Theory: theatre genesis Part 2

In addition, it is an indirect warning do not rely on the rituality there is also a direct lesson: apparently, the theatrical genes must be sought not necessarily where there is an external, even a striking similarity with a theater or with some element that will be successfully parodied in the theatre. Worth looking for, it seems, where there is not only and not so much the elements as the elements together with relationships. And in this quest to be prepared for the fact that, burdened ties, the future part of the future of theatre will be, most likely, much less “similar” to the theatre than the magical transformation of one substance to another.

It is only taken for the original of such considerations as cultural forms, have the potential to give the theatre its genes, are nominated by others, not solely (or not so hard) magic or no magic act, which also preceded the theatre, and then continued to be his contemporaries, games and circuses.

Game, ritual or baby, as well as the ancient ritual, not only not a theatre, but it is not any theater. Though, because they are not artistic figurative meaning and purpose of life practical. Pragmatic, life goals determined the existence and circuses. But in the game, primarily in the so called role playing game, there is still something that, you know, for the first time, points directly to the future theatre. Is at the same time essentially simultaneously playing what or what he plays, and they switch places. In any culture, in addition to gaming and theater, this is not to be detected.

In other words, this reasoning can be formulated as follows: in a role play modeled something is transparent resembling a meaningful fragment of a theatrical subject. The game is a definite cultural form, but the form of life and not from art. That is why its structure should probably correlate not so much with the theater itself, but with the theatrics. When we say that playing with a doll in mothers and daughters, a girl learns social behavior, we’re directly talking about what she is trained to “perform” the social role of the mother. Social behavior is right here role behavior.

Vital role here is really clear: there’s a girl in the role of mother and the doll in the role of a daughter. Its role, however, is peculiar: it may be, there is no magic, but still she plays as a Mother, as a Mother. So in this sense it is as if between life and theatre. Unlike theatre and in harmony with life, it not only shows someone who is reincarnated or what, in its opinion, are or should be mothers to portray the mother for her is not a significant goal. The reality of her fiction she’s a mother, and that her and her game is enough.

Nevertheless, it’s playing and play first, eat, and second, like a theatrical. But they, as I and Other and mixed in Raleigh and suppressed. Moreover, the real meaning of children’s play in mother daughter, and for the most playing and objectively, 43 if is not in role, even less in relationships between girl mother and a doll daughter. These ties are not meaningful.

Portents of the theatrical subject here is undeniable. Only a matter here is incomplete. Looking at this situation from the point of view of the future of theatrical subject, we can say that if in a hunting ritual rites of theatricality is not to look into the social role playing game, which is undoubtedly a kids game, no doubt there is a theatricality (in the proposed sense) the phenomenon that the theatre seems to be able to emulate. Assuming that the games of children below the age of ancient magical rituals, it’s not a stretch to assume that the game begins a kind of dialectical negation syncretism of the ancient rite. Here “incomplete”, but two element in reality, and that is in such relations that the theater cannot imitate, but who have some prospect of a “theater of development”.

In this light, the usual formula “magic if” (familiar to all we ourselves have used it recently without any reflection) really garish and grotesque. Something like the concept of “conventional magic”. In any case, in those vital phenomena, where I behold the future of theatrical genes, the relationship between magic and conventional look quite definitely, “if” is included in the case as out magic. We dare to repeat ourselves, but still we emphasize once again: do not look for what in this game is more close to theater or non-theater.

Life type of relations actor the role is self-evident. The absence of the public and the needs of the viewers is obvious not less. Repeatedly recorded by science and described in the literature: anyone who wishes to participate in children’s role playing game, an outsider must accept the terms of the game and thus cease to be a stranger, otherwise all the alien rebuilds and becomes a spectator (for some reason, usually bad) theatre. Essentially this phenomenon the audience of the game is nonsense.

The spectacle is different. Here first the theatre, and reach linked “spectator spectacle” and that he offered to “Mature”. Anywhere but in the shows and in the theater, this couple is not found, then again in his own theatre incomplete the subject is fundamentally incomplete, because the content of the spectacle, if for a moment credited the show office, no matter how times relative to the slot pair the player and his role. Quite rightly, none of the definitions of spectacle speaks not only about commitment, but even about the desirability of connection between a show and a role playing game. If the viewer sees the spectacle on the stage of the role play, what a sight called theatrical. It becomes a theatre.

Meanwhile, the spectacle, whether it’s a Gladiator fight, or corrida, the theatre is alien to many and most good reasons. First, the contents of the full spectacle always natural, never conditional. It is, if we rejected the claim language itself the only reality, means, in contrast to how to interpret role playing game itself, and if it is even “image”. Second, setting the viewer in this case is the installation not with the action, but solely on perception, ideally in emotional sync with what he is shown. In a spiritual sense the viewer in any way and in any respect cannot and is not eager to influence what is happening in front of him. It can raise or lower the finger and those sentenced to death or keep alive a defeated Gladiator, but in any case, a Gladiator is a Gladiator no more and no less.

Here just there is nothing that could be changed, there are no such relationships in which the viewer could participate, that could work. Almost like in a hunting ritual where the “actor” and “role” are interchangeable or indistinguishable, where there can be spectators, only participants in a magical spectacle clearly noticeable effect of tightening, even “sticking together” of everything: any hint of role playing destroyed, and probation is going through natural feelings about natural events show.

Share via: