A panel session on criticism in the arts was held this past Sunday, sponsored by The Rogue Theatre and Arizona Daily Star. I did not attend. Not because of any reason pro or con. I was just otherwise occupied. I haven't heard a peep about it since but I bring it up to give me an excuse to put in my two cents about the subject, generally. I have no doubt others on that panel and at that discussion are better qualified and more informed than me when it comes to addressing specific issues around Tucson and newspapers and/or journals. So I'm sticking to a more vague, overall approach. And in this case I am talking about individual events, individual productions.
Personally I have two notions, or basis, or sets of principles that I work from. The first set is well known and applicable to all art in general I suppose. The second set specifically regards theatre and production of plays, spectacles as I like to refer to them these days.
I'm no expert on Thomas Aquinas (I know a little about the man and his work, but I'm not that well studied), but I believe my first set of principles has to do with his notion of beauty, or what makes a thing, a work of art, beautiful. And even here, I no doubt have adapted his concepts for my own, not knowing if I have added or subtracted anything. James Joyce and others have picked up readily on it, so if its good enough for them, I'm in too! Anyway, for Thomas Aquinas, beauty has three components - Wholeness, Harmony and Radiance. Briefly stated, wholeness is our ability to perceive and understand the form and concept of a piece, or perhaps its ability to show that form and concept to us clearly. Harmony has to do with the working relationship of individual parts within the form and concept, and to the form and concept itself. Radiance is that ooh-ahh factor, a distinct or noteworthy creative presence, lifeforce. These three things function, or can function, independently of each other. In other words, wholeness plus harmony does not make radiance.
If I am mulling over a play production after the fact, perhaps even trying to write about it, I try to keep this triptych concept of beauty in mind as a way to find, to discover certain values or shortcomings in a work.
The other set of principles I keep in mind is that the behavior of the actors that we spectators see on stage has three possible origins. One is the actor's personality, his or her way of moving, talking, looking, habits, thoughts, etc. Everything about them as humans. Second is a particular interpretation idea regarding the script or a character. For example, an actor may decide that a character walks with a limp, or speaks rather quickly or softly, or reacts angrily most of the time. Third would be a convention of theatre. Actors tend to face toward the audience for example. Or if its a particular style of theatre as in say Japanese Noh Drama, there is a way of walking, moving that is particular. So the overall behavior we see on stage is a result of one, two or all of these in combination. When I am watching a production, it is usually readily evident which behaviors arise for which reason. Further, its readily evident if the overall behavior has a cohesion among the three origins or if there is a kind of disconnect or conflict between the three both logically, aesthetically and within the actor him/herself.
That's a very, very general overview of the perception that plays in my mind while watching or later reviewing a production in my mind. I won't for now go into larger purposes or reasons for criticism, concepts like to "persuade and promote." Nor as I said at the beginning of the post do I have reason or handle on the details of the machinery available to us here and how to best make do with it all. But when it comes to a community, working, practical vocabulary and dialogue, I'm all for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment