What are the political implications of defining "distance" as an essential component of the aesthetic experience?
The way I understand distance is from looking at it in the middle of a continuum from under-distancing on one side and over-distancing on the other. Under-distancing, Bullough claims, is being "unable to separate the reality of an event from its mimetic representation." An example of this is watching a play and not being able to differentiate between fact and fiction, the real from the unreal, and thinking that the play going on before one's eyes is a real life enactment of tragedy. Over-distancing involves missing out on the aesthetic experience by "lacking both imaginative involvement and practical detachment" and focusing on only certain aspects of a production. Examples of this would include only paying attention to elaborate costumes (or the lack thereof) in a performance, or getting carried away by the set design, etc., At any rate, both under and over-distancing involves becoming too involved in a work in which the aesthetic experience is not had.
Distance, as understood by me, is being able to place one's self into the middle of this continuum, to realize that the production going on before them is not real-life, yet not becoming so involved in a critique to miss out on the actual experience. Distancing allows one to have an experience with the production, to appreciate its aesthetic qualities, and to have a moment in which they are taken outside of the real-world and are enveloped for a moment in the willing suspension of disbelief that performance creates.
The political implications of defining distance in this manner, then, lie in that distance suppossedly involves a detatchment from real-life to appreciate the aesthetic experience. If one is not able to be distanced, the performance becomes de-aestheticized. Performance scholars who argue that the purpose of theatre is to educate may take offense to the standpoint that one needs to be distanced in order to appreciate art because this distancing would entail falling into a spot on the distance continuum in order to be subverted and subjected to something other than the real world.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Questions from Lady Actress: Question One
1) What were the roots of the strong anti-theatrical prejudice extant in pre-Civil War America? Why was even theater attendance considered improper for women?
As stated in the text, actors and actresses were viewed as low and common person (2). Notable scholars commented freely on how the American public did not seem to accept theatrical expectations as proper. Actors and actresses alike were thought to be of low moral character, free-spirited and drunkards. Another scholar, Clara Morris, retorted that actors were not taken seriously because they were "buffoons" (p. 3). Because of this negative stereotype, actors were seen as having no social standing. To add to this chagrin, actors and actresses were also openly ridiculed in religious setting by figures such as Reverand Robert Hatfield, who declared the theater the "haunt of sinners" (p. 4).
This "vagabond lifestyle," to obviate, did not make theater a socially accepted career or for women. During this time period, women were stigmatized as having their place in the home, which was considered the "womanly sphere" of house and home (p. 2). The text almost suggests that women were not supposed to have a social life outside of the home, thus suggesting this to be the main reason why theater attendance would be considered taboo. Also of note is that those who attended the theater were not considered "decent" people. A lady actress during this time was considered unfemine
This time period was characterized by the ending of the Victorian era, which had celebrated women's work as good household management. Domesticity was shown to be the only appropriate working task for women. To have women take a place on the stage, or in any career for that fashion, seemed almost intolerable as it presented a trespassing into men's economic territory.
As stated in the text, actors and actresses were viewed as low and common person (2). Notable scholars commented freely on how the American public did not seem to accept theatrical expectations as proper. Actors and actresses alike were thought to be of low moral character, free-spirited and drunkards. Another scholar, Clara Morris, retorted that actors were not taken seriously because they were "buffoons" (p. 3). Because of this negative stereotype, actors were seen as having no social standing. To add to this chagrin, actors and actresses were also openly ridiculed in religious setting by figures such as Reverand Robert Hatfield, who declared the theater the "haunt of sinners" (p. 4).
This "vagabond lifestyle," to obviate, did not make theater a socially accepted career or for women. During this time period, women were stigmatized as having their place in the home, which was considered the "womanly sphere" of house and home (p. 2). The text almost suggests that women were not supposed to have a social life outside of the home, thus suggesting this to be the main reason why theater attendance would be considered taboo. Also of note is that those who attended the theater were not considered "decent" people. A lady actress during this time was considered unfemine
This time period was characterized by the ending of the Victorian era, which had celebrated women's work as good household management. Domesticity was shown to be the only appropriate working task for women. To have women take a place on the stage, or in any career for that fashion, seemed almost intolerable as it presented a trespassing into men's economic territory.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Reading Five: Question 1
"What does the work of Austin and Delsarte suggest about the relationship between the body, the mind, and the spirit? About the relationship between science, art, and religion?"
