live-feed projections, mediated realities (MR), and virtual scenography, technology invites spectators to step beyond a passive role and engage in the experience as participants or even co-creators. Drawing on recent studies, this article reflects on the changes that have occurred in the paradigm of spectatorship over time and identifies the technologies that have driven these transformations. Adopting a forward-looking perspective, it advocates for an artistic culture that views technology as fertile ground for collaborative expansion, creative exploration, and ethical inquiry.

Keywords: <\/strong>via negativa, via positiva, technology, digital expansion, theatre<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relationship between theatre and technology has long represented a reason of tension, celebration, and philosophical inquiry. At the heart of this relationship lies a fundamental question: what constitutes the essence of a true theatrical experience? This question gained particular urgency in the second half of the twentieth century when rapid technological development began to challenge traditional notions of performance, presence, and spectatorship. The polarities established between Jerzy Grotowski’s via negativa<\/em>, a subtractive method seeking theatrical purity, and Steve Dixon’s conceptualization of digital performance as via positiva<\/em><\/strong>, which represents an additive process embracing technological augmentation, frame one of the most productive debates in contemporary performance studies, in my opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article examines how emerging technologies have fundamentally transformed the relationship between performance and audience, reshaping the very notion of what it means to be a spectator in the twenty-first century. By tracing this evolution from Grotowski’s austere Poor Theatre<\/em> to today’s technologically rich, immersive experiences, we can better understand not only how technology changes theatre, but how it redefines the essential human encounters that constitute theatrical experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Foundation: Grotowski’s Via Negativa<\/em> and Poor Theatre<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

To understand contemporary digital performance, we must first revisit the theoretical groundwork laid by Jerzy Grotowski in the early 1960s. Grotowski (1933-1999), one of the most influential theatre directors of the twentieth century, developed the concept of Poor Theatre<\/em> as a radical response to what he perceived as the over-commercialization and spectacle-driven nature of mainstream theatre. His approach was fundamentally philosophical, seeking answers to enduring questions: What do truth and authenticity in acting and performance mean? What is the actor-spectator relationship? What constitutes the greatest manifestation of the actor’s craft, and how might we work to achieve it? Why do we create theatre and what exactly is its function within community?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Central to Grotowski’s aesthetic were three interconnected theoretical concepts: a) conjunctio oppositorum<\/em> (the necessity of bringing together opposite forces to create a unified whole), b) the total act<\/em> (a process where an actor reveals their deepest personal impulses through rigorous training), and c) via negativa<\/em>. The last mentioned concept provides the most direct counterpoint to contemporary digital performance practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Via negativa<\/em><\/strong> (Latin for \u2018the negative way\u2019) represented Grotowski’s methodological approach to actor training. Rather than accumulating techniques or adding layers of performance skill, Grotowski sought a process of stripping away obstacles that blocked authentic expression. As he articulated in his seminal work Towards a Poor Theatre<\/em>, “Ours then is a via negativa<\/em> \u2013 not a collection of skills but an eradication of blocks” (17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Grotowski, true performance was not about demonstrating virtuosity or pretending, but about removing resistence, such as mental, physical, and emotional barriers. Therefore, without these impediments, the actor could reach a state of full openness and vulnerability. This subtractive method was not prescriptive but eliminative. It did not tell actors what to do. Instead, it asked them to stop doing what got in the way. The process focused on eliminating blocks, tensions, fears, ego-protections, and artificial mannerisms to reach what Grotowski called \u201ca total act\u201c<\/em>: a performance moment in which the actor gives themselves completely, almost like a ritual offering. Grotowski saw performance as a quasi-sacred act of self-sacrifice, where the actor offers their entire being to the audience.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
An example of Poor Theatre in action (1962): Akropolis<\/em> at the Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows. Photo: Laboratory Theatre\/The Grotowski Institute Archive<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

In rehearsals, actors worked through physical exercises, voice explorations, and intense psychophysical training designed not to \u2018train a skill\u2019 but to expose and discard resistances. The ultimate goal was to achieve impulse and action concurrently, creating performances where “the body vanishes, burns, and the spectator sees only a series of visible impulses” (Grotowski 16). This method has deeply influenced physical theatre, performance art, and actor training schools worldwide, establishing a legacy that continues to resonate in contemporary performance practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Counterpoint: Dixon’s Via Positiva<\/em> and Digital Performance<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In 2007, nearly five decades after Grotowski’s initial formulations, Steve Dixon published Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theatre, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation<\/em>, a comprehensive work that sought to document and theorize the emerging field of digitally enhanced performance. Within this expansive study, Dixon introduced the concept of via positiva<\/em> as an explicit counterpoint to Grotowski’s subtractive method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dixon argued that digital performance is, by definition, an additive process, thus the polar opposite of via negativa<\/em>. In digital performance, new technology is added to performance as a new ingredient, one that Dixon acknowledged might be “delicious for some but unpalatable for others” (28). Rather than stripping away to reveal essences, digital performance layers on extra technologies, extra effects, extra interactions, extra prostheses, and extra bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This additive approach encountered significant resistance from theatre traditionalists. The critique was multifaceted, ranging from aesthetic concerns to philosophical objections. Some critics, such as Palmer, worried about “a taste for expensive high-tech gadgetry in lieu of substantive writing” (143). Jean Baudrillard, quoted by Dixon and also Grau, suggested that machines offered “above all, the spectacle of thought” and that people chose “the spectacle of thought rather than thought itself” (Grau 217). Aronson questioned the very logic of digital scenography, asking, “In the midst of a modern era of spectacle, there is scant evidence that it is contributing in any tangible way to the development of drama… what is the point of trying to recreate ‘virtual’ imagery on a real, three-dimensional stage?” (188, 193).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These critiques reflected deeper anxieties about technology’s relationship to theatrical authenticity and the live encounter. Philip Auslander, whose work on liveness has been foundational to digital performance theory, observed that media technology had “encroached on live events to the point where many are hardly live at all” (i). Yet Auslander also recognized that liveness itself is an ever-evolving concept, always existing in relation to the art forms and technologies of which it is a part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dixon’s comprehensive analysis examined digital performance across multiple dimensions, tracing technological development within performance, the evolution of performance theories, and innovative practice through specific examples. His work covered a vast range of practitioners, from Blast Theory and Robert Lepage to Laurie Anderson, Stelarc, and the Builders Association, and technologies, from virtual reality experiments to motion capture systems to web-based performances. Dixon’s central argument was that digital performance represented not a corruption of theatrical essence but rather “an emergent avant-garde” (7) with its own aesthetic principles and possibilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Transformation of Spectatorship: From Passive Observer to Active Co-Creator<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The evolution from via negativa<\/em> to via positiva<\/em> fundamentally restructured the relationship between performance and audience. Traditional theatre, with its proscenium arch separating stage from auditorium, established clear boundaries between the world of performance and the world of spectatorship. Even in Grotowski’s Poor Theatre<\/em>, which sought intense connection between actor and spectator, the roles remained distinct, the actor performed the total act while the spectator witnessed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Digital and immersive technologies have progressively eroded these boundaries, creating new paradigms of spectatorship that position audiences as active participants rather than passive observers. This transformation operates across multiple registers: spatial, temporal, interactive, and ontological.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immersive theatre represents one of the most radical spatial transformations in contemporary performance. Productions such as Punchdrunk’s Sleep No More<\/em> eliminate traditional separation between stage and audience, creating environments where spectators navigate freely through performance space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Sleep No More<\/em> (which closed its New York run in January 2025 after years of sold-out performances) audiences wearing white masks moved through a five-story building, following performers through multiple rooms and discovering narrative fragments according to their own choices. This spatial freedom fundamentally altered the nature of spectatorship. As it has been observed in the last years, immersive theatre transforms spectators from passive observers to active explorers who construct their own version of the artistic experience. Each visit becomes unique because every visitor chooses their own personal path. The non-linear narrative structure fragments the story across simultaneous scenes strategically distributed in space, allowing audiences to follow different narrative threads and discover personal connections between events (Brown).<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
