Higgins Kyle: MA Current Issues in Drama, Theatre and Performance.

Research around theatrical ghosting for performance.

Below follows a series of videos that attempt to ghost famous Shakespearian monologues. All individuals are volunteers and were given the freedom to choose which speech they best connected to.  This was an attempt to show that not only in the theatre does ghosting occur, however, due to the freedom of new media, the stage is now more than ever is all around us.

Edit: The idea behind these videos was to show anyone could ghost a famous speech simply from memory and through including errors it shows that even as we ghost we are trying to recollect a past theatrical experience. It was also interesting to explore how these videos or a version of theatrical ghosting could form as part of our performance.

 

“…we look at the stage and it returns our gaze” (Aronson, 2005, 101).

 

 

 

(Watson, 2016).

(Watson, 2016).

 

Works Cited. Aronson, A. (2005)

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.

 

Edit: Unsure how to cite videos taken from social media as there is no guide on videos from messages

All videos property of Lauren Bethany Elouise Watson (2016).

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.

Interdisciplinary and socio-political engagement

 

It is no secret that the year 2016, could be considered to be one of the worst years in recent memory regarding the turmoil not only in society but the ever-changing political climate. In many ways, it almost feels like regardless of topic that the subject of political scandal seems to take to take centre stage. Theatre N099 arguably, predicted and capitalised on this looming turmoil the was on the horizon and, were early adopters of Estonia’s societal paranoia, confusion and disenchantment for the need, and want for real change. United Estonia (2015), transformed a humble theatre company, into the very contenders for the very real leadership of their own country. This theatrical uprising led everyday people to adopt a new way of thinking where politics became a social event that was viewed by all.

 

 

Theatre N099: UNITED ESTONIA

 

 

 “Theatre NO99 is a theatre, but it is also much more. Theatre NO99 is a serial work of contemporary art” (no99, 2016).

United Estonia: Theatre N099

 

“Theatre NO99 is a theatre, but it is also much more. Theatre NO99 is public space. In a globalising and atomising world, there are ever fewer places that belong to everyone and which would bring together people who do not know each other already in advance. Places that would unite society. Theatre is not a product, the spectator is not a customer. It is precisely performing arts with meeting at their centre that has a special role in creating public space, be it spiritual or physical, in the era of the brave new world that is spreading its wings. NO99 Theatre is just such a space” (no99, 2016).

 

The importance of Theatre N099 should not be understated. In 2010, Theatre N099 carried out what they describe as “one of the largest theatre events in contemporary Europe” (no99, 2016), with the attendance of 7, 500 spectators witnessing a socio-political, theatrical revolution. Considered by critics as, “the most extraordinary in form and the most intriguing in effect” (no99, 2016), organized a press-conference roughly one year before the next official parliamentary election was due to take place, calling for radical change with a fresh face for the humble politically divided country of Estonia, titled United Estonia. The fictitious political party United Estonia, “had a visual identity, an anthem, slogans, everything. And there they were – the actors, in suit and dress, and they sure did look and talk like politicians” (no99, 2016). This theatrical uprising led to what Theatre N099 describe as “an artwork that was both an interesting example of political theatre and a radical reinvention of the possible role of performing arts in contemporary democratic societies” (no99, 2016).

 

Theatre N099, United Estonia event. 

In many ways, United Estonia has arguably, ghosted the political kayos and spectacle that is often hand in hand with leading political parties as evidenced by both British and American politics. An unfortunate counterpart to this almost farcical event would be comparing it to the leadership of a television personality running for the position of The United States of America president… (oh wait, that really happened.) This radical party mocked the very democracy it was built on and, proved that even something as vital as a democratic society can be manipulated with simple direct words and vast spectacle. (Do you see a connection to our own world yet?).

 

 

 

Cassetteboy remix the news: 2016 review special

 

 

“Unified Estonia” was a hyper-populist party that was everything for everybody. It used every trick from the populist handbook, copying from existing parties and manipulating the media. With numerous interviews, press releases, poster campaigns and scandals it was constantly front page news. Within a short time span it managed to theatralise the whole society, exposing the hidden mechanisms of populist politics to a very wide audience” (no99, 2016).

