Introduction
Among the many types of entertainment devised by humanity throughout its history, different kinds of shows occupy a prominent place. From athletic competitions through theater to talk shows and stand-up comedy shows remain an essential part of human culture. Naturally, the very definition of such shows, be they competitive or not, implies the existence of two different categories of people.
The first category performs specific actions pursuing a set goal, while the second category watches as the events unfold in search of entertainment. As a result, for any show to proceed in a proper manner, two kinds of people are necessary. Without the performers, there would be nothing to watch at, and without the spectators, the show would forsake one of its key purposes – the entertainment. Yet even though both categories are undoubtedly necessary, their roles in the process differ considerably. Being a performer, whether in an athletic contest or a play, requires significant professional skills, presumes a much greater degree of responsibility, and implies a code of conduct aimed at other performers.
Main body
The first and most obvious difference between being a performer and a spectator in any event is different demands the show sets for both groups. For the spectators, the show is, first and foremost, a source of entertainment, so their interest in the process is consumerist rather than professional. Watching an event does not demand any set of specific professional skills. If it is an athletic competition, the basic idea of rules will usually suffice, and if the show is a play, even this is unnecessary. The situation is quite the opposite for the performers, be they athletes, actors, or anyone else. Their participation in the event requires and necessitates a comprehensive set of professional skills well-developed in the course of rigorous training. An untrained athlete will never perform well, and an actor without proper preparation will prove unable to play his or her role. In order to ensure their part in the event goes appropriately, the performers need a mastery of their profession and a will to exercise these skills. In other words, an event is an entertainment for spectators, but a job for performers.
Another critical difference between being a spectator and a performer stems from the one mentioned in the previous paragraph: performing implies greater responsibility. Admittedly, as already mentioned in the introduction, calling the spectators unnecessary would be wrong. First, their entertainment is one of the reasons – and sometimes the main reason – to hold an event and, secondly, the money they pay for watching finances both sports and acting industries. However, the responsibility of the performers is much greater than that of the spectators, because these two groups have different aims. The goal of the spectator is purely passive: to observe what happens. The task of the performer, on the other hand, is to deliver what the spectators came to see, be that a competition or impressive acting. As a result, the spectators may fund the industries in general, but once the show or competition begins, it is up to the performers to ensure it will proceed properly. As a consequence, while the spectators may observe in passive contentment, the fate of the entire event hinges on the performers doing their jobs. This burden of responsibility also separates performers from spectators.
Finally, one more difference between participating in the event directly and watching it as a spectator lies in the fact that these groups have different norms to follow. Both performers and spectators have their codes of conduct designed to regulate their behavior in the course of the event. However, in the case of a performer, this code mainly concentrates on the interaction with fellow performers. If the event in question is a sports competition, this code of conduct would be the rules of this particular sport. If it is a play or another kind of show, the actor’s behavior is subject to professional ethics regulating the interaction with other actors so that everyone could do the job properly. Thus, the performers’ code of conduct is a subset of professional ethics and, as such, focuses on the performers themselves. The spectators’ behavior, however, should satisfy two criteria simultaneously: they should not interfere with the performers doing their job and with fellow spectators watching. Thus, while the code of conduct designed for the performers mostly concentrates on their own group, the norms the spectators should follow consider both groups involved in the event.
Conclusion
As one can see, being a performer and a spectator in any type of event has several profound differences. To begin with, being a spectator does not require any extensive set of practical skills while being a performer does. This constitutes a first and the most fundamental difference between the two groups: while the event is a show for the spectators, it is, at the same time, a job for the performers. Yet another distinction between the two categories is that they have vastly different responsibilities. The spectator’s observing role is mostly passive, but falls to the performer to deliver the show everyone came to see. As a result, the proper progress of the event is invariably the performer’s responsibility. Finally, the codes of conduct for both groups differ as well. While the performers’ behavioral norms concentrate on performer-to-performer interactions, the spectators’ code of conduct has to consider performers and fellow spectators alike.