An image from one of the Sleep No More’s<\/em> showings. Photo: Punchdrunk<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The freedom of movement and choice gives spectators agency in determining their experience, transforming them into co-creators of their personal version. This agency represents a fundamental shift from the model of spectatorship inherited from traditional theatre, where audiences occupied fixed seats and received a carefully controlled sequence of images and actions. In immersive environments, spectators become responsible for their own discoveries and emotional journey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, digital technologies enable new temporal relationships between performance and audience through real-time interaction and responsive systems. Live-feed projections, motion capture, biofeedback systems, and algorithmic responsiveness create performances that adapt to audience presence and action. These technologies allow for what scholars have termed “emergent narrative liveness,” the relationship between audience and work has reciprocal effects on the content and structure of the narrative (Smyth).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, Artificial Intelligence has introduced particularly profound temporal transformations. AI systems can analyze audience responses and adjust lighting, sound, or even script elements in real time, ensuring each performance is unique and impactful. The integration of AI into scriptwriting, dramaturgy, set design, and performer training raises philosophical questions about authorship, creativity, and the nature of performance itself. Artificial Intelligence in theatre have the capacity to enable exploration of more complex and personalized stories that can evolve based on audience reactions and real-time changes. This enriches the viewer’s experience and gives creators flexibility to adjust performances for emotional impact. The real-time adaptability elevates audience interaction levels, creating what some practitioners describe as performances that are alive in a new sense, making them responsive, evolving, and uniquely attuned to each encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, contemporary theatre employs a wide array of technologies to expand spatial and perceptual possibilities. Projection mapping transforms physical surfaces into dynamic displays, turning stages into environments that can shift from forests to cities in seconds. These kind of techniques are using projectors to cast images onto any surface, creating interactive, three-dimensional displays that enhance storytelling and create moods through visual cues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies create immersive experiences that can transport spectators to entirely new environments or overlay digital elements onto physical space. The production Briar & Rose<\/em>, which toured across 50 venues in Europe engaging over 5,000 audience members in 2023, pioneered the use of Far Throw ART<\/em> technology to blend digital characters with live actors on stage. This technology enabled digital creatures and characters to interact seamlessly with physical performers across the entire stage volume, creating experiences that younger and older audiences found equally enchanting (The Theatre Reimagined \u2013 Introducing AR to the Stage).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Motion capture technology enables performers’ movements to control digital avatars or generate live visual effects, expanding the concept of the actor’s body into a \u201ctechno-organic interface.\u201c In The Tempest,<\/em> a 2016 production from The Royal Shakespeare Company, the performance made use of motion capture suits to track actor Mark Quartley\u2019s performance. The technology allowed the translation of his movements in real time so that a digital avatar of Ariel can be created \u2013 this avatar was able to fly, transform and interact with the projected environments but also with the physical performers. This production employed a total of 27 projectors controlledby a sophisticated video mapping software, creating a synthesis of physical and digital performance that many critics and reviewers found revelatory (Gray).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Telepresence technologies enable geographically distant performers to collaborate in real time, creating shared virtual spaces where actors can rehearse and perform together despite physical separation. Research projects such as the AHRC-funded Telepresence Stage<\/em> have developed systems that use green-screen technology, networked video production, and virtual set design to create full-body interactions between remote participants. These technologies proved particularly valuable during the COVID-19 pandemic when physical gathering became impossible, and they continue to offer possibilities for reducing travel costs and environmental impact while maintaining collaborative creative processes (Sermon).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Question of Liveness: Redefinition and Debate<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The proliferation of digital technologies in theatre has necessitated a fundamental reconsideration of liveness, a concept traditionally understood as requiring the co-presence of performers and audiences in shared physical space. Philip Auslander’s influential work has argued that liveness should be understood not as an ontological quality but as a historically contingent concept shaped by media technologies. In digital contexts, Auslander suggests, liveness might be understood as the combination of immediate presentation and an awareness of performance (105).