Between all the negotiation of formalized feedback frameworks, which, I firmly believe, are highly valuable, I would like to take a moment and focus on the importance of what I decided to call ulterior feedback.

What is it?
Ulterior feedback can come in many forms, if we are attentive to it. How does the audience behave, react, not react within a showing, performance experiment or artistic offering? Is there nervous laughter, is there wholehearted laughter, concentration, reaction. How is their physical and facial expression? During the showing, after the showing, in the feedback session when they talk about their experience?

How can it help?
In contrast to a set framework where we often take on the role of a dramaturge, this feedback comes from natural behavior, sometimes unconsciously, so this plays more into an audience perspective, human reactions, when we feel a certain way. For me as a maker it can be interesting to observe these in certain moments to get specific feedback for specific moments or set ups – like a comedian who observes if a joke is landing or how the audience is reacting to it and then learning from it, maybe adjusting the set.

What can be pitfalls?
Of course, I think we shouldn’t take that at face value. This kind of feedback is highly personal and might involve factors I as a maker don’t have access to (like current personal state, personal history). But I think observing similar reactions within a group of people can be a pointer to something interesting.
I feel there could be also a danger of over- or misinterpreting things, so I would suggest staying alert and approaching this kind of feedback gently.
Lastly I believe it also comes down to the capacity of concentration, meaning when performing your own work or receiving feedback, I might not have time or space to be aware of those little details.
That’s fine, I see ulterior feedback more as a supporting sidenote that can come into play and give info when something pops up, or even as a conversation starter to then dive deeper.