Can Theater & Media Speak the Same Language? Aronson Reading

Can Theater & Media Speak the Same Language?

Aronson

Notes by Kiri Rasmussen

 

●            Theater and Technology

o   Technology creates more spectacle

o   History of scenography: exploitation of new technologies for purpose of creating scenic wonder and amazement

o   New technologies attempt to minimize appearance of human agency

●            Projected scenery, especially film and video, doesn’t work/function on the stage

●   Use of projections and moving images are disconcerting and confusing and rarely function as its user intends

o      Projections and images draw upon a fundamentally different vocab from that of the stage

o      Content is overwhelmed by form

●   Product of capitalist system

●   Importance lies in its reordering of perception and is thus subject to a range of political, social, and economic influences

●   Theater is the only art form to use that which is signified as the signifier of that object

●   Key element: space/volume that implies time

o      Sense of spatiality of the stage with its contours, volumes, and dimensions

●   Add a projection to the scene:

o      Audience experiences disjunction of perceiving a different world

o      No spatial continuity between stage and auditorium and consequently no ability to comprehend time

●   Illusionistic scenery only works from particular vantage point

●   Disjunction partly comes from way in which audience understands temporal referents of the image

o      Image is from the past—time-space continuum is abstracted and becomes an object for visual consumption

o      Time transforms subject while preserving object

o      Because photos produce images of the world rivaled only by the human eye, the eye has lost its historically privileged place as a processor of the info

●   Key to comprehension=frame

o      Creates internal logic that differs from surroundings

o      Imparts sense of order and a consistent ontology that allows us to comprehend what we see

●            Cinema/film transforms fantasy to reality while theater transforms reality into fantasy

●            2 realities conflict when projection and theater mix

o      Frame has changed: one element among many

o      Figure and ground: background and foreground changed

§       “Painting becomes figure against ground of wall it is hung on.”

o      Projection is framed so it becomes the object seen against the ground of the set or stage

●   Our eyes and cultural knowledge of photographs/cinematic images lead us to understand that the image seen within the frame is a mere fragment of the larger environment from which the image was produced

o      Tension is created between the potentially unlimited expanse of the image projected and the self-containedness of the physical projection

o      Tension between the unlimited bounds of the projected image and the architectural realities of the stage

●   With video or film:

o      Complicated by movement

o      Physiological factor of the attraction of the eye for moving images—inexplicably drawn toward flickering image of movie even when a living being is equally available within the line of site=> competition for focus

●   2 perceptual orders/reality:

o      Image/projection is created by light and isn’t tangible

o      Stage set is created by objects made visible by their ability to reflect light

●   2 similar images are subject to vastly different interpretation because of the quality of the material and the context in which it is read

●   Acknowledges omnipresence of video in contemporary society and calls into question our various modes of seeing

o      Video doesn’t substitute for more conventional scenograhic elements in their productions

Perception

Is what we see true?  If I gaze at a flower, my brain will tell me its petals are shaped like swollen rain drops, with a blood stain of color, gathered together on a long base of fragile green plant.  Then it will tell me that it is a rose.  But who decided it was a rose?  And yes, if it were by any other name, would it still smell as sweet?  I wonder if the scent I experience is the same as what you experience.  I was told, long ago, to recognize this mental and visual experience as "red."  Is your red the same as my red?  If I paint a wall "red" on stage, will you feel the same deep passion that I wanted you to feel when I painted it that hue?  

What do you feel when you look at a red rose.  Is it the sign of passion, romance?  Love?  But is this instinctive or is this what you were taught to feel?  What if you could look at a red rose, with no precedented emotion, what would that feel like?  I wish I knew.  If I could taste cinnamon and describe it without saying "It tastes like cinnamon," and feel silk without knowing how soft it should be.  These experiences you only get once, at an age and mental development that you cannot recall or hold on to.  I remember my first cigarette, the first time I made love, my first tattoo - but even these are now vague recollections that vanish like smoke.  What if we could do it all again.

If I were a stage designer, I would want my audience to come in and experience something they hadn't ever encountered before.  Of course they know the bits and pieces - wood, steel, cloth, red, green, dark, light - but as a whole, as a unit, there should be nothing they could compare it to.  How do you create something like this?

Meg's 10 Questions

Since I haven't contributed anything to our fabulous blog yet, I thought I'd share my questions.  Some of these have a lot of very personal meaning and I have spent countless hours pondering them and trying to make sense of them.  Maybe one day I'll figure it out.  Maybe not.

~How does one measure talent?

~Why are humans the only animals that think about their possible futures?

~Why is tolerance and acceptance so difficult for some people?

~How do certain lighting designs dictate the mood of the audience?

~Why do dreams and nightmares feel so real?

~How can one act out a certain emotion on stage if he has never felt it?

~Is there a good reason for why some people cannot think imaginatively?

~Do I add any value to the world, or anyone in it?

~Why are we so easily addicted?

~Is it wrong to feel defeated when you can't help someone who needs it?

Now our collages

More Pictures of us working today!

Collage work today! :)

Reading Notes for The World on Stage

The World on Stage Pg. 19 Reading

-“All that is on the stage is a sign”→ anything onstage is an illusion in a world separate from our own
-Sign and significations onstage
-signs bring more vitality to the world of theater especially by being “of it”
--illusionary vs. referential character
-when we put semiotics aside, we undervalue that things are what they are, but it can also represent other things
-Peter Handke: “in the theater light is a brightness pretending to be other brightness, a chair is a chair pretending to be another chair and so on”
--perspective is what really matters in theater because it’s what affects how things are portrayed
-people who work in the creative areas of theater are like “workers in the same field harvesting different kinds of crops
-Victor Shklovsky → the purpose of are it to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as the are known→ art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object: the obect is not important
-Phenomenological attitude: art perceived as an act of removing things from a world in which they have become inconspicuous and seeing them anew
-things being concealed then revealed as though they were there all along
-phenomenological philosophy is a continual desymbolization of the world
-image vs. sign
-the word sign is a sign in itself, a sign of the semiotic attitude
-when we have the signifier and the signified
-there has to be a signified to be a signifier
-everything onstage is a sign of something
-the image is unique whearas the sign is not, the sign has no value until it repeats itself
-ex. A stop sign or a mens room sign, simple and stands for something it’s not
-repetition has a very big impact on what we see onstage and the impact of it, implication also has an impact on what we see and what we take away from it
-reading vs. watching a performance
-another example: a clock onstage, a working clock would be a distraction, etc
-watching children play roles onstage, we are able to suspend our idea of reality
-stage animals, child actors vs. adult actors
-intersection of 2 independent and self-contained phenomenal chains
-we accept what we are given onstage,
- with a dog onstage we may see the dog as a dog or as an image of a dog
-Theater→Theatron→”to see”→a way to see things objectively
-in early 19th century French theater, serious plays were not “furnished” but comedies had a lot of scenic elements
-Montigny invented blocking as we know it, forcing actors to move around household items like chairs and tables
-between 1850 and 1870, having real furniture onstage lost its shock value
-realism was a shock for the theatrical world
-chairs have been a staple property of the theater since Aristophanes: the chair as necessary vs. the chair as a collaborator on stage
-“what happens, when it happens is art” and “Art itself is nature”

Section this thursday.

Ok so for section this thursday, I was thinking that maybe someone could bring a camera and we could take a picture of the group and maybe some of the drawings we did in class that day and previous two thursdays. That way we can have some pictures on our blog? Does this sound good to everyone? And who has a good camera? I have one but it's real crap, so I can bring it if no one else has one. :)

"Behind the Screen Door"

“Behind The Screen Door” Notes

Aronson

Notes by Jeremy Helgeson

 

“The door is a barrier: a bulwark against the chaos that lurks just beyond. But it is an easily transgressed border, and the forces of disorder slip in with ease to disrupt the illusory status quo.”

-The door closes off the scene to show what exactly we are to observe, as well as to give a depth beyond the scene that we see. It is a point of entry and exit, and with each it improves the scene with more depth as the audience must wonder what lies beyond, or better, to forget what lies beyond, and what may be happening with the character once he traverses the threshold.

 

“What is theater, after all, if not a series of exits and entrances?”

-And indeed, what is life without exits and entrances? These fundamental beginnings and endings take place in all things, including computers (Binary code is 1 or 0, open or closed)

 

-Doors set up the scene, and can cause rhythms for comedy or drama.

 

-When doors were first put on stage, it changed the face of theatrical design forever:

-In Ancient Greek theatre, there were no doors, and actors would traverse a long path to get to the stage, remaining visible while they did so. This meant they would have to be announced by other actors on stage as they came “But lo! She comes!” etc etc. This left room for the audience to feel almost every emotion except for Surprise.