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multiple categories of liveness can be identified in the domain of digital performance, which are available in technologically mediated experiences. These include individual embodied liveness (where audiences attend closely to their own embodied state), embodied social liveness (involving interaction between bodies in physical or digital space), emergent narrative liveness (where audience-work relationships affect content and structure), and various forms of immersive and interactive liveness. The question is not whether digital experiences can be ‘live’ but rather how different strategies and technologies evoke embodied feelings of liveness in audiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Studies of audience experiences in digital performances reveal that liveness depends significantly on how platforms and technologies are deployed. Assembling as a group at a set time for a shared experience brings expectations of liveness. Creating feelings of connection between audience members in digital space may require more than mere presence and observation. The sense of liveness can be enhanced by explicit structures that require audience presence in relationship with performers. The choice of platform and how it is used also affects perceptions; adopting familiar interactive features can help audiences connect from known modes of interaction rather than requiring them to learn new systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers have emphasized that successful digital liveness requires attention to the audience’s “felt sense” of space, embodied emotion, and connection (Smyth). The strategies that most strongly evoke embodied feelings of liveness in the absence of shared physical space include creating opportunities for emergent narratives, enabling interaction that feels consequential, and fostering social connections among audience members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seven Dimensions of Technological Impact on Contemporary Theatre<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Analysis of contemporary practice reveals seven primary dimensions through which emerging technologies affect theatre and performance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Expansion of the Stage through Digital Tools<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Projection mapping, VR, AR, and extended reality (XR) allow scenography to become immersive and responsive, breaking the limits of the physical stage. Theatre companies such as Punchdrunk and immersive production studios blend real space with digital overlays, making audiences feel part of hybrid worlds. Theatre becomes not only about what happens on stage but also about how technology reshapes perception of space and story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Theatre in the UK has adopted immersive technologies through its Immersive Storytelling Studio to increase audience engagement. Productions such as White Dwarf<\/em> by Polyplanity Productions create novel theatrical experiences by fusing augmented reality with live performance through interaction of digital materials with performers on stage (White Dwarf-Benaki Museum ). From my perspective, these kind of performances demonstrate how by employing VR and AR technologies inside these artistic manifestations not only enhance visual effects, but also contribute to greater accessibility and inclusivity in theatre.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Images from White Dwarf<\/em>: An interactive performance by Polyplanity Productions. Images captured by Fanis Logothetis. Photo: Polyplanity Productions<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
2. Interactive and Participatory Experiences<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Audiences are no longer passive observers but can interact via apps, sensors, or live digital feeds. Immersive theatre and interactive projects encourage participation across platforms, echoing gaming logics. New technologies create personalized performance journeys, often blurring the boundary between audience and performer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The integration of AI-powered systems enables theatres to personalize ticketing experiences, offer recommendations based on individual preferences, and predict audience turnout, helping theatres optimize operations. During performances, AI algorithms can analyze audience responses and adjust environmental elements accordingly, creating what practitioners describe as uniquely tailored experiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Hybrid and Online Performances<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital theatre via Zoom, livestreams, and interactive online platforms. Artists now experiment with telepresence (actors in multiple locations performing together virtually) and VR performances where avatars become performers. This raises debates about whether liveness requires physical co-presence or if digital liveness is equally valid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research examining the “pivot to digital” (Misek, Leguina and Manninen) during the pandemic revealed a complex nexus of effects. While many arts organizations achieved significant accessibility improvements (particularly for deaf, disabled, and neurodivergent audiences) they also replicated many pre-existing exclusions. In this case, I believe that understanding the experiences of diverse online audiences can support organizations in adapting to the conditions of ongoing uncertainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. AI and Algorithmic Creativity<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

AI is entering scriptwriting, dramaturgy, set design, and performer training. Performances explore AI not just as a tool but also as a co-performer or character (chatbots, generative visuals, voice synthesis). This raises philosophical and ethical questions: Who is the author?<\/em> Who performs?