[ ביית אותי ]   [ עדיפה ]   [ עזרה ]  [ FAQ ]  [ אודות ]   [ הטבלה ]   [ דואל ]
  [ חדשות ]   [ אישיים ]
[
קול-נוע
]
 [
סאונד
]
 [
ויז'ואל
]
 [
מלל
]
 
New Stage
חיפוש בבמה

שם משתמש או מספר
סיסמתך
[ אני רוצה משתמש! ]
[ איבדתי סיסמה ): ]


מדורי במה








1.
Background

When attempting to deal with the philosophy of art in
relation to religion and science, it is necessary first to
appreciate the complexity of the human being. Let us say, as
in a mathematical equation, that collective theater equals a
collective humanity. The human being is unable to walk,
behave, grow or think if his systems do not work in complete
cooperation between individual organic impulses and the
larger system of information. Our bodies are an integration
of parts and without their integration, human beings ceases
to function. The heart works for the whole body pumping
blood to every extremity and the brain thinks for the whole
body. Both function to insure an ideal operation of the
whole. This harmonic order enables inter-active relations
between systems within a correct and healthy flow, without
which the human being grows ill and dies. Relating to people
as cyborgs emphasizes the relation between every part of the
system, every individual and every organ, and the larger
whole. The human being as a collective system, may be
defined as a brain, a nervous system, or a heart,
effectively includes endless other systems. In principle, we
can make use of an internal triangle that simplifies our
acts of definition and allows both spiritual and physical
meaning at the same time: man is brain, heart and body as
well as thought, love and the need to rule. The place of
theater is also a cybernetic system of man. The brain is
intended for the activity of thought, the heart for matters
of feeling and the need for action. The brain represents
science and philosophy, the heart represents religion and
morality, and the will is the element that creates. Art is
thus on a parallel with the active sides of the human being.
When we look at theater, we should see it as a body
incorporating all the other arts, for in the theater we can
find music, dance, sculpture, drawing, architecture, poetry,
and even cinema and television.
We know about the competition between theater, cinema, and
television, and can almost hear their champions say:
''Cinema is of course the art that encompasses all arts, for
everything can be captured on film, including theater.'' (1)
In taking its stand against cinema, theater must attain a
very fine perception above and beyond the straightforward
question of whether a film can be screened as part of
theater or when cinema films theater it is no longer theater
but filmed theater. The real perception is made in the human
arena that exists between actor and audience. In principle,
as creative people we need to place the strongest accent on
this special close relationship that develops with the
audience. The basis of theater is this cybernetic feedback
loop between living creatures on stage and living creatures
in the audience. Therefore, theater includes all those arts
that have special human contact, and it is cybernetic when
it interactively participates in the feedback loop of actors
"programmed" by a script performing within the structured
space of a theater. We thus see that players and audience
are cyborgs, and that all theaters have always been cyborg
theaters. (2) Does stage setting require the human touch?
Perhaps one day it will be produced by machines and
sophisticated robots, without any human touch. And is not
stage setting, in essence, the art of painting? And is not
the same true for television and cinema? The screening of
television movies on the theater stage is an accepted event.
Is there any art at all that is unable to exist in theater?
No; theater includes all arts whether they include the human
touch or not.
In discussing the relationship between science and art, a
complex question arises. If it is true that theater has the
ability to encompass all the other arts and carry them out
in subordination, could we not find psychology, history,
geography and all the human sciences in theater? It is
possible to take this thought even further and say that
scientists could take part in the erection of their
well-made structures, each in his own field, and could find
professional producers and playwrights who would know how to
integrate scientific and theatrical material into a
creative, practical system. This is part of our premise on
wanting to design and test a cyborg theater.

