Amy (Steiger) asked questions about truth and the ideas of a European based ‘performance contract.’ Who knows. I think both Doug and Amy C. identified that theatre around the world has always had some sort of contractual agreements, but I really do think that it is the European need to list or identify and categorize that led to the publication of notions of a performance contract. Regardless of the word contract is the actual action that has happened in thousands of years past – the Greeks wore masks, both ancient Japanese and Greek performances had ritualistic spaces in which to perform – even all of Shkespeare’s original plays would have been presented on an Elizabethan model (like a greek ampitheatre and modern thrust combined.) In considering Afirican and Mexican theatre and what we know of it, there seems to be not as much importance on the space of ritual as the action of ritual. In thinking about Japan we can see a clear emphasis on the importance and consistency of space on the Noh stage.
I wondered if this might have something to do with the historical context of colonization. Japan as we know it has never been colonized or annexed. Although the San Fransisco treaty gave much control of Japan to the US, Japan has still maintained its cultural identity. I wonder then if the aftermath of the more recent colonization in countries like Mexico and Nigeria caused a loss of those fundamental theatrical identities. We can also think of those places as less developed at the time of colonization (than the conquering empires) – so perhaps the development of cultural aesthetics was not as far progressed. With this in mind it might be quite easy for an invading force to influence aesthetic ideals and principles – especially when ritual and performance would be one of the most powerful means of social interaction. When places like Nigeria and Mexico were conquered there was no TV or easy access to it, so communal performance is a huge part of cultural life.
I know some of these ideas are out there, but I was just wondering what anyone else thinks about the subject. I think the ‘performance contract’ is just a term that appeared as the profession of the actor was shaped. As society as progressed and come to think more of acting as a career, so appeared the necessity to establish boundaries between performer and audience – hence performance contract, fourth wall, a raised proscenium stage. I don’t think these words are important, but the soccial actions such as clapping after a scene or staying quiet during a performance are the actions that really describe the identity of a culture’s theatre.
1 comment:
I think that this blog brings up some very interesting points. The first that jumped out at me was the statement "Japan has still maintained it's cultural identity."
While it is true that, to this day, there are many ancient customs and social/artistic/political traditions still being practiced in Japan, it is important to remember that the occupation of Japan by American forces after World War II had a profound effect on the culture as a whole. As I mentioned in my presentation, the manga (cartoon books and comics, generally for adults)that permeate much of modern Japanese lifestyle were originally introduced by American servicemen. Though it appears at first to be just a small facet of the culture, it is an important phenomenon because the wild popularization of manga in Japan illustrates a point: necessity is the mother of invention.
By this I mean that whatever aspect of a culture is lacking will be the most receptive to change. Cheap, portable forms of sexual and/or comical stimulation and expression were not readily accessible preceding WWII. When the manga appeared, they were snatched up immediately. Interestingly, I think because of Japan's isolation and tradition of, well, tradition, it became imbedded in the culture and remained mostly unchanged once there. In the U.S., manga are (mostly) long-gone relics. I think because this is because we have more of a need for constant change and increasingly intense stimulation.
Nigeria might have been briefly receptive to its colonizers when they seemed to provide much needed necessities such as road construction, agriculture management and economic stability.
Post a Comment