 

If any positive comments could be made regarding Theatre N099 project United Estonia was that it questioned the very fundamentals of what makes live art real? This too, ghosts the disbelief of the scandals of 2016’s political turmoil concerning the very questioning of the leading political candidates. It also led to politics taking almost every leading headline and, making the people of Estonia question how this new radical party seemingly from nowhere, was able to gain such a following. In many ways  Theatre No99, capitalised on the consumeristic need for spectacle and even used the words of famous Greek playwrights to convey their very deep and theatrical rhetoric.

 

 

Charlie Brooker – Donald Trump

https://youtu.be/afkekwFwFuQ?t=584

Satire writer and comedian gives his take on political candidate Donald Trump.

 

“So was it politics or “just art “? Nobody really could tell. Some experts predicted that „Unified Estonia” would get 20% of the vote at the next elections. Which kept many politicians in various parties extremely nervous. [Sic]” (no99, 2016).

 

In many ways, this socio-political performance ghosts the very obscenities of politics in the first place and, could be an interesting subject from which to explore through performance.

 

The future look bright right? Or maybe a slightly tanned orange…

 

 

 

Work Cited.

Consumer (2016) Charlie Brooker – Donald Trump.

. Available from  https://youtu.be/afkekwFwFuQ?t=584[accessed 01 January 2017].

 

Teater NO99 (2015) Ash and Money PQ eng sub.

. Available from https://youtu.be/LVOcpdJgRz0?t=7 [accessed 15 October 2016].

 

The Guardian (2016) Cassetteboy remix the news: 2016 review special.

. Available from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh_Og-MjWZI [accessed 15 October 2016].

 

no99 (2016) No75 Unified Estonia Assembly Estonia:  N099. Available from http://no99.ee/productions/no75-unified-estonia-assembly [accessed 14 October 2016].

Thomas Postlewait:  The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography (2009).

 

The following below collects my thoughts and observations on Thomas Postlewait’s text The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre (2009).  For the purpose of time, I have tried to summarize each subheading with a suitable statement that corresponds to the topic at hand.

 

 

EVENT               CONTEXT

“All events are illustrations of the theory, which defines the context and controls the interpretation” (Postlewait, 2009, 10).

“…the event presents, portrays, reflects, or contains aspects of a representational world. The characters on stage bear comparison to people in the world” (Postlewait, 2009, 10).

“The Aristotelian principle of mimesis yokes the event to its idea of imitation, though the idea of representation is more appropriate. […] various scholars, including Raymond Williams, prefer the metaphor of “embodying” for the relationship between theatrical events and the conditioning contexts” (Postlewait, 2009, 10).

“we study events by placing them within some kind of narrative, then we identify the large social, economic, religious, or political institutions, forces, or ideologies that contain and determine the meaning of narrative” (Postlewait, 2009, 10).

 

 

EVENT = CONTEXT

“our need to place historical events within framing structures and systems (e.g., geographical and economic conditions in the Annales model, the Marxist idea of base and superstructure) …” (Postlewait, 2009, 11).

“there is no reason to define the context in the singular” (Postlewait, 2009, 11).

 

 

EVENT-WORLD

“Initially, this model implies that theatrical events provide a perspective on and of the world. And the world, correspondingly, provides a basis and meaning for the event. (Note that the troubling equal sign ( = ) used earlier has now been replaced by a dash, which could have arrow heads on both ends; influence runs in both directions.) Every human event articulates and mediates a series of relations with the world of which it is part.  Our reactions occur as continual negotiations, back and forth, with the surrounding conditions²⁹” (Postlewait, 2009, 12).

 

AGENTS – EVENT

“The event also embodies aspects of the agents’ final cause: the purpose and aims” (Postlewait, 2009, 13).

“The idea of agent and agency also imply the various strands of creativity: inspiration, imagination, originality, genius, and the muses. Agency taps those inspirational forces that the romantic writers celebrated with the metaphors of lamp and fire, active energy in contradistinction to the mirror metaphor derived from the concept of mimesis³⁰” (Postlewait, 2009, 13).

