The Routledge Introduction To Theatre And Performance Studies Pdf
File Name: the routledge introduction to theatre and performance studies .zip
- The Routledge Introduction to Theatre and Performance Studies
- Richard Schechner-Performance Studies_ an Introduction-Routledge (2013)
- Philosophy of Theater
The Routledge Introduction to Theatre and Performance Studies
Whether what he meant was a kind of cognitive therapy or a form of psychological therapy is a question that has vexed scholars to this day; and it turns on how one understands two terms: katharsis and mimesis Schaper ; Golden ; Diamond ; Lear ; Woodruff This dispute is interesting first because it reflects the fact that theater has been a topic of philosophical dispute, investigation, use, or illustration since near the beginning of Western philosophy in the ancient Greek world.
Second, its terms continue to have influence over current disputes within theater studies and performance theories Puchner Finally, and primarily, it links descriptive metaphysical issues, such as what theater is by its nature, with normative issues, such as the value of theatrical performances within a culture. Several recent philosophical works emphasizing descriptive issues have attempted to understand just what is going on in theatrical performances and other performance arts Saltz a; Thom ; Osipovich ; Hamilton ; D.
Davies This entry will focus largely on topics that are similar to or are themselves the issues examined in these works. Philosophy of theater, like much else in aesthetics and philosophy of art, is wide in its scope and makes contact with many other disciplines within philosophy and outside of it.
This entry should help make that clear. The first section of this entry will provide background information and describe an important normative issue derived from certain metaphysical and epistemic positions.
The next three sections sort the issues in a way familiar among analytic philosophers in aesthetics and philosophy of art, according to whether the issues concern a descriptions of instances of the art form, b understanding and interpretation of instances of the form, and c evaluations of such instances.
Although some of the following contrasts have more to do with the means of theater than with its ends, the point is that, historically, theater never has had just one form. Theater might be thought of as singular and unified. The idea that it is ubiquitous may be mere speculation and not based on any historical evidence. If it is not a universal, it represents a preoccupation arising in only one of the four regions of the globe in which theater originated as a distinct set of social practices aimed at portraying aspects of human life.
Other traditions appear to have originated in ways that are distinguishable from European theater which originated in Athens. The African Yoruba tradition of theater emerged initially from masquerades celebrating ancestors Adedeji , Yet some traditions seem to have arrived fully formed: the Sanskrit Treatise on Theatre Natya Shastra , Ghosh trans offers, at a very early time somewhere between BCE and CE , a reasonably complete list of topics any treatise on theater that is focused on dramatics should include acting, dance, music, dramatic construction, architecture, costuming, make-up, props, the organization of theater companies, the nature of audiences, theater competitions, and so on Schwartz Unlike Athenian theater, and its legend about the first actor, Thespis, human actors were not always the first evidence of theater.
The early form of theater in the Han Dynasty in China consisted largely of shadow-puppet theater. The much later Tang Dynasty — is most famous for developing a form of theater that would be recognizable to Europeans as theater , were it not for the fact it was largely musical.
The diversity of theatrical forms is also revealed by the study of theatrical performances and their literatures that arose at different times within Japan. The oldest form is Noh theater originating around and continuing to the present , which can be characterized not only by having different aims than its, possibly Chinese, predecessor form, but also by being largely dependent on its performers being proficient in either pantomime or vocal acrobatics or both.
Bunraku, in contrast originating around the mids and still being performed , is a form of theater that consists of large puppets with visible puppeteers dressed in black to imply in visibility, with the dialogue spoken by a single person who uses extensive vocal technique and range to present the language and expression of the different characters.
Kabuki theater beginning at the end of the s is also distinguishable from Noh theater, if not in subject matter most of its subject matter comes from Noh or Bunraku theater , then in form because it employs dance, singing, pantomime, as well as physical acrobatics. Butoh is performed in white make-up and may be purely conceptual, having no movement at all.
Diversity in the histories and forms of theater has made it difficult for theorists within any theater tradition to arrive at a sound analysis that also has the promise of being extensionally adequate. This situation is exacerbated by the difficulty in drawing a distinction between philosophy of theater on the one hand, and theater studies or performance theory on the other.
There are two ways in which this distinction may been drawn. Those discussions have been mostly in the form of determining the epistemological and metaphysical status of the art form Beardsley ; Danto ; Levinson ; D. Davies ; S. Second, philosophy of theater might be distinguished from theater studies or performance theory by the following facts: most philosophical theories have emphasized descriptive issues , whereas most theater studies or performance theories have emphasized normative issues.
Discussions of theater concerned with descriptive issues typically ask what acting and spectating are, what the relation is between theatrical practices and practices in other art forms, what theatrical criticism is, and so on. One route to providing a sound analysis that has been taken in theater studies and performance theory, since at least the s, has been to appeal to some broader understanding of the human condition found in philosophical reflections.
This was possibly the expression of a hope that in philosophy one might find something more universal than theater itself; and if that led to fruitful explorations of theater practices, that would be a relevant form of imprimatur.
However, as Marvin Carlson makes clear, theater artists are not different from artists of other kinds in reacting primarily to the thoughts and practices of their immediate artistic predecessors. So, although this route was taken by theorists, this is not the route taken in theater or performance practice.