The main similarity between the two is that each presented the body as the image-maker of the mind, and they were the foremost to articulate this process and have methodoolgoies to exploit the process. To best understand what Austin and Delsarte suggested about the relationshiop between the body, mind, and spirit, one must observe their techniques and contributions separately. Whereas both viewed the body as the main concern of "body" of speaker, actor, or reciter, they viewed the "body of the performer" from radically different perspectives drawn from their philosophical and religious backgrounds. For these orators, performance was a complex psycholgocial process centered on the spirti's expression in flesh, and the ability of the body to communicate the mind's deepest working. Such semiotics suggests that the body and the mind exist in duality, with the body being the physical manifestation of the mind's thoughts. The relationship to spirit is exemplified as these manueverings as the artistic spirit's expression in flesh.
In his work "Chironomia," (which refers to gestures) Austin reflected to fascinated observation of the scientific age of that time period. His work attempted not only to re-emphasize the significance of rhetoric but also to present a scientific language to speech. The body, then, in contrast to language, could be taught to outwardly show the desires of the mind. To acheive this, Austin focused on the gesture being insinuated into the mind. Public discourse in this fashion became a social contract in which the management of the voice and the gesture of the head and body were all intertwined. In regards to the relationship between body and mind, Austin noted that a chief aim of oratory is to persuade, and through gesture is persuasion completed.
I feel that part of this persuasion stems from the speaker's credibility they derive while speaking. Take for example a preacher who stands in a large, confident stance on the pulpit as he delivers his sermon, using grandiose gestures to help drive his point home, as opposed to a man who stands behind the podium and offers a more humble, straightforward approach to delivering his rhetoric. Wouldn't one leave more of an impression and draw more charisma than the other?
Delsarte arguably did more to show a degree between the spiritual significance of tone and countenance. Whereas Austin's excellence was seen in observations by others, Delsarte was more concernced with excellence in expression as the celebration of the divine and a fulfillment through the body of God's grace. The Christian vision provides the foundation for the performance system. True education to him is spiritual made possible through strenuous practice. Delsarte's interpreation can be understood through analysizing some of his seven steps to education. Of note are the body, which acts as the organism, having the life of sensation, the action of the five senses. The soul is housed in this body, which is subject to the sensations of the world. Through this system, the body and mind are liberated by soul. This idea in practice seems to follow more Buddhist principles.
Understanding the relationship between science, art, and religion is understanding Austin's focus on the rhetor as the creator of a "microcosm" of meaning for listeners and Delsarte's vision that man does not hold the center for all, but the speaker is a mediator whose salvation is incarnating the spirit in the flesh.
The main similarity between the two is that each presented the body as the image-maker of the mind, and they were the foremost to articulate this process and have methodoolgoies to exploit the process. To best understand what Austin and Delsarte suggested about the relationshiop between the body, mind, and spirit, one must observe their techniques and contributions separately. Whereas both viewed the body as the main concern of "body" of speaker, actor, or reciter, they viewed the "body of the performer" from radically different perspectives drawn from their philosophical and religious backgrounds. For these orators, performance was a complex psycholgocial process centered on the spirti's expression in flesh, and the ability of the body to communicate the mind's deepest working. Such semiotics suggests that the body and the mind exist in duality, with the body being the physical manifestation of the mind's thoughts. The relationship to spirit is exemplified as these manueverings as the artistic spirit's expression in flesh.
In his work "Chironomia," (which refers to gestures) Austin reflected to fascinated observation of the scientific age of that time period. His work attempted not only to re-emphasize the significance of rhetoric but also to present a scientific language to speech. The body, then, in contrast to language, could be taught to outwardly show the desires of the mind. To acheive this, Austin focused on the gesture being insinuated into the mind. Public discourse in this fashion became a social contract in which the management of the voice and the gesture of the head and body were all intertwined. In regards to the relationship between body and mind, Austin noted that a chief aim of oratory is to persuade, and through gesture is persuasion completed.
I feel that part of this persuasion stems from the speaker's credibility they derive while speaking. Take for example a preacher who stands in a large, confident stance on the pulpit as he delivers his sermon, using grandiose gestures to help drive his point home, as opposed to a man who stands behind the podium and offers a more humble, straightforward approach to delivering his rhetoric. Wouldn't one leave more of an impression and draw more charisma than the other?
Delsarte arguably did more to show a degree between the spiritual significance of tone and countenance. Whereas Austin's excellence was seen in observations by others, Delsarte was more concernced with excellence in expression as the celebration of the divine and a fulfillment through the body of God's grace. The Christian vision provides the foundation for the performance system. True education to him is spiritual made possible through strenuous practice. Delsarte's interpreation can be understood through analysizing some of his seven steps to education. Of note are the body, which acts as the organism, having the life of sensation, the action of the five senses. The soul is housed in this body, which is subject to the sensations of the world. Through this system, the body and mind are liberated by soul. This idea in practice seems to follow more Buddhist principles.
