Class Discussion Notes: 8/28/12; Artaud + Brecht

August 28^th, 2012: Discussion Notes Artaud + Brecht

            The discussion began with Ellen explaining the theoretical model of performative speech defining it as transformative speech that has effect on the conditions of our social existence and explains further that Artaud should not be judged by the theoretical language that he lacked.  Amy the introduction, explaining that a clear definition of “performative” is helpful in the validation of our discourse and asks the broad question “What did you pull out of Artaud? What are his central tenants?”

Someone whose name, I apologize, I was not able to collect replied that Artaud views theater as a reflection of magic and rights and the question “what’s another word [less shamanic, more academic] for magic? Whitney responds the she read magic as the process that allows theater to become a fusion of things (sound, action, lighting, music). Kelly continues on this point arguing that “we have to stop pretending theater is real. Turning away from the idea that theater has to reflect to “real.””

Next, Cody said that he struggled with the ethics of Artaud’s aesthetics, feeling that it is disingenuous to, say, enact a sunrise in all white just because you know that is what they are, in fact, not. Jess thought that this point ties into his writings on cruelty, saying “To me that meant disregard for individual comfort, politeness, political correctness.”

I (Dorothy) jumped in wondering if we can we talk about the historical contextualization? At the time this Artaud radical but now these ideas are conventional. How does this hold to our ideas about the paper? Amy replied that it’s important to remember Artaud’s overarching importance in this context. His writing have become overwhelming accepted and have influenced the future of what would be performance theory but because of his place in the historical record he has been made out-dated by his own descendants. Ellen pointed out that, also, Artaud is anti-historical but practices a more anthropological historization than a contemporary academic historiographic view. She then states that Cody’s response is a good mirror to Brecht’s writing.

Towards the end of our Artaud discussion Courtney questions her interpretation of the last page of that reading wondering: I viewed Artaud as saying that by shocking people with theatrical immorality and therefore stopping them from performing that immorality outside the theater, is this correct?. Ellen replies that it is correct and that it’s good to view Brecht and Artaud as being anti-catharsis, being against false sympathy and artificial emotivity, even though their “moral” standpoints may be different.

Ming then asks for clarification on whether he had a lack of knowledge of critical language or did he choose to write polemically? Ellen agreed that it’s both! The phraseology of performativity would have allowed him to use fewer flowery metaphors, but he also liked and chose to write that way.

In closing Amy asks if anyone would give an example of Artaudian performance from their own lives and Jess explains the spectacle of monster truck rallies while I (Dorothy) explain the sonic pain of experimental music.

NOW ONTO BRECHT!

Amy starts us out by asking to begin with Brecht’s anti-trance argument. Jennifer claims he is arguing against empathy. Amy follows up on this by asking if he gives an alternative, and Jennifer brings up the example given from the staging of Oedipus were the suicide is announced in steadied, not overly emotional tones, a way of reminding the audience that the actor is separate from that they are portraying. Ellen continues this idea by saying that you can think of this reading as an argument against method acting. Brecht is more into alienation. See the street scene, the artist as someone who is skilled at twisting, not someone skilled at becoming another.

Cody then asks if the idea of alienation relate to his Marxist ideas of the audience consuming the actors labor? Ellen agrees that those ideas are relevant and relates them to the culinary metaphor Brecht uses in his writing on opera..

Amy takes us in another direction, asking us to remember the idea of the radical separation of elements. What is this?, she asks. We try to play with the idea of alienation, a not-necessarily-correct translate of a complex German compound, an untranslatable word. Eric says that the importance, for Brecht, is that people can see each part separately, and thusly accept each part on it’s own accord.

We run short on time and Amy asks if anyone can toss out a Brechtian experience performance? There is a long discussion between Kelly, Jess and Amy about a play I was not familiar with, but that dealt with child abuse/incest. Kelly explained that incest is portrayed on stage with the two actors facing in opposite directions, as opposed to literally demonstrating the sex act. Jess said that this allowed her as a viewer to interpret the situation more broadly, and somewhat separate herself from her immediate response, which is that child abuse and incest are terrible. Amy agrees and says that Brechtian theater requires us to say “yes I agree with this” or “no this is not o.k.”