To write of shaping a theatrical consciousness assumes that there is one, that theatrical consciousness exists. In that regard I may be starting this post all wrong. I may need to write of developing a theatrical consciousness. Hmm. Lets consider both notions at the same time, one big effort - developing and shaping a theatrical consciousness.
But what the heck is a theatrical consciousness? Rendering a precise definition will be difficult. In general it would refer to being actively cognizant and aware of the purpose and implications of theatrical spectacles, of having a strong sense and opinion of aesthetic, and some recognition of elemental functions. If we had a measuring gauge for this, in terms of the average spectator in our society, and for many of our theatrical artists themselves, its safe to assume that the reading would be "parochial." As we might expect, our theatrical consciousness has come into being by our experience and exposure to the habitual and accepted practices of the time and place - whether from one show or from nitty gritty work on hundreds of shows.
Articulation of types of theatrical consciousness is almost endless. Ask someone to describe theatre and it becomes showbiz, art, politics, revolutionary action, literary pursuit, personal journey, etc. Browse through books on theatre and indeed you will find these titles, Theatre as a Weapon, Educational Theatre, Feminist Theatre, The Art of the Stage, Theatre Anthropology, Epic Theatre, Black Theatre, My Life in Art, and Theatre of the Oppressed, to name but a few. There are thousands! While these for example attempt to change or offer perspective, many remain on the parochial level. But not all. Occasionally we run into an experience in our theatre that alters, widens and deepens our theatrical consciousness, lending specificity to our understanding and appreciation. See for example the post in this blog on Lev Dodin's Platonov by an anonymous poster.
For most of us though, we have been to a few shows, we have acted in a few shows, maybe even directed a few shows, we've read some reviews and had discussions with our friends and we have a select few favorite shows and/or performances we can list. In the end though, we typically hold the same assumptions on every single one of them. For example, regarding the "Who Done-It" I saw at live Live Theatre Workshop and the "Literary Masterpiece" I saw at Rogue Theatre, as a spectator I assumed that in both cases it was my responsibility to listen closely and pay attention at all times, lest I miss some clue or important bit of information that will be crucial to my understanding and appreciation by the end. The performers assumed they had to subtly but clearly and with a certain naturalness articulate the words and express the meaning behind them in order to ensure the spectators heard and understood the author whose story was being staged. And do so briskly lest the spectators become bored. My friends and co-workers assumed and expected I would relay to them my complete reaction and experience to the shows the following mornings. Its kind of like the way we "do business" in theatre and this collective way is part of our theatrical consciousness, having been developed and shaped over time.
Let me extract from that description one point, one sentence, for further explanation. "And to do so briskly lest the spectators become bored." Here the assumption is "entertainment." Our theatrical consciousness has been developed and shaped in such a way that we expect as spectators to be entertained by the performers. We do not expect, in other words, to have to entertain ourselves, or find for ourselves, our sense of enjoyment and entertainment. It will be provided we assume by the performers. The logic then goes that this "entertainment" will keep my attention focused at all times on the words the performers are speaking and the actions they are doing so as to finally give me that overall appreciation and understanding of the story.
Since I am not loathe to comparisons...lets say I went to a baseball game. Not one of those god-forsaken professional ones but just some game in the park. I go there lets say with the express purpose of being a spectator to the game, for my own enjoyment. In such an instance, I will not assume that the ballplayers are going to entertain me or that the game itself will move along at such a rapid pace that my full attention is undeniable. Apples and oranges? Yes, but thats ok.
In the long run, the game itself my be exciting with a dramatic finish, or it may turn out to be somewhat typical. Either way, I will, as a spectator, find myself entertained by the action even though it moves at a snails pace most of the time. Brisk pace is not necessary, nor is purposeful attempt by the players themselves to entertain. What I do expect of them though, the ball players, is to be fully involved in the event of the game itself. They may wave at me in the stands at some point but when the pitch is being thrown they are swinging away.
By way of this specific example I am not suggesting that all productions are too fastly paced. I'm trying to articulate the kinds of expectations and relationships we have, that endure in theatre as a result of our theatrical consciousness, individually and collectively. If I took it down to an elemental function and asked what do actors do, the responses again would be varied and somewhat parochial - an actors entertains, an actor does, and actor acts, an actor communicates what the author's intent is, an actor performs the characters actions, etc. If I said an actor takes in information and process it via their affective memory and senses to make living behavior you could disagree with me. On the other hand, you could disagree that a tree takes in water and light and makes branches and leaves. Or I could tell you that a tree stands on a hill, or blows in the breeze, or looks pretty. Any of these would signify part of our theatrical consciousness and our understanding or appreciation for actors, as well as the way we relate as performers to one another.