Understanding the relationship between science, art, and religion is understanding Austin's focus on the rhetor as the creator of a "microcosm" of meaning for listeners and Delsarte's vision that man does not hold the center for all, but the speaker is a mediator whose salvation is incarnating the spirit in the flesh.
Reading 3 Question 1: Socio-Cultural Function of the feasts of Corpus Christi
To begin, I really enjoyed the aphorism in class of the feast of Corpus Christi as "metaphorical cannibalism," as the socio-cultural function of these feasts were a mass celebration of Christ. The aforementioned cannibalism refers to a metaphorical celebration of the Body of Christ in the "host consecrated at the mass" (p. 5). In many religious sects, the Body is symbolized by unleavened bread, and it's the action of partaking of the bread that symbolizes eating of the Body of Christ. But that this word into a more denotative stance and the stigmas associated with cannibalism, how the very act is defined as humans eating other human flesh, and the implications of this methaphorical cannibalism become more clear.
Christ said, "This is my body, take of it and eat." Is this to say he viewed cannibalism as acceptable? Although the bread is seen as his body, how literal should we take the interpretation that this is of the flesh?
Yet this Body also served as peace and unity of the church, a coming together to show social wholeness and social affirmation, wholeness being shown in the play cycle from depictions of Creation to Domesday (p. 15). This body politic was a celebration of the town itself, and inasmuch the body became the pre-eminent symbol in terms of which society was conceived. Social order in this sense found its nature in body. The plays of Corpus Christi, then, became an occassion in which the urban community learned to discern itself from the outside world (p. 12).
It can be argued that several socio-political interests were served by these festivities, but the influx probably most helped the middle class. Jones noted that the flurry of strangers helped the activity of the urban markets (p. 13), and although these events were attended by spectators such as monarchs and nobles, the it's evidenced by the dramatic initiative of the gild organizations that it was their interests that were forefront (p. 14). He also noted that unskilled gilds with no trade did not offer a play (p. 16). Overall, the Corpus Christi play provided a means for honor and status could be distributed among the middle class.
Christ said, "This is my body, take of it and eat." Is this to say he viewed cannibalism as acceptable? Although the bread is seen as his body, how literal should we take the interpretation that this is of the flesh?
Yet this Body also served as peace and unity of the church, a coming together to show social wholeness and social affirmation, wholeness being shown in the play cycle from depictions of Creation to Domesday (p. 15). This body politic was a celebration of the town itself, and inasmuch the body became the pre-eminent symbol in terms of which society was conceived. Social order in this sense found its nature in body. The plays of Corpus Christi, then, became an occassion in which the urban community learned to discern itself from the outside world (p. 12).
It can be argued that several socio-political interests were served by these festivities, but the influx probably most helped the middle class. Jones noted that the flurry of strangers helped the activity of the urban markets (p. 13), and although these events were attended by spectators such as monarchs and nobles, the it's evidenced by the dramatic initiative of the gild organizations that it was their interests that were forefront (p. 14). He also noted that unskilled gilds with no trade did not offer a play (p. 16). Overall, the Corpus Christi play provided a means for honor and status could be distributed among the middle class.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Week One Essay
"What was the function of the Rhapsode in Greek society? Whose interests were served by this performance format?"
The Rhapsode in Greek society was multi-functional in that Rhapsodes served the interest of the state, as a media outlet, and as a representation of what their life was. What was helpful for their performance style is that the Rhapsodes created a shared identity that everyone could buy into, creating what the Greeks referred to as "communitas," which is a shared togetherness. Translating communitas into performance reified Greek life and epic tradition. Important to discern is that Rhapsodes were not actors, as Plato himself spoke of the two as palying different roles (Hargis). Plato posits the Rhapsodes were neither too inteligent nor broadly educated, which could have served the interests of the gerneral public even further in that they could readily identify with the message the Rhapsode was communicating.
The Rhapsode in Greek society was multi-functional in that Rhapsodes served the interest of the state, as a media outlet, and as a representation of what their life was. What was helpful for their performance style is that the Rhapsodes created a shared identity that everyone could buy into, creating what the Greeks referred to as "communitas," which is a shared togetherness. Translating communitas into performance reified Greek life and epic tradition. Important to discern is that Rhapsodes were not actors, as Plato himself spoke of the two as palying different roles (Hargis). Plato posits the Rhapsodes were neither too inteligent nor broadly educated, which could have served the interests of the gerneral public even further in that they could readily identify with the message the Rhapsode was communicating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)