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pioneers such as Annie Dorsen have embraced AI as a creative partner, co-creating theatrical experiences through what she terms “Algorithmic Theatre,”  using custom algorithms to generate scripts that combine AI’s computational power with classical theatrical techniques. AI algorithms trained on vast databases of plays and scripts are now capable of producing original, coherent, and engaging scripts, providing new tools for playwrights and opening possibilities for exploring narrative structures and themes that may have been previously unattainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In stage design, AI assists set designers and visual effects artists in creating immersive environments by analyzing scripts and the director’s vision to suggest design elements, simulate lighting scenarios, and generate virtual prototypes, thereby enhancing visual storytelling. AI-powered systems can also personalize audience experiences by interpreting reactions and suggesting changes that enhance emotional connection with the play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. New Forms of Embodiment<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Wearable sensors, motion capture, and biofeedback allow performers’ movements, heartbeats, or emotions to generate live visuals or soundscapes. This expands the concept of the actor’s body as a medium into a techno-organic interface. Motion capture technology has proven particularly transformative in creating hybrids of physical and digital performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The RSC’s work with performance capture demonstrates how these technologies can create what practitioners describe as \u2018mixed reality (MR)\u2019 experiences where physical actors interact with real-time digital avatars in ways that expand dramatic possibilities. The use of facial capture, described as “the holy grail” (Humphrey) of digital performance, enables performers to control digital characters with unprecedented expressiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analyzing motion capture performance reveals the importance of specialized movement training that prepares actors for the unique demands of performing for technology. Actors must develop heightened physical awareness and the ability to maintain thorough, connected performances even when their physical actions are being translated through technological mediation. The process requires trust among all parties and explicit attention to the embodied, vulnerable nature of the work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Industry Shifts and Accessibility<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Technology broadens access to theatre through digital archives, VR reconstructions of past performances, and livestreams that reach global audiences. At the same time, it creates economic and ethical tensions because not every company can afford such tools, and naturally, questions of digital inequality arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Examining access barriers to mediatized theatre during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals complex patterns of inclusion and exclusion. While digital platforms offered new possibilities for reaching audiences who face barriers to attending physical venues, including people with mobility impairments, chronic illnesses, or who live in remote areas, they also created new barriers related to digital literacy, access to technology, and the costs of equipment and internet connectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emerging immersive technologies have particular potential to break down barriers for disabled audiences by offering expanded, multi-sensory experiences in place of traditional modes of engagement. However, this potential will only be realized if technologies are used thoughtfully rather than taken for granted. Effective access provision cannot be one-size-fits-all, and rushing to rely upon emerging technologies risks overlooking structural and attitudinal inequities that technology alone cannot resolve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Changing Aesthetics and Narratives<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Performances increasingly adopt aesthetics of gaming, social media, and digital culture. Storytelling often becomes nonlinear, interactive, or fragmented, mirroring how audiences now consume media. This shift reflects broader cultural transformations in how people engage with narratives and make meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The influence of gaming on theatre is particularly notable in immersive productions that encourage exploration and discovery rather than linear narrative consumption. The format of productions such as Sleep No More<\/em> has been explicitly compared to video games such as BioShock<\/em> (Thiel) and alternate reality games (Grant), where players\/spectators make choices that determine their experience. This convergence of theatrical and gaming aesthetics creates what can be considered as \u2018gamified\u2019 theatrical experiences that blur boundaries between different forms of interactive entertainment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Authenticity, Value, and the Nature of Theatrical Experience<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The tension between technological “richness” and theatrical “poverty” raises fundamental questions about what constitutes valuable theatrical experience. Grotowski’s insistence on stripping away everything except the essential actor-spectator relationship established one pole of this debate. His argument was that truth and authenticity in performance required this radical reduction, that the addition of technological spectacle would necessarily distance performers and audiences from genuine encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contemporary digital performance challenges this assumption. Practitioners and scholars argue that technology, when used thoughtfully, can enhance rather than diminish the intensity of theatrical encounter. The question becomes not whether technology is present but how it is deployed and to what end. Dixon’s concept of via positiva<\/em> suggests that addition need not be opposed to authenticity, that layering technologies can create new forms of truth and new possibilities for connection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philip Auslander’s work on liveness has been crucial in reframing these debates. By demonstrating that “liveness” is not an ontological given but a historically contingent concept shaped by available media technologies, Auslander opened space for considering how digital performances might create their own valid forms of presence and immediacy. The question shifts from “Is it live?” to “How does it feel live?” and “What kinds of encounter does it enable?”