2.
Drama in the use of the Natural Sciences

Within the framework of the Faculty for the Teaching of
Science and Technology at the Technion during the years
1989-1992, a class researched the ''Improvement of Teaching
Methods through Drama'' in an interesting attempt to teach
different areas of science with tools derived from the
dramatic arts. Here, we are talking about a phase beyond the
development of the teacher's dramatic personality in which
school students, in order to understand the subject matter
being taught, will be able to grasp the tools of
identification, role playing and the study of characters in
a different way. (3) The difference arises from the aim to
perfect knowledge in which characters might be molecules or
viruses and nerve cells. In this case, we are talking about
cooperation between inexact theatrical tools and exact
scientific laws and axioms. The uniqueness of this research
lies in the idea of including other internal organs over and
above the brain in the learning process. When man moves in
space, he uses his body. When he penetrates objects with his
thoughts, he uses his feelings of identity and observes them
from within. The student brings his personality, his
emotions and feelings into the learning process. This
research at the Technion assumes that such involvement will
increase the student's ability to absorb theoretical
material, which has not, as yet, been absorbed in his
brain.
It is not only at the Technion that we find cooperation
between science and art. The Italian producer, Eugenio
Barba, who achieved fame in Denmark and enjoyed the support
of the Danish government, established a school called ISTA,
The International School of Theater Anthropology. This
school includes biologists, psychologists, psycho-linguists,
specialists in semiotics and in the history and anthropology
of the theater, and theater professionals from different
cultures and traditions from around the world (4). The
Polish producer, Jerzy Grotovski, says in his article,
''Pragmatic Laws'', that ''Barba has formulated three
essential principles in the field of work we call
performer's techniques, and their rules are: a) Physical
Balance, b) the principle of conflicting directions of
impulses in movement and c) the process of action brought to
its extremes by the presenter which can be implemented and
tested from a viewpoint of energy in space or from the
viewpoint of energy in time.''(5) In his article,
''Meyerhold: The Grotesque: That Is Biomechanics'', Eugenio
Barba cites Vsevolod Emilievitch Meyerhold's words from
1922: ''If we observe a skilled worker in action, we notice
the following in his movements: 1) an absence of superfluous
unproductive movement; 2) rhythm; 3) the correct positioning
of the body's center of gravity; 4) stability... The
fundamental deficiency of the modern actor is his absolute
ignorance of the laws of biomechanics.''(6)

3. Theater as a natural, not only artificial Tool

Avraham Shalev, a bio-technologist from the Weizman
Institute in his article ''Purim all Year'', presents
another interesting point: ''The essence of disguise and
masquerade in nature is not always clear... but on the whole
it is efficient and successful and has been in existence for
as long as evolution.''(7) He strengthens the assumption
that the disguise of self and masquerading (as natural
theatrical tools) are not passing things in the life of
nature, but are, in fact, inseparable from nature's very
being. Man, in spite of his being a cultured animal, is also
an artificial one; in many ways, like a cyborg linked into a
natural vast machine. As an inseparable part of nature, man
can grasp these natural tools: ''Masquerading is not a new
human invention and is not necessarily linked to Purim. It
is an ancient phenomenon and well-rooted in nature.''(8)
Shalev accepts the fact that identification, mimicry, and
entry into the world of impersonation creates a situation of
adopting its characteristics and making use of them. The
idea of utilizing the advantages of another animal by
imitating its shape, colours, smell, voice or behavior was
adopted as a natural choice. This phenomenon, called
masquerading or mimicry was well researched by the end of
the last century and still holds our interest.
In general, nature learns by means of mimicry and
identification, but for different purposes. ''The phenomenon
of impersonation is common in both the animal and plant
kingdoms. Even viruses are capable of a type of
impersonation by adopting the protein-like coating of the
host cell or of another virus. This action enables the virus
to evade identification by the immune system of the host
and/or to more quickly penetrate the cells it has targeted
for attack. The definition of the phenomenon of
impersonation, differs from chance resemblance in that it
stresses the benefits that the impersonator gains by
masquerading: the linkage of the impersonator and the
impersonated to the same geographical area, to the same
predators or to the same sources of existence''? (9) The
phenomenon of impersonation is not limited to the sense of
sight as it may include misrepresentation of any or of all
the senses. Shalev describes instances of masquerading in
nature that have developed into character. The wild ophry's
flower, for example, has adopted a 'costume' that attracts
the male bee. The aroma of the ophrys's secretions resembles
those of the sex hormones of the queen bee. The male bee,
whose sole purpose is the impregnation of the queen bee,
sees her hindparts in front of him when he sees this flower.
The temptation is tremendous and the male bee prepares to
carry out his holy task. He settles on the phantom queen,
sensing her velvety touch and her characteristic motions
that bear an incredible resemblance to the movements of the
highly desirable queen bee. This is exploitation of another
kind; the impersonator needs a dupe for its impregnation. In
another instance, the butterfly's need for masquerading is
so ingrained that one finds cross-masquerading between
different types, virtually signalling "masquerade in my
image and I'll masquerade in yours." Double and even triple
masquerades apparently increase the female's chances of
survival for the male, by maintaining his original colors,
highlights his female partner's costume. Shalev also
describes mammal, reptile, fish, bird and plant examples.
The eel, which is a fish, gains from its resemblance to a
dangerous water snake; the Indian cuckoo does a marvelous
impersonation of the threatening hawk. In these cases,
impersonation serves as a tool of aggression and
intimidation. Shalev, has found that impersonation and
masquerading are vital tools in nature, and we can take the
next step forward. To better understand material, we should
grasp the tools that nature has given us. In other words, it
is not sufficient to study the laws of nature, it is
preferable to experience them ourselves with our bodies and
our spiritual elements. As early as the time of Aristotle,
learning was achieved by imitation (mimesis), but imitation
is only a stage after which follows experiencing on and
within ourselves. In short, the use of masquerade,
imitation, and impersonation for study purposes has existed
for a long time.

