PRFM1603 Chap.11 Making, Audience Encounter, and Exegesis
Making, Audience Encounter, and Exegesis
The final making process joins a group performance with an individual exegesis inside the official combined assessment. The two outputs are connected but not interchangeable. Performance requires a specific site relation, coherent dramaturgy, considered audience encounter and reliable logistics.
The exegesis answers its question through an individual argument supported by precise evidence from research, rehearsal and the event. This chapter treats rehearsal as evidence production: a changed route, failed sightline or unexpected reception can reveal the relation between concept and form. Stage management protects the encounter by making timing, objects, access and contingencies dependable.
Writing then converts selected incidents into claims rather than retelling the process chronologically.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Group making and individual analysis
- 02
Site relation as a performance criterion
- 03
Audience encounter and reception
- 04
Rehearsal as evidence production
- 05
Stage management as dramaturgy
- 06
Claim, incident, concept and consequence
Worked example · free
Turn a rehearsal failure into analysis
- 1Record the route, timing, changed posture and difference between invited and incidental reception without blaming the public.
- 1Move spectators and shorten or reorient the action so ordinary circulation remains available and partial visibility becomes deliberate.
- 1Argue that the first design treated the active route as empty space and therefore failed to integrate site function with encounter.
- 1Explain how the revision changed engagement, reception and the work dependence on the site.
Key terms
- Audience encounter
- The designed relation among performers, invited spectators, incidental viewers and the site ordinary users.
- Reception
- How an action is perceived and interpreted from a particular audience position and context.
- Rehearsal evidence
- A recorded incident that tests a design assumption and supports a later decision or analysis.
- Stage management
- The coordination of timing, objects, access, communication and contingencies that makes an event dependable.
- Exegesis
- An individual analytical text that answers a task question through evidence, concepts and a sustained argument.
Making, Audience Encounter, and Exegesis FAQ
How should the performance and exegesis connect?
Use the making process and event as evidence for an individual argument. The exegesis should not reproduce the performance in prose or become a diary of group activity. Select incidents that reveal a relation among site, action and audience, apply concepts where they sharpen interpretation, and explain the consequence of each decision.
What should a group document during rehearsal?
Record routes, timings, sightlines, bodily effort, audience responses, public interruptions, object handling and revisions. Note the conditions under which each observation occurred. Documentation should respect privacy and permission. A concise incident log is more useful for analysis than large quantities of unlabelled video or celebratory process photographs.
Why is stage management part of the artistic work?
Timing, transitions, access, objects and contingencies determine what audiences encounter. A confused move can erase a spatial relation; unsafe placement can make the intended welcome impossible. Reliable coordination frees performers to attend to site and audience. The exegesis can analyse logistics when they materially changed form or meaning, not as proof that the group worked hard.
Assessment move
Organise the final process around an evidence cycle. Before rehearsal, state one assumption about site, dramaturgy or audience. During rehearsal, record an observable incident that tests it. Afterward, make a specific revision and predict the result. Repeat under realistic conditions. Keep individual notes even when decisions are collective.
For the exegesis, sort incidents by analytical claim rather than chronology and choose only those that advance the answer. Draft each paragraph through claim, precise incident, relevant concept, design consequence and significance. Complete a separate technical pass covering timing, access, objects, communication and contingencies so that preventable disorder does not consume the encounter.
Before the final writing pass, select three incidents that could each support the central claim and rank them by specificity, conceptual pressure and consequence. Keep the strongest two and explain why the third adds repetition rather than depth. Check the factual account with collaborators while preserving your own interpretation and wording.
Build a source trail for every theoretical idea and a process trail for every rehearsal claim. Read the draft once from the position of an invited spectator and once from the position of an ordinary site user who encountered the event incidentally. Note where the argument assumes a shared experience that the evidence cannot establish. Revise the scale of those claims.
Finally, verify that the conclusion answers the task question through the analysed evidence and does not introduce a new theme. Complete the same audit for documentation, checking that every image or quotation used in the exegesis remains within its consent, attribution and circulation conditions.
