Dixon writes of Auslander’s conviction that when an audience sees media and live performance combined, the mix does not create a dichotomous viewing experience, but that rather the two (media and live performance) blend and mesh. However, Auslander elaborates, it is true that one overpowers the other; as he says, “Dance + Virtual = Virtual.” I agree that media sucks in all other forms of performance and mediatizes them (acting also, not just dance, which Auslander focused on), as happened in “House/Divided.” In “House/Divided,” which employs live performance, recorded footage, digital ticker tape, and real-time live electronic projections of the performers, it really did feel as if the media overwhelmed the live performance and performers. Ausler makes an interesting conclusion (actually using an original thought of Phelan’s as the basis for his argument–he reversed her statement logically) that recording live performance metaphorically transforms it into television. This is a very accurate portrayal of how I felt watching “House/Divided,” especially when there were both performers and media present onstage; I felt that even though I saw the actors right there in front of me, they were but cogs in the media performance.

This play made me agree even more strongly with Phelan that there is nothing quite like a pure live performance. Even when I saw an actor moving and speaking, if that actor was recorded and projected onto one of the screens on stage, he or she felt less real, was less powerful. “House/Divided” proved to me that, indeed, recordings are not comparable o live performance, and that, as Pelan says, “Performance’s independence from . . . reproduction . . . is its greatest strength.” Though I very much enjoyed “House/Divided” and hope to see more performances like it in terms of media incorporation, I have gained a new appreciation for purely live, technology-free performances.