Friday, 28 November 2008
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Your advice on this draft would be VERY welcome!!! so please respond if you have any suggestions or opinions
If We Can No Longer Alienate, What Can We Do?
- A Critical Analysis of the Theatre-maker’s Political Power, and Societal Duty -
By Sarah McLaughlin
Towards the end of the twentieth century, there was an expressed belief that “political theatre” was dying out in Britain. For some this perceived extinction was greeted as a welcome reprieve. It was believed that theatre had been granted a new freedom and could finally exist purely as an art form, without carrying the burden of also being a political platform (Goodman, 2000; 2).
Contemporary British theatre, however, appears to be experiencing a resurgence of political content. Confirming this, the current director of The National Theatre, Nicholas Hytner, has remarked that while theatre “is art and not journalism... The National Theatre should be sceptical of authority. It should be investigative of how our Government is doing... [and] should be relentlessly curious about the world that we [the theatre-makers] serve” (Hynter, cited in Reynolds, 2004).
Hytner’s image of the theatre-maker as a public servant is by no means a new concept. In fact, some authors claim that theatre not only has the duty to serve but also the unique ability to bring salvation to a corrupt and distorted social world. Jerry Grotowski, for example, famously alleged that his actors were “holy”; he viewed performance as confession; he referred to the edifice of theatre as a “temple”, and he considered art to be a ‘calling’ leading toward spiritual and political salvation (Croyden, 1974; 144).
Through research I plan to explore claims such as these, which impose immense political and moral responsibility upon the theatre-maker. I intend not only to call into question theatre’s supposed obligation to effect change but also it’s very capacity to do so. Is theatre in essence a political medium? If so, was the perceived death of political theatre at the end of the 20th century, little more than a mirage of relief from the burdensome political duties of the artist-come-martyr? Or perhaps, arguably the real hallucination is the delusions of self importance that permeate the world of art?
In an attempt to answer the above questions, my research must engage with certain age old philosophical debates concerning the fundamental ideas of truth. There exists a wealth of literature that calls into question the artist’s very ability to make a valid comment on the social world, let alone effect any sort of genuine change within it. One such argument is the emic-etic paradox[1], which implies that while on the one hand one cannot fully understand a society of which one is not a part, on the other hand, examining one’s own society demands an unattainable perspective (Pike, 1967; 41).
Even if the emic-etic paradox is overcome, perhaps creating a piece of political theatre in response to a social problem may only serve to trivialise that problem, or worse still, romanticise it. Through critical analysis I hope to question the intention of the artist who takes a beautiful picture of a starving child. Even if the photographer is motivated by a desire to do good, is the intention achieved? Does the viewer truly see the starving child or simply a beautiful picture?
Theorists such as Brecht, Adorno, Craig and Artaud (among many others) have offered possible means by which to motivate an audience to react to what they see. Although they have offered differing perspectives on which is the most effective method, most approaches essentially attempt to shock the audience into attention (Brook, 1968; 72). It remains to be seen, however, if we can continue to find new ways to alienate. As shock theatre becomes more and more common, can we still jolt our audience into action? If we can no longer alienate, what can we do?
suggested Readings for Bibliography
Abbing, Hans (2002) Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1975) ‘Culture Industry Reconsidered’, New German Critique. No. 6, p. 14.
Artaud, Antonin (1977) The Theatre and Its Double. V. Corti [trans.], New York: Calder.
Baudrillard, Jean (1994) "The Precession of Simulacra", Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. S. F. Glaser. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Bishop, Claire (2007) Participation. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery & MIT Press.
Boal, Augusto (1998) Legislative Theatre: Using Performance to Make Politics. A. Jackson[trans.], New York: Routledge.
Brecht, Bertolt (1957) Brecht on Theatre; The Development of Aesthetic. J. Willett [ed.], New York: Hill and Wang.
Brook, Peter (1968) The Empty Space; A Book about the Theatre; Deadly, Holy, Rough, Immediate. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Craig, Edward Gordon. (1924) “The Actor and the Uber-Marionette”, On the Art of the Theatre. Chamberlain [ed.], New York: Routledge.
Croyden, Margaret (1974) Lunatics, Lovers, and Poets; The Contemporary Experimental Theatre. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Gabriella Giannachi (2006) The Politics of New Media Theatre. New York: Routledge.
Goodman, Lizbeth and de Gay Jane [eds.] (2000) Routledge Reader in Politics and Performance. New York: Routledge.
Grotowski, Jerzy (2002) Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Routledge.
Kaprow, Allan (2003) “Manifesto”, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life. CA: University of California Press.
O’Connor, Brian [ed.] (2000) The Adorno Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Pike, Keneth L. (1967) The Language in Relation to the Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour. The Hague: Mouton.
Reynolds, Nigel (2004) “Theatre 'has duty to seek truth on Iraq for public'”, article in The Telegraph. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1471499/Theatre- [last viewed 19 Nov. 2008].
Rorty, Richard and Engel, Pascal (2007) What's the Use of Truth? New York: Columbia University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1974) The Gay Science, With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. New York: Vantage Books.
[1] Here the emic-etic paradox is referring to K.L. Pike’s contribution to cultural analysis. According to Pike one can either understand a culture as an affiliate of that culture, emically, or one can understand it etically, from an objective exterior viewpoint. However, from this perspective one cannot comprehend all emic facets, and vice versa.
- A Critical Analysis of the Theatre-maker’s Political Power, and Societal Duty -
By Sarah McLaughlin
Towards the end of the twentieth century, there was an expressed belief that “political theatre” was dying out in Britain. For some this perceived extinction was greeted as a welcome reprieve. It was believed that theatre had been granted a new freedom and could finally exist purely as an art form, without carrying the burden of also being a political platform (Goodman, 2000; 2).