 

 

EVENT- RECEPTIONS

“The meaning of the event, is achieved in the reception of the various spectators” (Postlewait, 2009, 13).

 

 

EVENT-ARTISTIC HERITAGE

“The heritage encompasses the artistic milieu of the event, the kind of event, the kinds of genres of drama, the canons, the aesthetic ideas and institutions, the artistic ideologies that may influence the work, the crafts of playwriting and theatre production, the mentors and models, the rhetorical codes and styles, the rules and regulations, the available poetics, and the cultural systems.” (Postlewait, 2009, 14).

“Each artistic work is in dialogue with the heritage” (Postlewait, 2009, 14).

“Every performance, if it is intelligible as such, embeds features of previous performances: gender conventions, racial histories, aesthetic traditions – political and cultural pressures that are consciously and unconsciously acknowledged³³” (Diamond, cited in Postlewait, 2009, 15).

“Everything in the theatre, the bodies, the materials utilized, the language, the space itself, is now and has always been haunted, and that haunting has been an essential part of the theatre’s meaning to and reception by its audiences in all times and places” (Carlson, cited in Postlewait, 2009, 16).

 

 

Works Cited.

Postlewait, T. (2009) The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 9-20.

 

Edit: Due to errors WordPress would not allow me to upload images to this post.

Dramaturgical Development: The Haunted Stage: An overview.

 

The following writing below collects my thoughts on Marvin Carlson’s writing on The Haunted Stage: An Overview (2003).

 

 

 

Ghosting a term popularized and coined by theatreoligist Marvin Carlson is the understanding that “every performance, if it is intelligible as such, embeds features of previous performances: gender conventions, racial histories […] political and cultural pressures that are consciously and unconsciously acknowledged” (Diamond, 1996, 1).  This concept or notion can be a basic as a reusing of a costume which is recycled or reused in performance. Typically, its association usually refers to actors or artists being ‘haunted’ or ‘ghosted’ be a previous theatrical encounter or role while in this environment.

When thinking of the subject or term of ‘ghosting’ I am drawn to the phrenological feeling of déjà vu which simply means having “the strange feeling that in some way you have already experienced what is happening now” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2016). This sense or feeling of déjà vu is not exclusively linked to daily life, however, it’s more if not clearly shown within the context of ‘theatrical ghosting’ that occurs throughout most performances and written texts. Carlson outlines some of the issues concerning theatrical ghosting and its implication in regards to theatrical conventions. Carlson outlines that, “ghosting presents the identical thing they [the spectator] have encountered before, although now in a somewhat different context. Thus, a recognition not of the similarity, as in genre, but of identity becomes part of the reception process, with results that can complicate this process considerably” (Carlson, 2003, 7). To the casual theatre-goer, they may be in some form aware that the event they are situated within, is in some form ghosting itself. Arguably they have experienced situations in their lives where they are allocated the position of a spectator, in an atmosphere beyond their control.  Carlson claims that“one of the universals of performance, both East and West, is its ghostliness, its sense of return, the uncanny but inescapable impression imposed upon its spectators that “we are seeing what we saw before” ”(Blau, Cited in Carlson, 2003, 1), so much so that, the present experience is always ghosted by previous experiences..” (Carlson, 2003, 2). Time and time again, we are aware of what we are seeing within a theatrical setting has been witnessed by countless others over an expansive amount of time. “All theatrical cultures have recognized, in some form or another, this ghostly quality, this sense of something coming back in the theatre” (Carlson, 2003, 2), this arguably, can be seen through prolific re-runs or reimagining’s of established theatrical texts and performances in which established actors return countless times to perform previous performances. The issue of re-tellings and reimagines is no more clearly exemplified than within Carlson’s text in which he refers to theatre critic Ben Brantley who states that:

 

Across the bloody fields of Scottland, in the land where the stage smoke swirls and the synthesizers scream like banshees, strides a faceless figure in black, thudding along in thick, corpse-kicking boots. Who is this masked man, speaking so portentously about how “foul and fair” his day has been? At last he raises the gleaming vizard of his helmet and there, behold, is a most familiar wide-browed visage: hey, it’s one of America’s most popular television stars, and boy, does he look as if he means business. (Brantley, cited in Carlson, 2003, 9).

