The Double’s Paradox: Part 1

(As an object in performance)

Here is a trial of thought at its earliest stage. This is something I have been mulling over and just wanted to put the idea up here. I have not contextualised my thoughts in the mythology surrounding the double or indeed the nature of object theatre, hence why it is part 1.Apologies for the poor grammar in some parts of this, it is taken from a stream of notes. Please comment if you have any thoughts.



The relationship between body (performer) and object: There is an investment within the process of transformation that demands a commitment to the object – essentially a commitment of exchange that occurs between the performer and the object. With the animorphication of an object the commitment of the performer must be total. It exists as a one-way street of exchange, both mentally and physically from the performer to the object. If this did not happen the illusion of artificial life is broken and the spectator cannot join in with the exchange, they become distanced from it and it ultimately results in the objects falsified life – dying.

In the case of the doppelganger there seems to occur an almost opposite exchange. The process of transforming your own inanimate double from dead object into a live one seems to contradict the very nature of it. The performer becomes the servant and thus is accepting his own demons– his own death (?) – his darker ‘other side’ then the question emerges:

Why does he not just drop the damn thing and live?

Suddenly the object gains a great sense of power. It asks very personal (or should that be philosophical – I think of Camus and Suicide) questions of the animator, the most personal.

Another way of looking at it is that the animator must keep the animation going – the object alive, if it drops then surely he is done for, if your double dies then where (or what!) does it leave you…. A very complex questioning emerges and the animator/character is confronted with a much more sophisticated relationship with the object he is animating.

This needs to be explored practically.

It is completely different when a puppeteer animates the double of another actor. It breaks the personalisation of the event. The exchange reverts back to that of the one-way street. This is of course when we are in the realm of a ‘theatrical reality’ – the animation of your own double does not actually mean you are orchestrating your death – playing the part of the reaper (of course…of course!) What is at stake is for the character version of you this is where the drama exists.

Subversion of the fantasy life and real life –An argument developed in the Perverts Guide - Žižek's asserts that fantasy life IS you and the real life is a suppressed version, a socially acceptable version. Following this logic the performer becomes the object (the double) and vice versa. (They both love big brother so to speak – using Orwell as a symbol)