Before I begin, I think it’s important to note that before the session took place our tutor, asked us to research the following meaning for several terms. They are listed below.
Terms defined.
Proxemics: The branch of knowledge that deals with the amount of space that people feel it necessary to set between themselves and others.
Kinesics: The study of the way in which certain body movements and gestures serve as a form of non-verbal communication.
Semiotics: The study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative behavior; the analysis of systems of communication, as language, gestures, or clothing.
Phenomenology: Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions.
Metanarrative: A central, unifying concept around which the culture is based, a unifying framework in which a linear story or a casually connected series of images and artifacts was presented to an audience that was drawn from an essentially homogeneous group and collected within a single space. Grand narrative: Dominate ideology. (Societal fictions.) (Meta-Narratives are the stories we tell ourselves.(religions, ways of life, justification.) Anything that offers an explanation.
Albert Aronson Looking into The Abyss: Pp.97-113.
The following notes below collects my observations on Albert Aronson’s Text Essays on Scenography (Theatre: theory, text, performance) Looking into The Abyss (2005).
“When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you”(Nietzsche, cited in Aronson, 2005, 101).
Looking into The Abyss raises an interesting and provoking question namely, how does the appearance or utilization of a mirror onstage (physical or metaphorical) change the dynamics of the relationship between the spectator and actor in performance? Aronson observes that “we look at the stage and it returns our gaze” (Aronson, 2005, 101), as theatre is often undoubtedly an intimate transgression between spectator and performer the “very act of looking, even voyeuristically, implies a reciprocal action, a return of a gaze, and hence an illusion of reflection” (Aronson, 2005, 101). I think, it is interesting to note that the very use of a mirror on stage could be argued to break this intimate voyeuristic relationship, as it makes the spectator inherently aware of what they are witnessing is only fabricated and, a perceived notion of ‘reality’.
Contrasting to this is the argument that vaguely speaking, the “mirror”, on stage is always present as we as an audience enter into a space that dictates that we abide by a set of rules and expectations while present, e.g. we only see what is shown in this theatrical transgression by, what the artists deems us appropriate to view. This is similar to how we perceive a painting in a gallery as we are only allowed to witness what the artist painted and, nothing beyond this. Aronson comment that; “in painting and most theatre, spectators stare at an image or space that has been delineated, that is detached, in some way from the surrounding space.” (Aronson, 2005, 99). Aronson, further states that, “the characters of a painting or the stage seem to be unaware of an audience, thus inviting a voyeuristic response as we gaze at them with guilty pleasure” (Aronson, 2005, 99), yet again we indulge in the feeling of having no control that we are shown, similar to how we cannot change the image on a mirror from what is already in front of us. However, not all images remain as perceived and often performance and sometimes art (post-modern or abstract) that art changes before our eyes and, yet again we find ourselves “watching ourselves being watched, which really means that we are watching ourselves being watched” (Aronson, 2005, 99). (This is defiantly a confusing concept to grasp).
This almost hyper-reality in many ways is similar to the ideas expressed in the chapter regarding utopias and dystopias in that when witnessing events on stage and spectating you’re often seeing or witnessing a heightened world sometimes and, sometimes not too far from our own.
Aronson observes the act of spectating like being:
“Somewhat like the famous conundrum of Schrödinger’s cat. In his thought experiment demonstrating the principles of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger posted a cat in a box that would be killed by a cyanide gas that would be released if a particular atom decayed within the hour. Until the box is opened, the cat, suggested Schrödinger, is neither alive nor dead but contains all possibilities. The theater, in essence, is Schrödinger’s box. Until the curtain rises, all possibilities exist; once the play begins, the cat, as it were, is dead or alive. The raising of the curtain (even metaphorically) reveals the cat. But I think we are more comfortable in this day and age with potentialities and lack of certainty”(Aronson, 2005, 112).
It is interesting that we find ourselves content with the events we are spectating until we are confronted by an ever-changing image or, the feeling of accepting what is perceived to be the reality we are immersed within. (In this instance the reality is the theater or, the act of performance). Using the idea of a “mirror”, it is the simplest way to convey a universally accepted object from everyday life to portray the heightened version of another world that we can freely criticize or immerse ourselves within.
Aronson, also briefly mentions later in the text about the adaptation of technology on stage and, how in the past the “mirror” was used as a gateway or symbol between audience and spectator. This object i.e. mirror is universally understood because all mirrors portray a reflection (not perfect) and often abstract. Arguably, the mirror remains in one single time and place, as a mirror can’t recapture an image once taken and instead it has to be observed at any given moment, unlike today with the aid of advanced technology. With the invention of the camera, time is no longer contained to a single moment on stage which has allowed anyone and everyone, to be able to convey a world or scene again and again. This advancement had made the notion of a hyper-reality to be accessible to all regardless of prior knowledge and, it turn through this, has made its important impact on the theatrical world, as evidenced by many theatrical performances that have relied on a camera or video media in order to convey action from multiple perspectives I.e. time and space are no longer linear and can be warped, changed or destroyed completely only to be revived again. Aronson explains that “the twentieth century linearity and narrative evaporated from the stage because the world that was being reflected was no longer based upon sequential time structures” (Aronson, 2005, 109). This act of rebirth through media and, an open-space and time allows unlike the static and fixed linear mirror, the ability to witness and re-witness in interpretations and perspectives from the action on stage that that at first glance was un-seeable or hidden from us. (Much like the revolving stage, showing a different perspective during a performance). As the performance is unveiled, so are we (figuratively speaking).
At present we find ourselves no longer constrained by a fixed depiction on stage, however as time evolves, so does how we capture and portray theatre.
“We in the theatre, projectors of an anachronistic art, attempt to valorize its unique quailties: its liveness, its presence, its spirituality. But something has shifted in contemporary consciousness” (Aronson, 2005, 112).
“What does space-the world in which we-live look like? More specifically, what does such space look like today” (Aronson, 2005, 105).
To relate it to current events, namely the 2016 USA presidential debate in which I observe regarding the aspect of time: If the mirror on the stage is a reflection of the world, what is it reflecting? This motion of layering, we can never completely (at present) understand the moment we are in until it is over. I.e. the presidential debate and the theatrical and metaphorical impact it may/may not have on society. However with the aid of virtual reality in performance, we are able to see things in new and unique forms where we can manipulate the very time, space, location and even the fabric of reality around us. “The terms virtual reality and cyber-space suggest the changing perception of phenomenological ontology” (Aronson, 2005, 112).
“The world is no longer knowable nor tangible.” (Aronson, 2005, 112).
Overall, I found Aronson’s text to be informative and interesting concerning his comments around the overall function and presence of the on-stage mirror. The text highlighted some areas that I had previously considered as both a scholar and developing-dramaturg namely, the social norms and expectations that we encapsulate when entering a theatrical space. I would, however, say that I have never really until now considered the placement of a mirror or camera on stage to be more of an ascetical choice. However, on reflection, I think on a deep subconscious level the idea of both the physical and, metaphorical space on stage is something that I was always inherently aware of. Arguably, this could be a product of my overall developing knowledge or through education or my scholarly basic understanding. Ultimately, we all in some form share the experience of a layered theatrical experience where we are not fully conscious of the theoretical devices taking place.
Works Cited.
Aronson, A. (2005) Looking into the Abyss: Essays on Scenography (Theatre: theory, text, performance), University of Michigan Press. United States of America. Pp. 97-113.