Contemporary British theatre, however, appears to be experiencing a resurgence of political content. Confirming this, the current director of The National Theatre, Nicholas Hytner, has remarked that while theatre “is art and not journalism... The National Theatre should be sceptical of authority. It should be investigative of how our Government is doing... [and] should be relentlessly curious about the world that we [the theatre-makers] serve” (Hynter, cited in Reynolds, 2004).
Hytner’s image of the theatre-maker as a public servant is by no means a new concept. In fact, some authors claim that theatre not only has the duty to serve but also the unique ability to bring salvation to a corrupt and distorted social world. Jerry Grotowski, for example, famously alleged that his actors were “holy”; he viewed performance as confession; he referred to the edifice of theatre as a “temple”, and he considered art to be a ‘calling’ leading toward spiritual and political salvation (Croyden, 1974; 144).
Through research I plan to explore claims such as these, which impose immense political and moral responsibility upon the theatre-maker. I intend not only to call into question theatre’s supposed obligation to effect change but also it’s very capacity to do so. Is theatre in essence a political medium? If so, was the perceived death of political theatre at the end of the 20th century, little more than a mirage of relief from the burdensome political duties of the artist-come-martyr? Or perhaps, arguably the real hallucination is the delusions of self importance that permeate the world of art?
In an attempt to answer the above questions, my research must engage with certain age old philosophical debates concerning the fundamental ideas of truth. There exists a wealth of literature that calls into question the artist’s very ability to make a valid comment on the social world, let alone effect any sort of genuine change within it. One such argument is the emic-etic paradox[1], which implies that while on the one hand one cannot fully understand a society of which one is not a part, on the other hand, examining one’s own society demands an unattainable perspective (Pike, 1967; 41).
Even if the emic-etic paradox is overcome, perhaps creating a piece of political theatre in response to a social problem may only serve to trivialise that problem, or worse still, romanticise it. Through critical analysis I hope to question the intention of the artist who takes a beautiful picture of a starving child. Even if the photographer is motivated by a desire to do good, is the intention achieved? Does the viewer truly see the starving child or simply a beautiful picture?
Theorists such as Brecht, Adorno, Craig and Artaud (among many others) have offered possible means by which to motivate an audience to react to what they see. Although they have offered differing perspectives on which is the most effective method, most approaches essentially attempt to shock the audience into attention (Brook, 1968; 72). It remains to be seen, however, if we can continue to find new ways to alienate. As shock theatre becomes more and more common, can we still jolt our audience into action? If we can no longer alienate, what can we do?
suggested Readings for Bibliography
Abbing, Hans (2002) Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1975) ‘Culture Industry Reconsidered’, New German Critique. No. 6, p. 14.
Artaud, Antonin (1977) The Theatre and Its Double. V. Corti [trans.], New York: Calder.
Baudrillard, Jean (1994) "The Precession of Simulacra", Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. S. F. Glaser. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Bishop, Claire (2007) Participation. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery & MIT Press.
Boal, Augusto (1998) Legislative Theatre: Using Performance to Make Politics. A. Jackson[trans.], New York: Routledge.
Brecht, Bertolt (1957) Brecht on Theatre; The Development of Aesthetic. J. Willett [ed.], New York: Hill and Wang.
Brook, Peter (1968) The Empty Space; A Book about the Theatre; Deadly, Holy, Rough, Immediate. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Craig, Edward Gordon. (1924) “The Actor and the Uber-Marionette”, On the Art of the Theatre. Chamberlain [ed.], New York: Routledge.
Croyden, Margaret (1974) Lunatics, Lovers, and Poets; The Contemporary Experimental Theatre. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Gabriella Giannachi (2006) The Politics of New Media Theatre. New York: Routledge.
Goodman, Lizbeth and de Gay Jane [eds.] (2000) Routledge Reader in Politics and Performance. New York: Routledge.
Grotowski, Jerzy (2002) Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Routledge.
Kaprow, Allan (2003) “Manifesto”, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life. CA: University of California Press.
O’Connor, Brian [ed.] (2000) The Adorno Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Pike, Keneth L. (1967) The Language in Relation to the Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour. The Hague: Mouton.
Reynolds, Nigel (2004) “Theatre 'has duty to seek truth on Iraq for public'”, article in The Telegraph. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1471499/Theatre- [last viewed 19 Nov. 2008].
Rorty, Richard and Engel, Pascal (2007) What's the Use of Truth? New York: Columbia University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1974) The Gay Science, With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. New York: Vantage Books.
[1] Here the emic-etic paradox is referring to K.L. Pike’s contribution to cultural analysis. According to Pike one can either understand a culture as an affiliate of that culture, emically, or one can understand it etically, from an objective exterior viewpoint. However, from this perspective one cannot comprehend all emic facets, and vice versa.
Monday, 17 November 2008
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Friday, 14 November 2008
New and Improved whale
After much hard work i am proud to present the new and improved Whale!
I own sketch up!
sketches for my sweetheart the whale
This week i learned how to use google sketch up from scratch.
here is one of my first attempts to make a whale bone skeleton for Project one...
as you can see my skills need a bit of work and my whale needs to be fleshed out a bit!
Monday, 10 November 2008
underwater movement
I just wanted to share some great images I’ve come across of underwater movement. If anyone is interested in this sort of performance you can check out the work of Jörg Müller. He dances in a tube of water. It’s very beautiful.This is something I'm certainly going to experiment with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
