Disruption Theatre

When I read Act Up, the first thing that came to mine was "Flash Mobs with a purpose."  I suppose in the context of our class, that would be an example of a disruptive theatre.  However, growing up in the 60s and 70s, we had several unusual kinds of "performative theatre."   I remember the sit-ins, and protests about the Vietnam War, some of which turned violent (like the Kent State massacre).  I also remember several of the "in the theatre" performances which would be considered unacceptable if they were done in today's theatres.  I witnessed an Alvin Nicolias dance performance in New York City in the 70s which was done almost entirely in the nude or at least in flesh covered tights.  For us in the 70s, it was very shocking. Could that be done in today's theatres without some controversy? That was also during a time when "streaking" was popular. So, the question is, would "streaking" be considered a "performative" act or theatre? It was not very effective then except maybe to get a rise out of the press.  The "streakers" usually didn't have a specific motive or cause that they were promoting.  They just did it for the fun of it. 

On the other hand,  today's Flash Mobs are entertaining to watch if that is their purpose.  In that case, yes, Flash Mobs could be considered a form of theatrical entertainment.  In fact, they could be used to bring theatre into the 21st century by exposing theatrics to the general public.  They could also be used to encourage more of the public to actually go to a theatre to watch a production, especially if the Flash Mob is doing a scene or part of a scene of whatever production they are working on.  Even watching the "Thanksgiving Day Parade," we can see short performances of the shows on Broadway.  Now, are they just "advertising" for their show, or are they really performing for the sake of performing?  It would be cool to see an actual full performance done on the street.