To begin our discussion, Ellen wanted to nail down the definition of performativity. Basically, to refers to language that has a transformative impact- the most famous example being "I now pronounce you man and wife." Ellen mentioned that Artaud would have been greatly served by this specificity of language, because without it, he can read as overly bombastic or outrageous.
Amy asked what really jumped out of the Artaud article for us.
Andrea said that it was his first sentence, saying in a way that theater is a reflection of magic, putting us in touch with the profound. We struggled to find another word for magic, which has so many connotations. Whitney came up with the idea that magic stands for the fusion of all performative elements onstage. Kelly mentioned that Artaud wanted everyone to stop pretending that theater is real.
Ellen brought up that Artaud's disdain for texuality and masterpieces can be a little hard to take. It's not so much that he hates text, simply that he doesn't want the text to hold the theater hostage. She mentioned the examples of work he would want to produce and they're all very textually based, hinting at some nuance in his ideas that we didn't necessarily see in this piece.
Cody had a problem with the ethics of Artaud's aesthetics, opening up the question on what Artaud means by cruelty. Jess thought it meant a disregard for individual comfort and politeness.
Dorothy wondered about the contemporary context for Artaud's ideas, as experimentalism has become so widely accepted, it's a tradition in and of itself. Amy said that Artaud was writing during the 30's, and trying to resurrect the idea that theater can have an impact. Ellen mentioned that his inspiration was drawn from a year of observing and (badly) interpreting Balinese puppet theater, and that while Artaud is anti-historical, he practiced a more anthropological study of history. She mentioned that Cody's earlier critique is one that Brecht might have.
Courtney asked if she was reading Artaud correctly when she summarized that watching immorality onstage forces people to choose morality in daily life. Ellen said that yes, that's exactly what he was saying, and in general that Artaud repudiates theater's escapism. Both he and Brecht could be considered anti-catharsis, wanting people to remain fully present while watching their work.
Ming wanted to know how actively Artaud chose the language he used? Ellen said that it's a point of contention, that his words ask us to examine our urges differently- he asks us to channel our most profound, animalistic qualities.
Madeline said that Artaud is always trying to talk about the power of language- saying at times that he never said we shouldn't talk onstage, just that he wanted language to have the power of objects.
Amy asked if we'd ever had an Artaudian experience in the theater. Jess mentioned the drama of a monster truck rally, and Dorothy talked about experimental music.
We switched over to Brecht. Amy asked what Brecht is arguing against when he talks about not wanting audience members to go into a trance. Jennifer said he doesn't want the audience to feel empathy for the performer. She uses the woman dispassionately delivering the news of Jocasta's death in "Oedipus" as an example of the anti-trance, anti-Method acting that Brecht championed.
Cody wondered if the idea of alienation related to Brecht's Marxist ideas of consumerism. Ellen thought so, that Brecht was especially rejecting the culinary, "tasty" aspects of theater.
Amy mentioned that many students have a horror of Brecht and his intellectualism, mentioning that he can be very difficult to translate. She asked what Brecht meant when he talked about "separation of the elements." Eric thought it meant that it was important to see each part of the whole separately, to be able to deconstruct and reconstruct. He mentioned that some of Brecht's pieces don't even need an audience to be performed.
Amy said that Brechtian elements of drama can be found everywhere, and asked for examples. Kelly mentioned a dance piece, as well as "How I Learned to Drive." Amy asked why these techniques were used. Kelly said it was to make you listen to the story before picking a side.
Jess mentioned that the staging of some of the incest scenes, with both actors facing the audience and miming certain actions, was less overwhelming and emotional that having to see the actual act onstage. Amy said that Brecht requires us to make decisions, to say whether something is or is not alright with us. Ellen mentioned that these ideas were revolutionary insofar as they activate the audience, denying them catharsis. She closed by saying that Brecht's own plays show something of a compromise between his politics and his aesthetics, and that they are more honest and emotional than his essays.
No comments:
Post a Comment