4.
According to Aristotle, the enjoyment of imitation is an
instinctive impulse that also exists in nature
.

Menahem Brinker writes: ''that in contrast to Plato, who
sees beauty in the first approach of the idea of the
beautiful, and as such as a type of entry point into the
cognitive experience of the perfection of the world,
Aristotle acknowledges the autonomy of the beautiful''. (10)
Aristotle has another two points to teach: beauty is a tool
and independent component in the theatrical system, and
pleasure as an instinctive component arising from the
beautiful in harmonic form and as a form of imitation. ''He
[Aristotle] speaks of two impulses existing in man, the
impulse to find pleasure in harmonic forms and the impulse
to enjoy the perfect impersonation as original and
independent impulses''.(11) The point about masquerading
that is particularly pertinent to our purpose is the
relative statement between these two impulses and between
the impulse for growth, for it is here in fact that the
eternalness of theatrical impulse and the inner need for its
existence lies. These two impulses are as instinctive as the
need to grow, to move, to develop, and their coming together
is the source of all the beautiful arts. It is here that
matters come to a common point. At the beginning of the
article we spoke of human being as a complete entity in whom
all roles lie, all the arts, sciences, and religions.
Aristotle teaches us, via Brinker's prism, that the impulses
to find pleasure from harmony and from perfect impersonation
are eternal impulses like growth and in their union are the
source of all the beautiful arts. Therefore, when we say
that theater is man, we have gone no further than Aristotle.
Such theater embraces all the arts and sciences within it.
Brinker argues however, that 'in Aristotle's opinion,
satisfaction from the harmonic form or from successful
impersonation exists in science no less than in art,'(12).
As such, tragedy is beautiful when it causes the awakening
of the fear and compassion that lead to catharsis. The horse
is beautiful when it is powerful. Every beautiful thing is
beautiful within its own kind. The impression it makes
results from the intellectual action of comparison and
judgment in regard to the beautiful. According to Aristotle,
the connection is made between the aesthetic and the
cognitive experience.(13)
In this article Brinker presents a summary of the ideas of
diverse philosophers, including Baumgarten, a student of the
Leibnitz school of thought. Baumgarten sees in the beautiful
arts (in the 18th Century) an instrument to improve the
consciousness of truth. His purpose is to perfect the
concept of the senses and teach man to see and hear in
minute detail. By attaining such perfection, man can place a
greater number of problems before the logical-mathematical
methodology of the consciousness of the world and so be
aware of the different ways that objects combine within the
oneness, the order and the harmony of the world. The
sensually beautiful, according to Baumgarten, is no more
than a symbol of logical-mathematical relations and this is
the source of its pleasure. Wolf, who studied directly under
Leibnitz, said that the pleasure in listening to music
arises from the pleasure of subconsciously carrying out
arithmetic calculations of multiplication and addition. A
mathematical understanding of the world triggers higher
capabilities than those utilized to listen to music. The
value of music is based on how prepares and stimulates us to
deal with the mathematical understanding of the world. For
Baumgarten and Wolf the sensual aspect of the true
non-mathematical musical note did not exist at all. They
loved art but did not acknowledge it in the way that modern
awareness acknowledges it. They were propelled to enjoyment
from harmony, in its configured structure, that includes
maximum unity and multiplicity at one and the same time.
From these forms the cosmos is represented in the
subconscious.
Brinker argues that in the first third of the 19th century,
when romantic ideas were prominent in society, the creation
of art appeared to be an independent source of achieving
wisdom as compared to substance. What the brain is unable to
understand in its faithfulness to the fragmenting of reality
into components is achieved through the artist's intuition.
We arrive at unity in nature, the character of man,
situations and views not with the aid of
scientific-analytical investigation, but via artistic
imagination, empathy, and emotion. This is the background to
the lines of John Keats: ''Truth is beauty, beauty truth'',
that upsets the whole rational tradition of western culture
and raises the artist not only above the common man, but
also above the scientist and the philosopher. (14) Today we
understand art, based on the principles of romanticism. The
concept of the creation of art as an organic whole, its
function as an expression and not merely as imitation; the
concept of style in art as a result of traditions and of
creative diversions from these traditions and, above all,
the raising of one-time originality as an achievement of the
artist and as a virtue demanded of his creative work - all
of these are the contributions of romanticism to our thought
on the beautiful and on art.

