In 2008, I wrote a short note with the following title, which I rediscovered recently. I have read it through, and changed a few smaller things in it, and so I thought, it could be published here, as a relic from a part of my personal intellectual history. What I wrote was not meant to be a strict categorization, rather an attempt to identify certain poles in dramatic experience, between which many continuous stages are possible. Well, here it goes:
In the arts and literature, drama is the genre that is basically meant for performance. The word itself comes from the ancient greek for ”to do”, meaning ”action”. During history, in different times and places, many varieties have evolved, from classic Greek dramas to the absurd theatre of the 20th century. This variety is described in many ways by many scholars. In the followings, only briefly some notes will be made based on the effect drama has on its audience. The focus is on how the dramatic act moves the viewer, which will draw a fuzzy border across the field, splitting it up to two regions.
One may talk about monumental dramas, like Hamlet, or other Shakespearean dramas, or dramas of the ancient classics. They are usually built around grand scale emotions, that the dramatic situation creates in characters, and by viewing, in the audience. This will lead to catharsis, ”purification”, in the sense that the viewers’ emotions are moved by the drama, and thus become expressed, and the viewer therefore purified. Therefore, catharsis here comes from identification. Identification of oneself with one of the characters, or rather, with his feelings which are given a monumental setting. It follows that for this to be effective, there should be only one dominant point of view. Like although we know a lot about Claudius, we see the events through Hamlet’s point of view. Monumentality requires that only the part of reality should be considered, or rather be justified, which promote the break-through of the emotion the act is built upon, simply because that is the nature of emotions, they don’t respond logically, they don’t consider. Therefore the heroes and villains are typically personalities of a certain emotion, or other dominant characteristic.
The other branch would be observational dramas, like Brecht’s work. In Brecht’s work, the identification was deliberately disturbed by various alienating effects. This means that there is no catharsis here in the above sense, and the audience is invited to observe, rather than to identify with the characters. Monumentality is put into a kind of vacuum. However, one may experience a different kind of catharsis here, one which is based on recognition. Instead of becoming monumental, this approach moves to the other direction of emotional ”sizes”. In the absurd, it is frequent that the same emotional psychology operates as in monumental dramas, but with minute events - instead of the death of one’s father, the unability to tie a shoelace may become the centre of emotions. We learn something different of our emotions here compared to the monumental where they are maximized and cast out; through a different emphasis, we see where they originate from, and often how they are expressed in our lives. This expression is rarely of grand scale (hence harder to identify with), rather, it is in everyday terms and events, and putting all intensity of accumulated emotions into such means is where the absurd is rooted. Absurd is one way to shift to observation, and the recognition of the emotional process is what brings catharsis, as if for a moment one would see himself from outside. More views can be present here equally dominantly, which often makes the contradiction less sharp, and the consequences suddenly serious.
In the arts and literature, drama is the genre that is basically meant for performance. The word itself comes from the ancient greek for ”to do”, meaning ”action”. During history, in different times and places, many varieties have evolved, from classic Greek dramas to the absurd theatre of the 20th century. This variety is described in many ways by many scholars. In the followings, only briefly some notes will be made based on the effect drama has on its audience. The focus is on how the dramatic act moves the viewer, which will draw a fuzzy border across the field, splitting it up to two regions.
One may talk about monumental dramas, like Hamlet, or other Shakespearean dramas, or dramas of the ancient classics. They are usually built around grand scale emotions, that the dramatic situation creates in characters, and by viewing, in the audience. This will lead to catharsis, ”purification”, in the sense that the viewers’ emotions are moved by the drama, and thus become expressed, and the viewer therefore purified. Therefore, catharsis here comes from identification. Identification of oneself with one of the characters, or rather, with his feelings which are given a monumental setting. It follows that for this to be effective, there should be only one dominant point of view. Like although we know a lot about Claudius, we see the events through Hamlet’s point of view. Monumentality requires that only the part of reality should be considered, or rather be justified, which promote the break-through of the emotion the act is built upon, simply because that is the nature of emotions, they don’t respond logically, they don’t consider. Therefore the heroes and villains are typically personalities of a certain emotion, or other dominant characteristic.
The other branch would be observational dramas, like Brecht’s work. In Brecht’s work, the identification was deliberately disturbed by various alienating effects. This means that there is no catharsis here in the above sense, and the audience is invited to observe, rather than to identify with the characters. Monumentality is put into a kind of vacuum. However, one may experience a different kind of catharsis here, one which is based on recognition. Instead of becoming monumental, this approach moves to the other direction of emotional ”sizes”. In the absurd, it is frequent that the same emotional psychology operates as in monumental dramas, but with minute events - instead of the death of one’s father, the unability to tie a shoelace may become the centre of emotions. We learn something different of our emotions here compared to the monumental where they are maximized and cast out; through a different emphasis, we see where they originate from, and often how they are expressed in our lives. This expression is rarely of grand scale (hence harder to identify with), rather, it is in everyday terms and events, and putting all intensity of accumulated emotions into such means is where the absurd is rooted. Absurd is one way to shift to observation, and the recognition of the emotional process is what brings catharsis, as if for a moment one would see himself from outside. More views can be present here equally dominantly, which often makes the contradiction less sharp, and the consequences suddenly serious.
No comments:
Post a Comment