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toward a Synthesis: Technology as Continuum of Human Creativity<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The polarities of via negativa<\/em> and via positiva<\/em>, while useful for analytical purposes, may ultimately prove less productive than integrative approaches that recognize technology as a continuum of human creativity rather than an external force acting upon the arts. This synthesis emerges from several key recognitions that I will expand on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, theatre has always been technological. From the mask and the torch to the proscenium arch and electric lighting, theatrical practice has continuously incorporated available technologies to extend expressive possibilities. The notion of a pre-technological pure theatre is itself a historical construction. Grotowski’s Poor Theatre<\/em>, often invoked as a counter-model to technological performance, depended on technologies of light, space, and architectural arrangement even as it eschewed elaborate technical systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, the distinction between live and mediated performance is increasingly difficult to maintain. As Auslander has demonstrated, most contemporary performances incorporate elements of mediation, microphones, lighting systems, projection, that shape the audience’s experience in fundamental ways. The question is not whether technology mediates the encounter but how that mediation operates and what kinds of presence it enables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, audience expectations and experiences of liveness have evolved alongside technological developments. Contemporary audiences, accustomed to interactive digital media, may experience agency, participation, and co-creation as essential components of liveness rather than as violations of it. The sense of being able to shape one’s experience, to make choices that matter, to interact with systems and other participants, these may constitute contemporary liveness as much as or more than physical co-presence in a single room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, technology’s impact on theatre is shaped by how practitioners deploy it rather than by inherent qualities of technologies themselves. The same projection system can create alienating spectacle or profound intimacy depending on artistic choices about scale, content, timing, and relationship to performers and audience. AI can generate soulless scripts or inspire unexpected creative directions depending on how writers engage with its suggestions. Virtual reality can isolate individuals in separate worlds or create powerful shared experiences depending on platform design and facilitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These recognitions point toward understanding technology not as threat or savior but as medium, a set of possibilities that can be shaped toward various ends. Theatre remains, fundamentally, a laboratory of human experience where artists and audiences gather to explore questions of meaning, identity, relationship, and possibility. Technology changes the conditions of this exploration but does not eliminate its essentially human core.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion: Toward an Ethics of Addition<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

What we witness today is not the demise of traditional theatre but its rewriting, an expansion of its language, borders, and audiences. Emerging technologies such as virtual and augmented reality, motion capture, artificial intelligence, and interactive platforms are not replacing the essence of theatricality; they are amplifying it. They allow for new dramaturgies of space and time, multi-sensory experiences, and participatory models of spectatorship that dissolve the classical separation between stage and audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet beyond their immediate aesthetic impact, these transformations invite us, as researchers, educators, and practitioners, to reconsider how knowledge about art is created, shared, and experienced. The digital expansion opens fertile ground for interdisciplinary collaboration, blending performance studies with media theory, computer science, and cultural studies. It challenges us to rethink liveness, embodiment, and presence, and to trace how the human remains at the core of technologically mediated expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trajectory from Grotowski’s via negativa<\/em> to Dixon’s via positiva<\/em> represents not a simple opposition but a dialectical relationship between subtraction and addition, purity and complexity, essence and elaboration. Both approaches ultimately seek the same goal: profound human encounter through theatrical means. Where Grotowski stripped away everything that might distract from the essential actor-spectator relationship, contemporary digital performance adds layers of mediation that, paradoxically, can create new forms of intimacy, new modes of presence, new possibilities for connection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question is not whether to embrace technology, that choice has already been made by culture at large, but how to deploy it thoughtfully, ethically, and artistically. This requires what might be termed an “ethics of addition”: a commitment to ensuring that what is added serves theatrical purposes rather than purely technical ones, expands access rather than restricting it, fosters human connection rather than replacing it, and opens creative possibilities for artists while respecting their labor and agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, technology is not an external force acting upon the arts but a continuum of human creativity, a tool that mirrors our urge to tell stories, to connect, and to reimagine the possible. As scholars and practitioners, our role is not only to analyze these shifts but to participate in them, to document, theorize, and inspire new ways of engaging with art in the digital age. Theatre, in its expanded form, thus becomes both a stage and a laboratory for the future of human expression. Ultimately, it becomes a space where we continue to ask ancient questions through ever-evolving means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dialogue between via negativa<\/em> and via positiva<\/em>, between stripping away and building up, between essence and elaboration, will continue to shape theatrical practice in productive ways. Rather than seeking resolution in favor of one approach over the other, we might embrace the tension between them as generative, a creative friction that pushes artists to continually interrogate what is essential, what serves the work, and what makes possible the profound encounters that constitute theatre’s enduring value. In this ongoing negotiation between reduction and addition, technology and humanity, tradition and innovation, theatre continues to fulfill its ancient function: bringing people together to explore what it means to be human in our particular historical moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Bibliography<\/strong><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Aronson, Arnold. \u201cTechnology and Dramaturgical Development: Five Observations.\u201d Theatre Research International<\/em>, 1999, pp. 188\u201397.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Auslander, Philip. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture<\/em>. Routledge, 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baudrillard, Jean. \u201cVideowelt und Fraktales Subjekt.\u201d Aisthesis: Wahrnehmung Heute oder Perspektiven Einer Anderen \u00c4sthetik<\/em>, 1991, pp. 252\u201364.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brown, Scott. \u201cTheatre Review: The Freakily Immersive Experience of Sleep No More<\/em><\/a>.\u201d New York Magazine<\/em>, Apr. 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dixon, Steve. Digital Performance: A History of New Media in Theatre, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation<\/em>. MIT Press, 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dorsen, Annie. \u201cOn Algorithmic Theatre.\u201d Digital Dramaturgies<\/em>, 2012, pp. 90\u20137.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Glitch Studios. The Theatre Reimagined \u2013 Introducing AR to the Stage<\/a>. 2022. 22 September 2025. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant, Drew. \u201c\u2018Sleep No More\u2019<\/em>: Shakespeare Meets Internet Games<\/a>.\u201d 16 Aug. 2011. Accessed 12 Sept. 2025. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grau, Oliver. From Illusion to Immersion<\/em>. MIT Press, 2003.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gray, Richard. \u201cThe Technology Behind \u2018The Tempest\u2019<\/a>.\u201d June 2017. Accessed 13 Aug. 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre<\/em>. Routledge, 2002.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humphrey, Alison. Performance Capture in Live Theatre<\/a><\/em>. 2016. Accessed 2 May 2022. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Misek, Richard, Adrian Leguina, and Kadja Manninen. Digital Access to Arts and Culture<\/em>. Arts Council England, 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Palmer, Richard. \u201cTechnology and the Playwright.\u201d Gramma: Journal of Theory and Criticism<\/em>, 2002, pp. 143\u201356.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sermon, Paul. Telepresence Stage<\/em>. 2021. Accessed 23 Sept. 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smyth, Naomi. Livenesses in Digital Performance<\/a><\/em>. Apr. 2021. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thiel, Sara. \u201cGame\/Play: The Five Conceptual Planes of Punchdrunk\u2019s Sleep No More<\/em>.\u201d Immersive Theatre: Engaging Audience<\/em>, edited by Josh Machamer, Common Ground Research Networks, 2017, pp. 54\u201364. <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*<\/a>Adelina Laura Buliba\u0219a<\/strong> is a PhD in Cinematography and Media with a focus on Transmedia Storytelling. She is also a multimedia artist specializing in digital art and new media. Her practice spans digital arts, film directing, and film production. She currently teaches at ERAM (Escola Universit\u00e0ria de les Arts), Universitat de Girona, and previously taught at the Faculty of Theatre and Film at Babe\u0219-Bolyai University. Adelina also holds a master\u2019s degree in Interactive Multimedia and a bachelor\u2019s degree in Photography, Video, and Computerized Image Processing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright \u00a9<\/strong> 2026 Adelina Laura Buliba\u0219a
Critical Stages\/Sc\u00e8nes critiques<\/em>, #33, June 2026
e-ISSN: 2409-7411<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Creative<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution International License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":896,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[10],"tags":[13],"class_list":["post-894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-conferences","tag-confhome"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/34\/2026\/05\/featured-5.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=894"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1005,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894\/revisions\/1005"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/896"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/33\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}