5.Collective Theater

Collective theater cannot be one-sided as it incorporates
both the rational and the irrational even though its
one-sidedness might lie in the inherent extremes of its
polarity. But from the moment that it includes both a thesis
and its antithesis, it brings all philosophical concepts
closer together. According to Brinker we gain proximity to
the unified, romantic concept of the beautiful, intuitive
art that carries within it a truth that is unattainable by
scientists or philosophers. However, modern collective
theater cannot live by romantic ideas alone. Students of the
Leibnitz school of thought claimed the opposite; art
perfects the brain and intelligence in favor of a creativity
that contains unity and multiplicity simultaneously in order
to understand the cosmos. Hegel took this idea even further;
a philosophical system (his own, of course) incorporates all
the right principles for the understanding of arts and
science and has nothing more to teach man. Like many of his
other prophesies, his prophesy of the death of art did not
realize itself. (15) Here again we encounter the eternal
conflict between science and art that has found expression
over hundreds of years. This murderous struggle led to the
victory of science, which rebuked art, although it was often
religion that rebuked both its two predecessors. Without
going into the details of history from a standpoint of
principle, struggles raged between external elements,
between attitudes, between concepts of the world. The
struggle between art, religion and science is none other
than a reflection of the awful struggles that raged and
continue to rage within human being itself. Science, from
Leibnitz's viewpoint, ignored the sensual, creative
qualities of art, which ignores of the very existence of art
in this context. On the other hand, the statement of
romanticism that the artist is bearer of truth and that his
intuition is above scientific and philosophical knowledge
disregards the central course of science. Collective theater
needs to make order out of this confusion. To organize
things correctly does not mean the destruction of drama for
here the danger may indeed lie in the never-ending search
for an all-inclusive solution - the subordination of the one
art that is man.
Art is creative activity and the impulse to action. If we
were to tie man to the symbol of the heart, to its inner
feelings of warmth and love, we find that the whole essence
of religion does not concentrate in any place other than in
the heart of man. Science seeks its own ways to research,
analyze, clarify, and enlighten processes that take place in
nature and in the universe between human beings. We must go
back and say that in nature, as in man, these three elements
live together and make for a complete unity. Here a
contradiction is formed because we are referring to two
kinds of man: one who is trapped in a constant inner
struggle between the three elements and the ideal who seeks
for a collective theater and attempts to create the harmonic
unity of the three elements. Today too, we find that
different activities are taking place in man as a result of
these three elements. The brain evaluates and analyzes. At
times the heart does not give its approval, sometimes
liking, sometimes disliking the brain's decisions. Conflict
exists between the brain and the heart, but we can see that
the will cannot be carried out unless there is some form of
consensus between the brain and the heart.

6. The Stanislavski Method

Theater does not work without the eternal struggle taking
place between two or three of the elements that we have
mentioned. No play has gone on stage that does not include a
struggle of one type or another. The heart feels something,
the brain denies it, and then the will and the body lose
direction. He who tries to live to according to his heart
must bear the criticism of his brain and enter a difficult
phase that might even lead to suicide. Conflict is a major
element in drama. Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavski,(16)
the Russian director, built his system on the work of the
actor, upon himself, according to this threefold concept.
Man is a collective of three components that have to
function in coordination otherwise the actor will not be
able to play the role he has taken upon himself; his body
will not move and the material running around in his brain
will not arrive in a sufficiently precise form for his body
to know how to act properly. He has to pass through his
personal prism of knowledge that cannot be based on the mind
and on analysis alone. Stanislavski, as a producer and
thinker who had great influence particularly over western
theater, wrote: ''Mind means intellect, will and feeling in
a reciprocal relationship''. When his students had completed
two years of work he would say to them: ''Everything you
have learned in two years lies confused in your minds. It
will not be easy to gather it all one by one and to fit all
the elements analyzed and released with our emotions.
Therefore, all that we have found is simplicity, man's most
natural condition...''(17) (Meyerhold is his direct pupil
and his biomechanical theater is a continuation of a certain
line of his system).
The human condition that Stanislavski refers to is based on
'the psycho-physiological process whose source lies in our
original nature' and this can be defined, according to
Franco Ruffini as 'organic body-brain.' Ruffini defines the
Stanislavski Method in his article of the same name in
Eugenio Barba's "The Secret Art of the Performer", A
Dictionary of Theater Anthropology (pp.150-153). According
to this definition, the body-mind is organic when the body
fulfills the brain's requests in a way that is not
''overfull'', ''irresponsible'' or without continuation.
But, when ''the body only fulfills the requests received
from the brain'' or when ''the body fulfills all the
requests received from the brain'' and when in response to
all the brain's requests, and only to these requests, the
body adapts itself to them and seeks to fulfill them. An
organic mind-body is found in a body that does not carry out
useless activity and does not prevent essential activity. It
does not react by internal contradiction or in an
anti-productive way.
Stanislavski's conclusions arise from his knowledge of human
psychology. The human being functions on occasion according
to feeling, at times according to the will without
evaluating the action in the brain, which may occasionally
lead to feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment. This
means that the human being needs to be sufficiently adult to
understand that a number of impulsive actions, in spite of
their being instructions from the brain, might  lead to
known results. If he does not learn this experience, he
places himself in a trap. This is what happened in the
theater group, ''The Left Bank'', started by a group of
young people in Tel Aviv in 1991. These beginners had
thoughts of living and creating together resembling the
well-known scheme of Julian Beck and Judith Malina in their
''Living Theater.'' In the beginning, this is a very special
experience different from anything experienced in the
regular, traditional process of creativity. There is a
uniqueness in a group that is formed for group theatrical
work, but mistakes probably arise from inexperience and a
lack of knowledge of the basic system of modern theater
arising from Stanislavski.
In Judaism the possibility of 'doing and listening' exists
in artistic meaning in that one take's religious duties upon
oneself as a result of a belief in the existence of God, and
one has one's whole life ahead to learn from one's mistakes
and from books. There are great artists in the theater who
are capable of "doing before analyzing'' such as Peter Brook
who is a theatrical and cinematic director with a high level
of control over his complex personality. He has analyzed
himself and to his credit has achieved great knowledge and
rich experience in psychology, in theater, and in other
areas linked to this profession. But at the moment we are
not dealing with the side of religious belief in man or with
people of the caliber of Peter Brook who was certainly also
influenced by Stanislavski and his students.(18) We are
attempting to stress that theatrical truth can serve us well
for other needs. Oliver Sachs' The Man Who Mistook His Wife
for a Hat is a book adopted by Brook's theatre and was
presented in Jerusalem in 1995. It is one example of Brook's
works on the topic, and how he analyzed unity between
science and art, on theatre stages.
In Stanislavski's opinion, the actor's body must adapt all
the brain's requests that have a constructive rather than a
destructive purpose. In day to day life this is not
necessary: the brain makes realistic demands of the body.
However, when unrealistic demands are made on the stage they
must be changed into realistic ones. This is the meaning of
the Russian word "perezhivanie" which is defined as ''to
return to life.'' From Stanislavski's point of view, the aim
is to train the actor's brain to prepare requests that the
body will enact in coordination. The difficult and essential
factor in this method is that the actor must prepare logical
reactions that have motivation and feelings compatible with
the subject matter, and that the subject matter has to occur
as if it is a realistic request. The actor has to believe in
the thing that he has created, and when the actor truly