-When the door did come along, a whole slew of possibilities opened. One example used is that Murders could be shown quickly on stage without having to show the violence leading to it. (As it was impractical at the time) If there were no doors for the surprise of entry, “the cries of murder would have to have come from somewhere down the hillside and the bodies carried up the long pathway to reveal their deaths.”

 

-Now we have shows like Seinfeld that focus almost entirely on the doorway to apartments opening and closing, introducing and disposing of characters.

 

-The door separates “the world seen” from “the world unseen” The tangible and the implied. Negative space behind the door is very powerful in what it hides and shows.

-This hidden aspect of the door is important. A scream of terror from behind a door can be far more effective than a scream of a visible actor on stage. This is again the idea of the visible and invisible.

 

What is also important is the imagination that tells the audience what is behind the door. If I enter the scene from the door, it is easy to imagine that when I leave, I have my car parked just outside, or whatnot.

 

“The powerful symbolism [of the door] implies a world beyond – unseen, yet present.” Rather than the chaotic backstage world “with virtually no relation to the illusion the audience sees onstage.”

 

A door marks the boundary between to spaces, yet belongs to neither. These boundaries can represent many things:

-Thresholds to new beginnings (carrying the bride through the door)

-Thresholds against evil (spirits)

- A passage of character (the door to the afterlife)

- Creation of a character (backstage to onstage)

 

The door also calls attention to whomever should use it. It is hard (especially on stage) to avoid drawing attention when using a door (Just think of using doors backstage even!)

 

Recently, the live stage has moved away from the use of doors. Because of this, some plays have become locked into a rhythm that can only repeat until it ends, and can have no definite end with a door (even the metaphorical door of the story) shutting behind it.

 

“If a door is opened in the first act, it must be closed by the last”

-This idea guarantees a beginning and an end, clear-cut for the audience to observe. It brings a definite close to the story and the characters transformations, instead of just leaving the audience hanging waiting for what could or won’t happen next.

 

“Comedy cannot exist without doors” They need them for their comic rhythms (timed entrances, breaks in comedic scenes, etc) this same explanation is used to say why farce must also have doors.

 

Television mediums break down the symbolism and importance of doors because the perspective can change (unlike in live theatre). Also, the camera can traverse the door to the beyond, shattering the illusion of something or nothing to be described by the audience that it is capable of creating.

 

“On the stage, a door is a sign of the liminal, the unknown, the potential, the terrifying, the endless. On the screen, the door is a sign of a door.”

Today's Section

So today we had our first section, o boy. Anyway, we talked about what we needed to do before the next class: read the next article and also do the sign in sheet things. So basically we decided people needed to e-mail which article they were going to do notes on and what not so we can get that sheet in. Also to e-mail what we bring to the group, we know our roles, but what are we going to do otherwise to help the group. We discussed the previous reading and how the author was being slightly sarcastic, etc. We agreed to meet again next week to continue our reading discussion, and maybe brainstorm on what we needed to do for Assignment #2.

O! and we tried to figure our how we could get more pictures on our blog, because it is kind of boring and in serious need of flair

YAY!

Directors and Designers

“Directors and Designers”
Pamela Howard
Notes by Jillian Bartels

In theory, when working in collaboration, “designer and director emerge[e] to become a single unique creator of text and vision”
o Not always so and is even described as an “uneasy relationship”
o Designers and Directors do not always agree on the nature of their interactions

Howard suggests that directors take a more positive view saying they “never had any trouble collaborating with designers”
o In reality many designers disagreed
o Some were even afraid to speak up in the matter lest they lose their jobs
“Designer Speak”
o When designers, in an attempt to convey their feelings on a design, must pose it as a question to a director (stoking the ego of the director)

“Do YOU think it would be a good idea if…”

As such the designer must play the wife-like figure
· She must be cooperative, thrifty, funny, and, above all “accepting that no relationship is finite”, that “she” can be replaced at any time for a newer and fresher model of designer
·
A good designer or director should work in their passions
· Success comes from collaborating
· Philip Prowe à director/designer
· Said “the best conversation I ever had with a director was with myself in bed at night”
Note that he is self centered but that he was able to successfully communicate his vision fully
Had a team of “interpreters” to translate his vision and his “visual vocabulary”

“Creation meant the synthesis of space, light, and performance achieved by one personal vision” –Adolphe Appia
o The director has total control as designer à one big “creative statement”
o He designed and directed the process while the scenic artist collaborated with him

