Theory: the object of imitation Part 3

Isn’t it should be approached and to our subject? Yes, the theatres of different epochs and regions sometimes radically different from each other, and shared between them are often one and sometimes the actors play the role with the participation of the audience. But it is enough that we, in the prescribed logic, were forced to assume that if there is such a specific thing like this sustainable theatre Trinity exists, it means that something in your life that it generates, keeps and makes the Trinity.

Such phenomena, which can compete for the honorary title of theatre of the object, is. Let’s start simple. A lot of times described a typical situation: children play the role. Without an audience, but the roles. Girl playing the role of mother, a doll for her daughter. In such role playing games involved all the children (except pathology). As it is well known that these games are no joke, and perhaps not the best way to learn the rules of social behavior. That is, there is not a simple pastime and generally the phenomenon is not natural, and social and the role and the game in General.

Apparently, it’s important to remember, because after playing and animals. The theatre in the context of the example with the puppy who selflessly plays with a rag as the enemy, in 1916 used. “Game” animals too often training, but to call this game social is not easy. But it is easy to say in such cases about a certain natural instinct, which, according to some scientists, is not only in animals but also in humans (or Vice versa). Isn’t that a natural property must occupy the vacant throne of theatrical subject?

Such close or such a decision could offer, when thinking about the phenomenon of theatricality. The first of its main declarations starts like this: Man has the instinct, which, in spite of its inexhaustible vitality, neither history 20 or psychology nor aesthetics have not said so far no word. I mean the instinct of transformation, the instinct of opposing to images taken from the outside, images, arbitrary creation of a human, instinct the transformation of the appearances of Nature, quite clearly revealing his essence in the concept.

Sometimes speaks of “the sense of theatricality”, sometimes called the theatrics of the will to the game, but always insists that there is a natural property one could even say, the attribute of man. Natural, that is and especially to the aesthetic. In different ways, but always this instinct manifests itself in various forms primarily in the forms of life, but in art too. Of course, in a theater. But the instinct of transformation so fundamentally any of these forms that theatre, when it is art, after all, different from others, the “aesthetic arts”, which are formations: theatre of transformation, a deliberate primitive which explicitly refers.

In this, the most important sense for, theatricality can be for theatre arts than anyone, but not imitated. Theatricality in General it is impossible to “emulate”, it can (and should) only to realize in life and in art.

But there is another, albeit indirect argument, which does not allow to declare an open theatrical subject. Scientific psychology is still known among her instincts instinct of transformation not numbers. But let’s say that science is wrong and the theatrical instinct is. In this case, however, the theatrics of the subject of the art of imitation becomes. Here you can rely on the continuation of the thought, quite logical.

Honestly said that the ancient, natural instinct gradually disappears from the life of mankind. Be a pathetic Islands. The full force of this phenomenon only saves in the games of children and in the adult world, is caught only for the Church or the army, which is only where still necessary rituals. But if it is this way and is, together 21 with hypothetical object should disappear, and the theater itself. Meanwhile, the theater is alive, it seems, is not going to die, despite the countless prophecies that were given in the days of, and us. But in the life of a civilized society natural theatricality, and indeed occupies a more modest place, it is a fact.

What follows from this? And the fact that, with respect taken to the hypothesis about natural, the source theatre, to find his histrionics a piece of theatre it would be rash; we must continue our search. You should look for some, at least, not disappearing with the child life source theatre.

There is, and is not natural; rather, it is solely public, it is precisely in those situations where individual human behavior is clearly socially. This is a fundamental, extensive (though not universal) and frankly adult social roles. This is where all the people sing in my life in some roles with the active and often decisive participation of the community. And that all people will inevitably be in some roles that are imposed on them, they’re not asking, society, this society in addition, very jealously watching, right or wrong, in good faith or in a cool, talented or poorly we execute our roles, in that today there is no doubt. As there is no doubt in the fact that play a vital role does not mean to pretend to be.

On the contrary, the humble teacher or the fiery crowd can actually be a humble teacher and a fiery tribune. More importantly, it can be one and the same person, modest in class and flaming on the Internet. And both roles can be at all strange to him. Here and there he.

But, if you remember the wording after all, not arbitrarily creation of a human images, but just “images taken from the outside”. So the relationship of man with his life’s role is notoriously difficult.

Share via: