Passage
Throughout the twentieth century, the performer-spectator dynamic has been challenged both in artistic practice and from a theoretical perspective. Contextual Futurists, nonsensical Dadaists, and the surreal avant-garde theatrical experiments upended the conventional notion of passive spectatorship, paving the way for performers to disrupt the invisible wall between the artist and audience altogether. Most scholarly attention, however, has traditionally been directed toward one-way theatrical practices by which performers engage, transform, and heighten the bodily state of the audience through a framework of communal "felt-experience," and not vice versa.The actors on stage are ostensibly the central object of attention, yet their communication with those in attendance is not solely a one-way discourse. After the curtain falls at the end of a performance, it is common to hear professional performers commentate on audience reaction: sometimes the spectators were "attuned"; at other times they seemed "aloof." Occasionally, performers feel as if they "captured" the audience; at other times, they perceive that they "lost touch" with the viewers entirely. One could say that this jargon is merely an oversimplified and closed communication that reduces the true complexity and aesthetic dimensions of the theater experience.Nevertheless, performers are ultimately the vessels responsible for detecting and absorbing the moods, attitudes, and emotions of individuals, and these aspects are vital to the apparent success or failure of the performative process. One day, actors might find the audience energetic, welcoming, and appreciative; the next day, they may find a stiff, critical, and disconnected crowd, even when performing in the same production with unchanged levels of enthusiasm. In some instances, a single audience may be unmoved, regardless of how well a show is performed. In concert with this insight, the language used by artists from across the globe to portray such audience encounters is notably similar. Their predilection for tactile idiomatic expressions when describing the performer-audience connection is perfectly captured in these remarks from a well-known stage actor:"The level of attention the audience gives to what is happening on stage provides a certain quality of stillness that makes it possible for a performer to know whether the audience is attuned or not. However, for the audience to be 'with' the performer, it must embrace a state of tension and immerse itself in the profundity of the performance…it's a very 'tangible' moment-it's all I can find as a word."Because the audience is the proclaimed foundation of a theatrical event, a staged play aims to affect the audience, usually by "capturing" the viewers in some poignant manner. According to this paradigm, there can be no performance without an audience. Despite this, the presence of spectators does not guarantee that a meaningful emotional, or affective, exchange will transpire. Such collective encounters in a shared space and time present only the possibility-for connection or disconnection; and, accordingly, an audience member must be physically present and willing to be affectively influenced.The audience serves an integral function in the performance: it activates, intensifies, and amplifies the circulation of emotional affect in a communal social space. Individually and collectively, each spectator is able to participate in the intrinsically variable theatrical plot. Affect is thereby experienced simultaneously through action, thought, and perception by both the artist and the audience. This mutual "transmission of affect" induces a corporeal sentiment that ultimately resonates as a palpably emotional atmosphere. Entertainers can only know if the audience is "present" to the degree that they also embrace the mutual tension of the experience. In this way, the performer dutifully influences the audience, and the audience, in essence, "re-affects" the stage.
Adapted from Pais, A, Affective Resonance as the Function of the Audience. Published 2016.
-The author's attitude toward the comments of the "well-known stage actor" (Paragraph 3) can be best described as:

Question

Passage
Throughout the twentieth century, the performer-spectator dynamic has been challenged both in artistic practice and from a theoretical perspective.  Contextual Futurists, nonsensical Dadaists, and the surreal avant-garde theatrical experiments upended the conventional notion of passive spectatorship, paving the way for performers to disrupt the invisible wall between the artist and audience altogether.  Most scholarly attention, however, has traditionally been directed toward one-way theatrical practices by which performers engage, transform, and heighten the bodily state of the audience through a framework of communal "felt-experience," and not vice versa.The actors on stage are ostensibly the central object of attention, yet their communication with those in attendance is not solely a one-way discourse.  After the curtain falls at the end of a performance, it is common to hear professional performers commentate on audience reaction:  sometimes the spectators were "attuned"; at other times they seemed "aloof."  Occasionally, performers feel as if they "captured" the audience; at other times, they perceive that they "lost touch" with the viewers entirely.  One could say that this jargon is merely an oversimplified and closed communication that reduces the true complexity and aesthetic dimensions of the theater experience.Nevertheless, performers are ultimately the vessels responsible for detecting and absorbing the moods, attitudes, and emotions of individuals, and these aspects are vital to the apparent success or failure of the performative process.  One day, actors might find the audience energetic, welcoming, and appreciative; the next day, they may find a stiff, critical, and disconnected crowd, even when performing in the same production with unchanged levels of enthusiasm.  In some instances, a single audience may be unmoved, regardless of how well a show is performed.  In concert with this insight, the language used by artists from across the globe to portray such audience encounters is notably similar.  Their predilection for tactile idiomatic expressions when describing the performer-audience connection is perfectly captured in these remarks from a well-known stage actor:"The level of attention the audience gives to what is happening on stage provides a certain quality of stillness that makes it possible for a performer to know whether the audience is attuned or not.  However, for the audience to be 'with' the performer, it must embrace a state of tension and immerse itself in the profundity of the performance…it's a very 'tangible' moment-it's all I can find as a word."Because the audience is the proclaimed foundation of a theatrical event, a staged play aims to affect the audience, usually by "capturing" the viewers in some poignant manner.  According to this paradigm, there can be no performance without an audience.  Despite this, the presence of spectators does not guarantee that a meaningful emotional, or affective, exchange will transpire.  Such collective encounters in a shared space and time present only the possibility-for connection or disconnection; and, accordingly, an audience member must be physically present and willing to be affectively influenced.The audience serves an integral function in the performance:  it activates, intensifies, and amplifies the circulation of emotional affect in a communal social space.  Individually and collectively, each spectator is able to participate in the intrinsically variable theatrical plot.  Affect is thereby experienced simultaneously through action, thought, and perception by both the artist and the audience.  This mutual "transmission of affect" induces a corporeal sentiment that ultimately resonates as a palpably emotional atmosphere.  Entertainers can only know if the audience is "present" to the degree that they also embrace the mutual tension of the experience.  In this way, the performer dutifully influences the audience, and the audience, in essence, "re-affects" the stage.
Adapted from Pais, A, Affective Resonance as the Function of the Audience. Published 2016.
-The author's attitude toward the comments of the "well-known stage actor" (Paragraph 3) can be best described as:

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In Paragraph 3, the author claims that when performers experience a connection with the audience, they have a "predilection" (preference or liking) to describe this connection, using "tactile [perceptive or tangible] idiomatic expressions [informal expressions that might mean something other than the words used]." Further, the author explains that this description of the performer-audience connection is "perfectly captured" by the remarks of a well-known stage actor. The use of the phrase "perfectly captured" to describe this proves that the author has an assenting (positive) attitude toward the stage actor. (Choices B and C) The author shows agreement with the "well-known stage actor" by describing the remarks as "perfectly captured." Thus, the author's attitude toward those remarks would not be adverse (negative) or impartial (neutral). (Choice D) An affectionate attitude shows fondness or tenderness. Although the author agrees with the actor's remarks, there is no evidence in the passage that the author's attitude is one of affection.

Passage Throughout the Twentieth Century, the Performer-Spectator Dynamic Has Been Challenged