Theory: the object of imitation Part 1
To understand what wants to tell us the theatre, we must find out where it draws its content and how they’re produced. Whether at the theater and if there is what is it? In the first, but the essential approach here the question of the subject of art in General, just art in General. What is considered to be a piece of art? Apparently such parties, the properties, the portion of reality that art, as recently said, reflects the transforming, which it is, in the terminology and thought of Aristotle, to imitate in short, in life than art wondered what it is in its own way explores and evaluates. Although the aesthetics (that they have appropriated this issue) from time to time refresh the debate about what should be considered a piece of art you can think of that most yet converged on a well-known point of view.
Once called fiction the Humanities. Today common: the person “knows”, in the most significant sense of the word, anything, any art. Observations the subject from this point of view is considered man in his social ties and relations. In this kind of wording is important and negative feature: it is necessary to understand what art is not interested. It is not interested in nature as such, is interested in man and society.
Based on these concepts, we at the same time should be aware that are dealing only with the first approach to the subject of each art, theatre too. It is easy to assume that the subject of each individual art becomes a part or side in common. Part certainly within the whole, but the specifics are already here should be mandatory. There is a simple indirect argument: the arts speak to us in different means and for different.
So, the subject of music, apparently, is not the whole person, and not all of his relationships, and predominantly or mainly the inner world of man, his spiritual life and the bonds that you are born in this world. It’s not just part of man, there is a special integer that is not a man. In contrast to music, the plastic arts find your subject on the other side of reality external to the subject. The boundaries of the subject do not make the contents of this art, poor soul, is so important for music, is full of the deepest feelings not only about myself but also about war and peace and “external” validity may be a lot to say about the soul. Items from this, however, is not reversed, do not move and do not mix with one another. Painting say about the soul not just wrong, but not that music.
For all reservations, the real situation is, of course, is more complicated than we have described it. Still, the aforementioned objects of music and plastic art, each relative to the other, determined, perhaps, relatively simply. Much less possibilities to call the subject on the basis of basic addition and subtraction, when, for example, about the drama. Can be considered today an established fact that although drama, of course, interested in people, he enters a world of drama in a special way. After all, drama is important only insofar as it participates in the creation and destruction of an integrated system ties.
So, in a strict sense the subject of the drama should be found not so much in man as in a specific set of relations between people. The subject of the drama, one of the finest modern connoisseurs, co-existence of man with man in a very intense, complex, contradictory. In the drama, continues the researcher, it is the relationship of communication.
For many centuries the drama of painfully tightly connected with the theatre and theatre with drama, because it is hardly surprising that the ordinary ideas about the subject of theater naturally a close understanding of the subject 14 drama than it seemed parent, communal roommate with excessive complaints or a natural ally of the scene. But whether we bring this logic to the end, to say that this is one and the same object?
Theatre really imitate the complex, changing relationships between people just like drama and most of all with her. Moreover, the human factor in the theatre, even sharper, more noticeable, on stage to portray both people and things and feelings, but pretend it is always the person not one Marx rightly believed to be the substrate and the totality of social relations. The scene is almost automatically doubles the number of active: keeping the human characters in the play, adds actors.
Maybe in this case, to determine the subject of the theatre, in fact, simply “liberal“, extended to understand the subject of the drama, indicating that their common object responds to the stage of co-existence of characters and actors? This option, at least obviously, shouldn’t be deleted. But even if this is so, because we have to immediately ask a dangerous question: on the theatrical stage when she imitates borrowed from the drama of the subject matter, the actors and the characters of the play one co-existence or is it two different, parallel and simultaneous to our eyes?
This question might seem idle, we would could do to lower it, if I didn’t know how the centuries old relationship between the two arts is contradictory, if we didn’t understand that this relationship is very sensitive hurt and drama and theatre.
Put that sometimes the essence of the dispute boils down to a childish “who is more important”. But there is a deep, and among them are great, like Hegel, the supporters point of view, according to which the content of every performance gives the drama, the scene also the content brings to the subject of clarity, to a physical certainty. In extreme expression of this logic looks like this: drama is the content of the play and stage it.
Recall from that pretty close to the opposite point of view. In fact, if a play without a theatre is unable to obtain final clearance, defective she. Such a concept also has defenders, and they are also able to present some plausible arguments in its favor. For example: is it really by chance, even educated people prefer to watch drama on stage, not read eyes?
15 no matter How tired of this endless dispute, we now cannot escape from it because I bet it is not so much about content as about the subject. More precisely, the fact is, he’s at the theater or not.
No matter how the original musician, the subject of his art is the same as was the composer: together they mimic human feelings. And that is because the art of musical performance is a musical and not some other art. In fact, such is the logic, and reduced the aforementioned views about the relationship of theatre and drama: theatre undoubtedly full, we are told, but the art of theater combining, because on stage not only receives the final living form the content of the drama, but artistic comes to life with its subject relations between people.
The actor is acting the character of the play, makes the scene that the character makes in the pages of the original, thinks and feels like his verbal abstract, so to measure his art should be in accordance with how thoughts, feelings, actions, character stage adequate to the thoughts, feelings, actions of a literary character. And the relationship of the actors reproduce the relationship between their characters.
Apparently, in this logic, there is nothing harmful nor obviously absurd, and it certainly offensive to the art of theatre. So or nearly so thought and many theatrical people. On our soil, where, especially after the reforms the inseparability of actor and character of the play is at a premium and valued almost above all else, called point get moral reinforcement: whatever you say, and renunciation of the actor scenes, his ability not to stick out their own persona and really seem to be morally blameless.