In theatre, it seems to me, much of the craft exists to overcome the obstacles created by the conventions of theatre itself.
No, we are not in a darkened black box watching a rehearsed performance by one or more actors; we are, we all hope and pretend, somewhere else very different.
Even meta-theatrical antics that call attention to the artificiality of theatrical conventions seems to me to be a conceptual variant of clever set design. I know you know that I know that you know this is all make believe; let’s “make believe” anyways.
Once we peel away the conventions of theatre, the heart of it, I think, is compelling human interaction. Even the most imaginative and fantastical dimensions of theatre seems primarily to be a vehicle to those human interactions. People may find it easiest to talk about the costumes and the set design but the magnet draw comes from compelling human interaction.
If this is the case, I can’t help but wonder, should we rest content to strive for these kinds of experiences only in the context of darkened black boxes? Alternatively, are the conventions of the aesthetic a necessary precondition for the possibility of this kind of human interaction? If the conventions of the aesthetic are necessary, what conventions of living does it help us overcome?
Wayne C.
July 4, 2011
Interesting post Sterling. Thanks for sharing. I agree that taking theatre out of the black box presents new and exciting opportunities for audiences and creators alike. I really enjoyed seeing Countries Shaped Liked Stars in a living room rather than a conventional theatre. Similarly, I think it’s great that Chamber Theatre is performing in taverns to audiences that don’t typically see theatre.
I also agree that human interactions are at the heart of theatre. I would go further and say that theatre works best when the audience can relate to, and are reflected in, the action onstage. Perhaps, this is why I am enjoying verbatim theatre like This is A Recording, Kismet, and Dying Hard so much lately.
I’m confused by this statement of yours: “If the conventions of the aesthetic are necessary, what conventions of living does it help us overcome?” Why do aesthetic conventions have to overcome living conditions?Also, what do you mean by living conditions in the first place?
Sterling Lynch
July 4, 2011
Good questions, which will hopefully lead to a clearer response!
In this post, I’m driving at something that runs deeper than taking performances out of traditional performance spaces or using direct quotes as the basis of a theatrical text.
If the hard work of writing, rehearsing, and producing a show is to create engaging moments of human interaction, why not also work hard to create these experiences in life — beyond the aesthetic conventions of theatrical performance. Because not many people do, I’m assuming there must be some reason why we don’t and I’m wondering if the aesthetic conventions of theatre are a precondition for these kinds of interactions and, perhaps, not possible without them.
A hypothesis might help clarify what I’m driving at: perhaps, the very best theatre is a kind of ritual that ignites the right neurons, allowing us to open ourselves up to others — to empathize — in a way that we don’t in our daily lives. Perhaps, the conventions of theatre overcome certain conditions of living that impede our ability to engage with others. I don’t know if this idea is correct or, if it is correct, what exactly those conditions of living might be but, maybe if we did know, we could think more clearly about how we live and how we create and present theatre.
Wayne C.
July 5, 2011
I believe that theatre, when it’s at it’s best, can give us a very different kind of emotional response from our daily interactions because the experience is removed from our direct experience.Whether cathartic, empathetic, or some other equally strong response. The aesthetics of theatre (but not necessarily the black box, costuming, set etc.) create a communal space where we are still left alone to be introspective, moved, inspired etc. This is not unique to theatre, religious institutions create a similar space. In fact, there are many overlaps in the two aesthetics.
What is different is that theatre creates for us a filter. We know the interactions on stage are not real regardless of whatever we experience vicariously through them.This filter is key. Humans long for powerful emotional/intellectual experiences but do not necessarily want to experience these first hand. Theatre is a good proxy, and I would agree a kind of ritual, that let’s us have these experiences but then be able to walk away from them. It’s a kind of sandbox for the heart and mind.
Should we strive for these experiences in our daily lives and dump the proxy? I don’t think so. Perhaps, by experiencing these things vicariously through art we are better prepared to deal with them in life. Alternatively, perhaps some experiences, because of circumstances beyond our control, we can only get a taste of through art.
Sterling Lynch
July 6, 2011
I think your first observation is an important one and neatly illustrates how this discussion can provide guidance on more “mundane” matters. If theatre — for us anyway — is more akin to a religious ritual, I think a lot of really practical recommendations fall out from that. For example, Catholics long ago realized that a powerful space is as important as a powerful ritual (e.g. I think this counts as another knock against the black box experience and may explain why mundane theatre in a beautiful outdoor setting is often engaging). Evangelicals also know that a religious community that only meets once a week to pray isn’t a community at all. People gathering to watch a play every six to eight weeks won’t be a community either.
With respect to the actual mechanism at work, I think this may be an empirical question with a definitive answer. In fact, research might even exist somewhere. Having made that concession, I’m happy to speculate on what could be at work.
For example, I’m not immediately convinced that our awareness of theatre’s unreality is the key mechanism because so much depends on the suspension of disbelief. Theatre only affects us because we are willing to pretend it’s real. Maybe, that willingness to pretend helps us flip the empathy switch. Empathy really just is a willingness to identify with another’s experience. Really, in many ways, we are less safe in theatre. It may also explain why shitty theatre is sooo disappointing. E.g. I’m putting myself on the line here and that’s the best you can come up with! Boo-urns!
I like the notion of rehearsal you are playing with but I don’t think watching theatre prepares us for engaging human interaction precisely because it is a vicarious experience. In life, presumably, we are one of the actors. But maybe this assumption is wrong.
Another take on the rehearsal model is this: let’s assume, we can’t go around having engaging human interactions all that time (I’m not sure this is true but let’s say it is). Perhaps, in life, we should try to have rehearsal type experiences to prepare us for those moments when we want to live at “performance” level.
I’m also unsure about the notion that the value of theatre lies in its ability to let us imaginatively experience things we want to experience in real life but can’t. E.g., I sure as hell don’t want to be a coal miner in Newfoundland. Also, if that is true, it implies that theatre is an opiate for the masses.
Of course, different people will want theatre to serve difference functions in their lives…