The noun investigation is content-wise a successful performative in the sense of J. L. Austin’s work How To Do Things With Words, where he deals with performatives as special utterances with no truth-value and main function to perform a certain action. The verb to investigate has a structure of a perlocutionary act by producing meaning and providing answers in fields of cross-examination [criminal justice, medicine, journalism, forensic science, FBI and also performance research]. Thus investigating is not just describing possible state of affairs, but involves the idea of becoming [a new fact, discovery, perception, subjectivity]. The key methodology derives from detailed observation, inquiry and systematic examination. The privileged place of becoming is to inscipt the object of investigation in the central position of observation, where entropy of information generates paradoxes of self-referentiality. In that sense investigation belongs to an observer (a spectator) who by definition delegates its continuation [a question demands an answer, not argumentation] through constantly reattributing roles in performing relationships, where the performer becomes director of his/her own appearance, the director a constructor of a new performing platform – both together under a pressure of catching the real, wanting to become the subject of observation of the spectator – while the spectator is looking for a meaning. This communication loop indicates transformation from the notion of re-search to invest-igation as the key strategy of artistic work, where it is necessary to invest in the cross-examination of the range of all possible communication acts that might appear. The performer/director thus has to place his/her self in the position of a non-believer to start to understand the ‘dark matter‘ of the object of investigation by implementing the doubled position of the third (spectator) as a discoursive/survival strategy of performativity in the times of higher complexity and lower understanding.