Bryoni Trezise - seminar on use of theory

In a presentation on her uses of theory Bryoni Trezise began by presenting two images. One of these is of a memorial to murdered Jews in Berlin, the other a still taken from a performance witnessed by Trezise several years ago. She explains that without images she finds it difficult to speak to her research. Her presentation makes it evident that the object is not only a support for her presenting style but central to her use of theory. Later on it is explained that in her research she views “objects themselves as having theorising potential.”

Trezise immediately confronted the fact that she is a researcher who studies in the field of performance studies. The result of this being described as the tendency to view everyday behaviours and objects as ‘doings’ that create ‘truth effects.’ This is perhaps the most foundational use of theory in Trezise’s research. It is through this usage that she is enabled to view objects and on the other hand critique objects to reflect on theory. A cyclical relationship between theory and critique of the object was revealed as fundamental dynamic in her research.

The image of the memorial was continually referenced and Trezise makes a point of describing her experience of moving through the object. She described feelings of uneasiness, a blocking of vision, disorientation and mixture of sounds filtering through. The experience of engaging directly with this object was likened to a close reading of a literary text. In order to describe the engagement Trezise references a comment made by performance maker and theorist Richard Gough that saw performance studies as an ‘optic.’ This understanding of the field of study is supported by Trezise’s earlier assertion that performance studies forms a theory through which she views everyday behaviour. However she introduces the notion of the ‘haptic.’ The haptic involves the understanding of the object through touch. A haptic approach is argued to be a more fitting theory through which to understand her research in engaging with the object of the memorial. In this case Trezise reveals her use of theory as assisting her to understand her engagement with her object as well as considering its implications and significance.

So far I have placed Trezise’s use of theory squarely in the area of theatre of performance studies and evaluated how she engages with the object of her field of study. Despite this the main drive of her research comes out of a dialogue that can be found between the area of performance studies and that of trauma studies. Trezise’s understanding of performance as a ‘memory facility’ is placed under the theoretical gaze of trauma studies. To describe her use of theory on a very crude level it appears that Trezise employs two major scopes to view her object. These provide answers or perhaps more probing questions to resolve the ‘experience’ or the ‘haptic’ of the object itself. To argue that theory is used to explain experience, or experience is formed by theory would undermine the cyclical quality of Trezise’s research. Instead I would describe her research and use of theory as a consistent moving back and forth, a moving back and forth from performance studies and trauma studies. It is a motion that is instigated by questions each area provokes and the simultaneous myriad of understandings and responses afforded by the study of performance, trauma and the objects themselves.