But what the heck is a theatrical consciousness? Rendering a precise definition will be difficult. In general it would refer to being actively cognizant and aware of the purpose and implications of theatrical spectacles, of having a strong sense and opinion of aesthetic, and some recognition of elemental functions. If we had a measuring gauge for this, in terms of the average spectator in our society, and for many of our theatrical artists themselves, its safe to assume that the reading would be "parochial." As we might expect, our theatrical consciousness has come into being by our experience and exposure to the habitual and accepted practices of the time and place - whether from one show or from nitty gritty work on hundreds of shows.
Articulation of types of theatrical consciousness is almost endless. Ask someone to describe theatre and it becomes showbiz, art, politics, revolutionary action, literary pursuit, personal journey, etc. Browse through books on theatre and indeed you will find these titles, Theatre as a Weapon, Educational Theatre, Feminist Theatre, The Art of the Stage, Theatre Anthropology, Epic Theatre, Black Theatre, My Life in Art, and Theatre of the Oppressed, to name but a few. There are thousands! While these for example attempt to change or offer perspective, many remain on the parochial level. But not all. Occasionally we run into an experience in our theatre that alters, widens and deepens our theatrical consciousness, lending specificity to our understanding and appreciation. See for example the post in this blog on Lev Dodin's Platonov by an anonymous poster.
For most of us though, we have been to a few shows, we have acted in a few shows, maybe even directed a few shows, we've read some reviews and had discussions with our friends and we have a select few favorite shows and/or performances we can list. In the end though, we typically hold the same assumptions on every single one of them. For example, regarding the "Who Done-It" I saw at live Live Theatre Workshop and the "Literary Masterpiece" I saw at Rogue Theatre, as a spectator I assumed that in both cases it was my responsibility to listen closely and pay attention at all times, lest I miss some clue or important bit of information that will be crucial to my understanding and appreciation by the end. The performers assumed they had to subtly but clearly and with a certain naturalness articulate the words and express the meaning behind them in order to ensure the spectators heard and understood the author whose story was being staged. And do so briskly lest the spectators become bored. My friends and co-workers assumed and expected I would relay to them my complete reaction and experience to the shows the following mornings. Its kind of like the way we "do business" in theatre and this collective way is part of our theatrical consciousness, having been developed and shaped over time.
Let me extract from that description one point, one sentence, for further explanation. "And to do so briskly lest the spectators become bored." Here the assumption is "entertainment." Our theatrical consciousness has been developed and shaped in such a way that we expect as spectators to be entertained by the performers. We do not expect, in other words, to have to entertain ourselves, or find for ourselves, our sense of enjoyment and entertainment. It will be provided we assume by the performers. The logic then goes that this "entertainment" will keep my attention focused at all times on the words the performers are speaking and the actions they are doing so as to finally give me that overall appreciation and understanding of the story.
Since I am not loathe to comparisons...lets say I went to a baseball game. Not one of those god-forsaken professional ones but just some game in the park. I go there lets say with the express purpose of being a spectator to the game, for my own enjoyment. In such an instance, I will not assume that the ballplayers are going to entertain me or that the game itself will move along at such a rapid pace that my full attention is undeniable. Apples and oranges? Yes, but thats ok.
In the long run, the game itself my be exciting with a dramatic finish, or it may turn out to be somewhat typical. Either way, I will, as a spectator, find myself entertained by the action even though it moves at a snails pace most of the time. Brisk pace is not necessary, nor is purposeful attempt by the players themselves to entertain. What I do expect of them though, the ball players, is to be fully involved in the event of the game itself. They may wave at me in the stands at some point but when the pitch is being thrown they are swinging away.
By way of this specific example I am not suggesting that all productions are too fastly paced. I'm trying to articulate the kinds of expectations and relationships we have, that endure in theatre as a result of our theatrical consciousness, individually and collectively. If I took it down to an elemental function and asked what do actors do, the responses again would be varied and somewhat parochial - an actors entertains, an actor does, and actor acts, an actor communicates what the author's intent is, an actor performs the characters actions, etc. If I said an actor takes in information and process it via their affective memory and senses to make living behavior you could disagree with me. On the other hand, you could disagree that a tree takes in water and light and makes branches and leaves. Or I could tell you that a tree stands on a hill, or blows in the breeze, or looks pretty. Any of these would signify part of our theatrical consciousness and our understanding or appreciation for actors, as well as the way we relate as performers to one another.
Ok, you know me..I didn't understand a thing you wrote but that pic is awesome.
ReplyDeleteWhy thank you! One of those unintended consequences to be reflected there like that.
ReplyDelete