Nevertheless, in an entry on the Philosophy of Theater, it is important to note this prominent theoretical strategy. The most influential attempt of this kind rested on a popular set of theories about language owing much of their provenance to the work of linguist Ferdinand de Saussure  and to certain literary theories that Saussurean linguistics informed as well. This attempt was made in the form of semiotic theories of theater Ubersfeld ; Eco ; Elam ; Pavis ; Fischer-Lichte .
These theater or performance theories involved applications from language, conceived as a sign-system, to the theatrical event, which was conceived of as either a single complicated sign-system or as a complicated conjunction of various sign-systems. And these theories continue to be influential in reflections on theater. For in some performances bodies seem not to mean something but to be something, namely, themselves States ; Sofer In contrast, phenomenological theories of theater, resting on the philosophical phenomenology of either Edmund Husserl  , Martin Heidegger  , Maurice Merleau-Ponty  , or Bruce Wilshire , gave rise to phenomenological theories of theater Carlson , States , Rayner , Garner This could have translated into spectator-centered theories of theater and theater cognition.
This orientation towards the means of producing performances, rather than the conditions of their reception, is fairly common among theater studies and performance theory. This often has had the effect of estranging their views from attempts to answer the classical questions of aesthetics and philosophy of art, which are often drawn from the point of view of the amateur spectator or audience Kristeller — Material offered by speech act theories in philosophy—by J.
Butler More to the point of this entry, the ideas of Austin and Searle also gave rise to the thinking of theorists focused mainly on what performance or theater could be or do Saltz a; Rozik This recent view is not, at least currently, widely credited either by philosophers of theater or very many theater or performance theorists Puchner But it is now the basis of a new discipline with its own professional association and its own journal.
Like many theater or performance theories, it takes its inspirations from philosophers, notably Gilles Deleuze  and Francois Laruelle . To see how this goes, first suppose one argues that thinking about theater can be teased apart into three distinct practices: the philosophy of theater which is concerned with. It is, moreover, an issue that theater studies and performance theory have focused a fair amount of attention upon. Jonas Barish identified its roots in the dispute, referred to in the Introduction to this entry, between Plato and Aristotle over the notion of mimesis and the value of theatrical practices within the good city Barish , Two later periods of philosophical reflection on human practices stand out as concerned nearly exclusively with the morality of theatrical practices themselves: during the period of the early Latin Church fathers, and during the eighteenth century Tertullian and Jean Jacques Rousseau are good examples.
The degree to which the distrust of theater in these periods was grounded in the earlier differences between the ways Plato and Aristotle had understood mimesis is still much debated Puchner Mill are good examples.
And this worry about, or even a distrust of, theatricality has continued into the present, but interestingly enough, now among theater practitioners and theorists themselves Schechner , and both Bertolt Brecht and Samuel Beckett provide good examples, see also Puchner However, this viewpoint is often grounded in metaphysical and epistemic questions about what a theatrical performance is and how a spectator understands a theatrical performance of some kind for example, as a literary performance or one that is actual and physical.
This viewpoint is also often motivated by moral and social views, not just about performances but also about performers. But it is often not clear what relationship this viewpoint has to the actual practices of the art form Puchner And this leads one to wonder if there is anything special, or especially troubling, about the general social or moral problems associated with theater in these periods at all.
In short, it is difficult to determine whether and when this animus is actually aberrant—and genuinely prejudicial —or if it is of a piece with standard examinations of social and moral effects of theatrical practices. That said, it is worth noting that suspicion of theatrical practices seems to be a persistently recurring and characteristic attitude within Western European philosophical, social, and political traditions. What is a work of art? Are all works of art alike?
How so, or how not? When asked to determine what sentences are about, philosophers often will want to know what objects, properties, or relationships the objects of a certain bit of human discourse are and what the referents of its nominal and pronominal phrases are. The answers to these questions might well be taken to be the basic ontology of that discourse.
And others raise the equally serious question about whether all events and objects that we describe as art can be distinguished cleanly into single-instance and multiple-instance objects or events Currie ; Hazlett , largely on the grounds that any work of art can be repeatable and that the alleged distinction turns out to be an artifact of our current technological capabilities rather than an enduring feature of some kinds of art. Allan Hazlett begins an essay on repeatable artworks, ones that have multiple instances, this way:.
There seem to be repeatable artworks. In light of this distinction, determining the kind of entities works of art are depends upon explaining and defending one of the following proposals:. Davies ; D. Davies , Thomasson ; Dodd ; and Moruzzi One striking feature of the disputes about these proposals is that each of these proposals makes sense of one class of them but has difficulty explaining—or explaining away—certain others of them. This may be due in part to the wide diversity among artistic events and objects.
When it comes to narrowing down to the ontology of theater there are more specific questions that make any approach to the ontology of theater more difficult. The first question concerns how we determine what one must say there is within the discourse of theater.