 

Brantley’s “physic disjuncture”(Carlson, 2003, 9), as Carlson states, is evoked through the familiarity with a portrayed actor on stage. Similarly, theatrical ghosting could be argued to be a hindrance to the development of any actual connection between spectator and actor as yet again they are situated within a sense of perpetuated nostalgia or false memory like that of well known actors in culturally established roles like Ian McKellen’s Gandalf from Lord Of The Rings or, Patrick Stewart’s Captain Kirk from cult-classic television show Star Trek. This connection and, “process of using memory of previous encounters with new and somewhat different but apparently similar phenomena is fundamental to human cognition in general and, it plays a major role in the theatre, as it does in the arts” (Carlson, 2003, 6). In many regards, the subject of ghosting is a mental thought process that is almost dreamlike in its inception as we are not inherently aware we have experienced the same numerous event until we reflect on past events through our cognitive thinking by which time the experience has already ghosted itself out of existence.  This excessive feeling of ghosting, is more clearly exemplified in theatrical performances where there is the very physical appearance of a ghost on stage is as Carlson explains, “one of the world’s oldest and most venerated dramatic traditions, is the image of the play as a story of the past recounted by a ghost, but ghostly storytellers and recalled events are the common coin of theatre everywhere in the world at the every period” (Carlson, 2003, 3).  This physical depiction of a ghost or a haunting on stage is another example of theatrical ghosting as we are witnessing the very presence of an object that supposedly existed within the given space and will continue to do so after its termination.

 

Carlson echoes the thoughts of Roland Barthes who observes that “we now know that the text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning (the ‘message’ of Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from innumerable centers of culture” (Roland, cited in Carlson, 2003, 4). In essence,  the text is no longer constrained to a fixed time and instead is open to the concept of an open time that is open to interpretation and can be ghosted from its inception or final sentence, this too is true of theatre that is no longer confined to a linear timeline and instead employs theatrical conventions that mess and distort the very dimensional space it is situated within. This distortion further adds to the importance of theatrical ghosting within a performance context as it now appears the very structure of theatrical construction is ghosting itself. However, Carlson argues that “it seems to me that the practice of theatre has been in all periods and cultures particularly obsessed with memory and ghosting” (Carlson, 2003, 7),  this reliance on ghosting has led further to some to claim that theatre has the ability to ghost real historical events even though it can not accurately recreate these on stage it still holds a physical relevance within a theatrical setting.  This had led to ‘historical’ texts being now considered as the perfect examples of theatrical ghosting as the  “repressed ghostly figures and events from that (‘real’) historical past can (re) appear on the stage in a theatrical performance.” (Rokem, cited in Carlson, 2003, 7), even though an audience is aware it is, in fact, a fabricated event devised for the purpose of theatrical performance, this haunting allows the privilege of placing spectators within any given event or haunting in the safe environment of a theatrical space.

 

Arguably, theater’s  purpose is to keep the importance of storytelling alive and is vital to the development of a developing society outside of a theatrical setting, as its aim is to inform and to educate from subject matters that are often considered too taboo or irrelevant outside of a theatrical setting. Ghosting remains vital to the overall understanding of theatrical development and is a useful tool when trying to distinguish the intimate relationship between both the actor, spectator, and text. Everything in the theatre, the bodies, the material utilized, the language, the space itself, is now and has always been haunted, and that haunting has been an essential part of the theatre’s meaning to and reception by its audiences in all times and all places (Carlson, 2003, 15).

 

Works Cited.

Carlson, M. (2003) The Haunted Stage:  The Theatre as Memory Machine.  Ann Arbor: New York. University of Michigan Press.  1-15.

Diamond, E. (1997) Unmaking Mimesis: Essays on Feminism and Theatre. New York: Routledge.

Cambridge Dictionary (2016) Meaning of “déjà vu” in the English Dictionary. Available from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/deja-vu [accsessed 06 October 2016].