believes, then the audience will be able to believe.
In an attempt to prove how precisely the actor needs to work
on his emotions, his thoughts and his body, Stanislavski
creates an analogy between the actor and his diverse tools
with musical instruments and the musician's preparations for
a concert. Acting is like the search for the minimalistic
and most exact musical tone. On the stage, situations are
usually more drastic than in life and the actor must widen
his expressive range as much as possible without extending
it beyond expressive realism, otherwise he will not succeed
in his endeavors to build stage reality. Organic body-brain
is the second nature that an actor must teach himself to
gain from practice and experience. The objective of the
system is to ready the actor to play the role that he is
required to fulfill on the stage. The organic body-brain is
the condition for the meaning of character on the one hand,
while character is the condition for the meaning of the
role, on the other.
Stanislavski's theater has three stages for working on a
role: 1) to build from the organic body-brain; 2) to build
the character (nature), based on the written text describing
the role; and 3) to build from the role based on the
character (nature). It is important not to forget the
existence of examples based on the same text that show how
thousands of different characters can be presented. There
are millions of 'Hamlets' in the world, (each actor has his
own 'Hamlet') and only some of them have been presented on
the stage. According to Stanislavski, we find the
distinction between the role and the character (nature) when
the character establishes an organic body-brain relationship
in the given conditions of the written role. It can also be
said that the ''played role'' is the character (nature)
focused towards the channeled super-objective via the action
line. In the case of Hamlet, the distinction is to be found
in that Hamlet is the universally known written role, but
that to play it according to the text, every character
player will impersonate a different character. The character
exists above and beyond the actions carried out as part of
the role. The character is therefore not identical with the
role, does not identify with it, does not express it, and is
not marked by it. The character is the condition for the
meaning of the role. According to Stanislavski, when an
actor loses, or does not find the character, the role loses
meaning. If the actor has succeeded in building one
character, the role has achieved one meaning. If the
character that the actor has built is different, the role's
meaning will be different, but it will have meaning. In the
same way that the role has no meaning without character, so
the character has no meaning without the actor's organic
body-brain function. If the actor's body-brain is not
organic, the character's actions, even if they are
compatible with the conditions dictated by the role, will
not be actions that match its demands. They will only be
mechanical, a result of the implementation of external
instructions. Without the organic of body-brain, the
character will have no life; it is not a human existence and
therefore cannot promise meaning to the role.
The mathematical equations that we found with Stanislavski
remind us of the concept of the Leibnitz school in that they
stress the mathematical understanding of the world in order
to carry out a higher ability that is structured in the mind
during the listening to music (Brinker 8-12). From their
point of view music's value lies in that it prepares and
stimulates us to deal with a mathematical understanding of
the world. Stanislavski would have criticized them for the
fact that the sensual aspect of the musical tone itself, the
non-mathematical one, did not exist in their point of view.
He would have said to them that their listening to the music
is mechanical and does not 'return to life.' But he would
have strengthened their ability to seek supreme objectivity
arising necessarily from the lack of objectivity that had
reached its peak.
On the other hand, romanticism relies on what the mind is
unable to understand in its faithfulness to fragmenting
reality into its parts, thus distorting it, and placing all
belief in the intuition of the artist. Stanislavski would
not attack the intuition of his actor-artist, but he would
exercise more caution as he believes that the first command
or request comes from the brain, not from belief. The brain
is responsible for assessing the precise nature of the
request in order for the body to carry out precise and
organic action. Stanislavski would not object to the premise
that the unity of nature, the character of human being,
situations, and scenery are reached via artistic
imagination, empathy and emotion, and not through
scientific-analytical investigation. However, imagination
and scientific analysis must achieve a balance by means of
his threefold system, by means of the organic body-brain, by
means of the will-body, the brain and the heart to give all
human's elements their place on the stage. Stanislavski, in
the laboratory that he set up with students around Moliere's
play Tartuffe, reached the conclusion, in the opinion of
Vasilij Osipovich Toporkov that the objective of the
laboratory was to prepare the actor for all possible
theatrical roles in the world while working on one role.
(19) Art begins when there are no roles, or when there is
only one role: 'I' in the given conditions of the play.
Scientific theater works along two parallel lines: the
objective 'I' and the subjective 'I' and the ability to give
them meaning or to remove their meaning in order to create a
role.  But the purpose of the whole route is to better know
man. The actor may enjoy the benefits, (even if he is
unaware of the definitions) if he succeeds in carrying out a
role on the stage in a live, genuine and convincing way. Is
subjectivity that has used up all its resources of necessity
the beginning of objectivity?

Notes:

1)  Henry Unger, Cinema and Philosophy, Tel-Aviv: Dvir,
1991. (Hebrew).
2) The idea of the cyborg theater came from David Porush :
"mathematics of chaos . . . the revolution of the science of
so-called chaos is . . . to show that systems that behave in
what seemed like random or disordered fashion actually could
be described by mathematics », 'Fictions of Dissipative
Structures : Prigogine's Theory and Postmodernism's
Roadshow', Chaos and Order. Complex Dynamics in Literature
and Science, N. Katherine Hayles, ed., Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1991, p.58.
-M.A. Orthofer, argues that ''Science and theatre seem to
have almost always been regarded as fundamentally, and
largely irreconcilably, disparate. Both have evolved over
the centuries and millennia, and the exercise of each has
varied greatly from culture to culture, but historically
there has been little overlap. Only fairly recently has the
scientist-and the practice of science-come to figure on the
stage with any sort of regularity. Even now one can hardly
speak of a conquest of the boards by science: a few plays
garner much attention and count as successes-including
Bertolt Brecht's 'Life of Galileo', Tom Stoppard's
'Arcadia', and Michael Frayn's 'Copenhagen,'' ''The
scientist on the stage: a survey'', in Interdisciplinary
ScienceReviews, London: Maney, v. 27, n. 3, 2002, pp.173-183
(11).
-Friedrich Durrenmatt: ''The physicists'', trans. James
Kirkup, New York: Grove Press, 1964, 75.
-Silvana Barbacci, ''From the Golem to Artificial
Intelligence: science'', TheTheatre, Jekyll. comm n.3,
2002.
-The Klara Soppteater in Stockholm gives contemporary
examples, which can be linked to that tradition, having
produced many plays where a scientist is on the stage with
the actors.
-L'Oracle de Delphi on Dirac's scientific adventure, by the
''Mimescope'', staged for the first time at Cern,
Genève 1999, is a nice exemple that effectively
applies body's techniques, musics and images.
-Daniel Raichvarg Science et Spectacle. Figures d'une
rencontre, Nice: Z'Editions, 1993.
-Robert Scott Root-Bernstein, "Sensual Education", "The
Sciences", Ends & Means, (1990). Root-Bernstein,
"Discovering", Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1989.
-Isaac Asimov, "Fantastic Reading", Glenview, ILL: Scott
Foresman, 1984. Asimov, "Marvels of Science", N.Y. Collier,
1966. Asimov, "The Bicentennial man and other Stories",
Gardenlity, N.Y: Doubleday, 1976.
-Richard Courtney, ''Play, Drama and Thought'', London:
Cassel, 1970.  
-Anne Roe, "The Making of a Scientist", New York: Dodd Mead,
1953.
-Jacques Salmon Hadamard, "The Psychology of Invention in
the Mathematical Field", Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1945. New York: Dover Press, 1954.
3)  Ibid note 2.
4) Eugenio Barba and Nicola Savarese, "The Secret Art of the
Performer", A Dictionary of Theater Anthropology, London and
New York: Routledge, 1991.
5) P. 236, Ibid.
6) Jean-Marie Pradier, ''Ethnoscenology: the Flesh is
Spirit'', New Approaches to Theatre Studies and Performance
Analysis, Ed. Günter Berghaus, Tübingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag, 2001, pp. 61-81. Jean-Marie Pradier,
''Barba: l'exercice invisible'', in Carlo Müller
(ouvrage coordonné par): Le Training de l'Acteur,
coll. Conservatoire National d'Art Dramatique, Dijon: Actes
Sud-Papiers, Apprendre 14, 2000, pp. 57-78.
7) Avraham Shalev, "Purim all Year" in "Ha'aretz"
9/3/1990.
8) Ibid note 7.
9) Ibid 7.
10) Menahem Brinker, "A History of Beauty in the West", in
"Thoughts", Tel-Aviv: IBM, Vol. no. 59, 1990, pp.8-12.
11) ARISTOTLE, "Poetics", Tel-Aviv: Ma'Hbarote Lesifrouth,
(Hebrew), 1964, Ch.8 (1-35).
ARISTOTLE, ''Metaphysics", trans. to Hebrew, Léon
ROTH, Jerusalem: Magness Press, The Hebrew University, 1964,
Chapter 2 (12), 996-B.
12) Ibid note 11.
13) Ibid 11.
14) John Keats, "Immortal Poems of the English language",
Ed. Oscar Williams, New York: Pocket Books, 1952, p. 326.
15) Friedrich HEGEL, ''Science de la logique'', Paris: Ed.
Lasson, 1938, p.58-60, Heidelberg, (1816).
16) Konstatin Sergeevich Stanislavski, ''Actors prepare and
build a character'', London: Methuen, 1980. "My Life in
Art", Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1953.
17) Ibid 16.
18) Peter Brook, The empty space, ed. McGibbon & Kee,
London, 1968. Peter Brook, "L'Espace vide", écrits
sur le théâtre, Paris: Le Seuil, 1977. Peter
Brook, "Le diable c'est l'ennui", Dijon: Edition Actes Sud
papiers, 1991. Peter Brook, "The Shifting Point" Theatre,
Film, Opera 1946-1987, New-York: Harper & Row Publishers,
1987.
-Yoshi Oida, "L'acteur flottant", Dijon: Ed. "Le temps du
théâtre", Actes Sud 1992.
-Georges BANU, "Brook", in "Les voies de la création
théâtrales", Paris: Editions C.N.R.S, Vol. no.
13, 1985, also Vol. no. 10, 1982.
-Ouriel Zohar, ''Meetings with Peter Brook'', Tel-Aviv:
Zohar, 1990. Ouriel Zohar: "The Theatre is a Living Being",
in Studio, Vol. no. 20, Tel-Aviv, 1991, pp. 28-29.
19) Vasilij Osipovich Toporkov, "Stanislavski in Rehearsal",
New York: Theater Arts Book, 1979.







loading...
חוות דעת על היצירה באופן פומבי ויתכן שגם ישירות ליוצר

לשלוח את היצירה למישהו להדפיס את היצירה
היצירה לעיל הנה בדיונית וכל קשר בינה ובין
המציאות הנו מקרי בהחלט. אין צוות האתר ו/או
הנהלת האתר אחראים לנזק, אבדן, אי נוחות, עגמת
נפש וכיו''ב תוצאות, ישירות או עקיפות, שייגרמו
לך או לכל צד שלישי בשל מסרים שיפורסמו
ביצירות, שהנם באחריות היוצר בלבד.
אני לא אוהב
אש.

אשכנזי שעיר
וזהיר


תרומה לבמה




בבמה מאז 29/11/07 10:38
האתר מכיל תכנים שיתכנו כבלתי הולמים או בלתי חינוכיים לאנשים מסויימים.
אין הנהלת האתר אחראית לכל נזק העלול להגרם כתוצאה מחשיפה לתכנים אלו.
אחריות זו מוטלת על יוצרי התכנים. הגיל המומלץ לגלישה באתר הינו מעל ל-18.
© כל הזכויות לתוכן עמוד זה שמורות ל
אוריאל זוהר

© 1998-2019 זכויות שמורות לבמה חדשה