On the Quinean view one should first determine what the best empirical theory is in some field of inquiry, second regiment that theory in terms of some system of formal logic, and then, thirdly, ask what objects satisfy the existentially quantified variables within that regimented discourse. That will be the ontology of that field of inquiry. But before we can ask what one must say there is with respect to theater, one first must ask what the discourse is that generates the descriptive facts over which the variables of quantification are supposed to range.
That is, to what discourse is this method for determining the ontology of theater to be applied? Any answer we can currently give to this question will be the devastating observation that what exactly the descriptive facts are that are discussed in the relevant discourse, and thus what the actual discourse is, are themselves questions that are not actually settled.
But this is both far from clear and under-argued see Hamilton 3—16 for a discussion of this point. One way to address this question is to ask a more fundamental question about theater, as Paul Woodruff does : what is it to make something worth watching? Another is to ask, as David Saltz, James Hamilton, Noel Carroll do : what it is that people are interpreting and evaluating when they discuss theatrical performances and what is an interpretation?
Yet another is to ask, as David Osipovich does : what is a theatrical performance actually like in the experience of those who present it and those who attend it at the time of the performance itself? And a further is to ask, as W. Notably, the methods for responding to this question seem to be epistemic rather than ontological—that is, they seek to defend an answer to the question based on the role each of the possible answers would play in our reasoning about theatrical performances.
And they seem to yield no distinctive proposals regarding the ontology of theater. Moreover, to the extent they do yield such proposals, they often seem to offer empirical, rather than a priori , evidence to support the answer their view entails Fine Thus, the standard answers to the second question—which certainly appears to be ontological—point in a different direction, namely to epistemic concerns about how we know what it is we know about theatrical performances and less about what we must say there is.
So far, this entry has treated theatrical performance and performance art as fundamentally the same. But that is regarded as a contentious standpoint by some theater and performance theorists. But the wrinkle is that if there is a profound difference between performance as an art and theater as an art , then before one can describe an instance of theater, one has to know it is one and not an instance of performance art instead.
Despite the differences in the background thinking used in developing their theories, some theater studies and performance theorists have nevertheless held one view in common, namely, that there is a distinct difference between acting and performance.
Richard Schechner-Performance Studies_ an Introduction-Routledge (2013)
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: The Concept of Theatre 2. The History of the Discipline 3.
Theatre Discussion Questions. StageAgent is my go-to resource to study character breakdowns. Read honest and unbiased product reviews from our users. Direct questions or open-ended questions can give you an accurate measurement of the satisfaction levels of the participants. Musicals and theatre productions are well-loved by music fans all over the world. If appropriate, ask leading questions targeted to individuals or groups, and encourage people to participate and ask questions. What parents should know; Myths vs.
Music in Theory and Practice, Volume 1, is comprehensive, emphasizing harmony but including other parameters of music that provide a broad understanding of. The term 'peace' shall be used for social goals at least verbally agreed to by many, if not necessarily by most. Here are some music theory worksheets you can download and print. Recordings are available for both the textbook and the workbook of this edition of Music in Theory and Practice. Music in theory and practice. Music in Theory and Practice, Vol. Moreover, the volume feels the pulse of the debate on heritage ethics by discussing timely issues such as access, acquisition, archaeological practice, curatorship, education, ethnology, historiography, integrity, legislation.
Erika Fischer-Lichte's introduction to the discipline of Theatre and Performance Studies is a strikingly authoritative and wide ranging guide.
Philosophy of Theater
Plan, schedule, and manage construction projects using the critical path method CPM and the practical information contained in this thoroughly revised book. Technology has made food cheap, plentiful, tasty, and novel—but not for everybody, and not always for the good of the planet. International Financial Management, 7ed. Since the eighth edition focuses on the principles of documenting sources, rather than on strict adherence to a particular format for each source, citations in this new edition vary only slightly from the old ways. The first edition was addressed to students of construction management, on-site representatives Later editions provided the updating necessary to remain current with state-of-the-art techniques in For the eighth edition, Mr.
Whether what he meant was a kind of cognitive therapy or a form of psychological therapy is a question that has vexed scholars to this day; and it turns on how one understands two terms: katharsis and mimesis Schaper ; Golden ; Diamond ; Lear ; Woodruff This dispute is interesting first because it reflects the fact that theater has been a topic of philosophical dispute, investigation, use, or illustration since near the beginning of Western philosophy in the ancient Greek world. Second, its terms continue to have influence over current disputes within theater studies and performance theories Puchner Finally, and primarily, it links descriptive metaphysical issues, such as what theater is by its nature, with normative issues, such as the value of theatrical performances within a culture. Several recent philosophical works emphasizing descriptive issues have attempted to understand just what is going on in theatrical performances and other performance arts Saltz a; Thom ; Osipovich ; Hamilton ; D.
Law And Order Intro. Modeling via Differential Equations.
ГЛАВА 115 В голове Дэвида Беккера была бесконечная пустота. Я умер. Но я слышу какие-то звуки. Далекий голос… - Дэвид. Он почувствовал болезненное жжение в боку.
Обычно я напиваюсь только к четырем! - Он опять засмеялся.
Само ее существование противоречило основным правилам криптографии. Она посмотрела на шефа. - Вы уничтожите этот алгоритм сразу же после того, как мы с ним познакомимся. - Конечно.