Camming, Participation and the Spectacle
This has been a field of inquiry and polemic in theatre for many years - - and, for those of you interested in 20th-century art, or if you were around in the 60s and 70s, you probably remember acts like the Living Theatre, in San Francisco, which, apart from its socio-political undertones, was also an earnest attempt at involving the audience into the very structure of a theatrical performance.
The degree to which any performance art is participatory or not has varied over time. From my art studies, I've learned that a huge reason why greek open-air theatres were designed the way they were, was because the greek theatrical structure was conceptualized more "in-the-round" as opposed to purely frontally. This may be attributed to the fact that these theatres were built on hillsides, therefore forcing a wide-angle layout, but whatever the reason, the result was that Greek theatre was much more immersive than, for example, a movie screen, which may only be viewed frontally, and not in three dimensions.
However, both Greek theatre and the movies that came two millennia after were both voyeuristic in their core narrative - the viewer is watching the story, without any real influence on its outcome.
Contemporary theatre has done a lot to change that, including the audience into narratives. Stand-Up comedians are another example of an art form that straddles both voyeuristic and participatory modalities.
I feel that camming, over time, has also become more and more participatory.
When camming was first becoming popular, it seems the format was largely voyeuristic, with some degree of "audience requests", similar to encores at a music concert. Over time, as the technologies associated with webcamming have improved, the show structures have correspondingly become more elaborate, more involved, and less of a "watch me do this" affair.
At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge that both formats have their place. Sometimes when I'm camming, I like to engage that more voyeuristic performance dynamic, by either doing a burlesque routine, an improvised dance or striptease, or perhaps something even more risque. At other times, the performance dynamic may hamper and obstruct the relationship I want to have with my viewers and members because the participation of my friends who're watching me is what constructs the show. In a sense, at times like these, I feel like my members are co-creating and sculpting the narrative with me, instead of just watching.
I think this is the real reason many girls who work as cam models don't like lurkers, or at least feel a tiny bit irked by them - - its because the lurker tries to enforce the voyeuristic dynamic into the cam room, when the camgirl may be trying to create a more participatory aesthetic experience. I can't speak for other webcam models, but, although I have no issues against people lurking, it does sometimes take away from the vibe that I'm trying to create.
Here's another analogy. Let's take a conversation between two people. Conversations can certainly be considered works of art (well, some conversations - - remember the last time you were talking to someone and you ended up staying up all night, talking into the early hours of the morning, without realizing it, because you were so engaged). And good conversations, without exception, need to have a high degree of participation from all involved parties. A conversation that's one-sided isn't going to win any awards.
For me, cam shows are similar, as in, they're conversations I have with my members, with the aesthetics and plotline being generated along the way, almost like a "Yes, And" improv exercise. So any feedback I get whilst camming is integrated into the performance and thereafter molds and shapes the performance.
So, to sum this up - is camming a voyeuristic/performance dynamic, or is it an inclusive social art? I would conclude that it tends to switch between the two, but I find myself enjoying it the most when it is the latter.