“The American public…is specially sensitive to visual appeal”

o “The imminent death of the realistic theater”
o Idea that directors get too cluttered and worried over the wrong details
o Robert Edmund Jones said that directors ought to write direct for a bare stage and soon we would “have the most exciting theater in the world”

· Sometimes we get too wrapped up in what it “should” be, rather than what it could be

The Stage Director

o New breed of director who had “signature” ways of designing with the producers wishes in mind
o No more “stock scenery” but more specified drawings and models used ONLY for that production
o Designers were working specifically for one show under this stage director

Keep in mind that designers are still at the whims of the director without any real say in what or for whom they design
· “visual theater artists could only...work through the directors”
· Note: this is unusual because at the turn of the century designers would often initiate productions

“The designers never precede the dauphin in theater”

o This speaks volumes on the feeling of designers à the director is royalty while the designers are “worms”, “servants”, “obedient” people.
o Once again the metaphor of designers as subservient comes up
· Becomes a cycle

· Goes so far as to suggest the theater buildings are part of the hierarchy
Directors office on top floors, lots of light, a place of good perspective
Designers/ artisans in basements with no natural light (stuck in the boiler room)
· Directors sit in the center of rehearsals

“Of course the designer is always welcome to rehearsals”

· The sarcasm is shown in the fact that she goes on to say that “there is never a dedicated space allocated for designers to put their things”
· They can come but they are not ever truly “welcome”

“What is now needed is to find a different direction for directors”

o Obviously talent is going to waste by ignoring the needs and ideas of the artisans of the theater
o However people are different so separation will always exist
“Some people are born with spatial imaginations”
“Some people are born with literary imaginations”

Though a new direction is wanted, there are still major flaws
o Direcor and Desiner Luciano Damiani and Giorgio Strehler sometimes did not get along in their ideas
o There are few women who have EVER taken charge of all aspects of production, and even still few men who have actually done it successfully

Idea that the “Spectator’s experience begins as soon as they enter the building from the street”
o Theatre du Soleil in Paris
o Each time one enters a theater it is different in order to match the show
o Café art changes
o Paintings and Costumes in lobby
This comes through “recognize[ing] the value or collaborating with architects
o This is the way to bring success

“The actor/ Performer becomes the primary visual element”
o Enhanced by stage elements
o Economically healthy
§ More talent = better production = more money without crazy expensive sets and “stuff” on stage
o Co-existing in theater à director uses actors which forces them to work with the movement director à 2 co-directors à scenographer collaborates with a team of “interpretive artists” (such as sound, light, etc)

“Let us therefore move away from labels, stereotypes, and definitions and focus our attention on what we can do, individually, on the ground” – Theodore Zeldin

There is much talent in the theater and lest we forget and label everyone into static categories, a lot of talent and many good ideas will be overlooked and go unused.

should the notes be emailed to the professor as well as put on the blog? anyone know?

password

the password it votenomatterwhat

Can someone tell me the ERes password?

Thanks!

Ten Questions by Kendall Callaghan

1. Why is it that bad people never seem to get caught doing bad things, but other people get caught on their first slip up?

2. Why do things suddenly appear right after you stopped looking for them?

3. How do bad drivers pass their driving test?

4. What does Heaven look like?

5. Does everyone have a soulmate? Do some people have more than one?

6. Who decided that a small group of words were considered 'bad'?

7. Can we truly ever know ourselves?

8. What are dogs thinking when they look at their owners?

9. Why do people litter when there's a trash can 10 feet away?

10. Why do you always get a pimple the night before something really important?

10 Questions

Food for thought:

1.     Why does sushi never taste the same after you put it in the carry out box?

2.     Why do the simplest relationships always turn complicated?

3.     If everything is heading towards a state of entropy, why is the human race getting more complicated?

4.     If one person has the ability to decide whether he lives and the world is destroyed or vice versa, would he choose himself or the world?

5.     Why do we HAVE to believe in something as humans?

6.     Why can’t we just accept that things are the way they are because they are, not because of some higher being?

7.     Why would you kill someone just because they don’t believe in the same thing as you?

8.     What exactly is the universe, does it end or fold back on itself or what?

9.     What are the colors that birds see and we don’t, and what do those colors look like?

10. What would it be like to see everything at once, without bias, assumptions, or any pretense?

~Kate