Friday, October 31, 2014
Monday, October 27, 2014
# 8 Time
I don't "tweet" much and had never heard of Tweeter plays until this class. I can see where it can be entertaining to "watch" or read these plays. Sometimes it makes me feel that it is close to "gossip." Now is gossip considered theatre of not? I don't know. I guess it could be. I can understand that writing a complete play (Twitter Play) in 140 words of less could be challenging and would require some careful thought. It would be interesting to see some of these 140 word Tweeter plays performed on a conventional stage. In this sense, it could reinforce the "reality effect" in a way that most "theatre" goers could understand. At the same time, you could very well take the long running "Tweet Plays" and read them on a stage in front of the audience and it would become a "Duration" play. That would be interesting to witness.
I've never seen a duration play before and I find that it would be very interesting to witness. I would prefer to see one such as the Quizoola rather than Speak Bitterness because I think that the answers to the questions in "real time" would be more entertaining that just listening to someones confessions.
As far as the second question goes, it would be difficult for me to think of what would come next in the evolution of "reality" theatre. I did find a web site about a company called "Reality Theatre Productions." It seems to me that they could come up with different approaches to "Reality Theatre." The executive producer, Dr Mark Lerner says that his company is, "An Innovative Theatrical Genre" and " The most authentic and challenging role one can play in the theatre, on screen, and in life is oneself." To me, this means that no matter who you are or where you are, if you are "playing" yourself, you are participating in theatre. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be on the stage. I hope that answers the second question.
http://www.realitytheatreproductions.com/IN_SESSION/REALITY_THEATRE_PRODUCTIONS.html
I've never seen a duration play before and I find that it would be very interesting to witness. I would prefer to see one such as the Quizoola rather than Speak Bitterness because I think that the answers to the questions in "real time" would be more entertaining that just listening to someones confessions.
As far as the second question goes, it would be difficult for me to think of what would come next in the evolution of "reality" theatre. I did find a web site about a company called "Reality Theatre Productions." It seems to me that they could come up with different approaches to "Reality Theatre." The executive producer, Dr Mark Lerner says that his company is, "An Innovative Theatrical Genre" and " The most authentic and challenging role one can play in the theatre, on screen, and in life is oneself." To me, this means that no matter who you are or where you are, if you are "playing" yourself, you are participating in theatre. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be on the stage. I hope that answers the second question.
http://www.realitytheatreproductions.com/IN_SESSION/REALITY_THEATRE_PRODUCTIONS.html
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Space
I suppose that you could put most any theatrical production in a found space. Take for example McBeth in the article we read. They were "performing" it in a building with several stories and each room was a different part of the story. The same could hold true for performances like The 13th Gate in Baton Rouge. It is performed in an old building which when it first started, was a found space. Over time and many shows over the years, it has been become a transformed space. My son was is a production called put on by Bethany Church which was held in a found and then converted space. They held it in the parking lot of the old Tinsel Town Theater (a found space) and set up several tents (converted space) for the performances. The audience had to walk through each space and experience the "performance" and at the end they were invited to sit down with a person (one on one) discuss their experience.
Another time, I was at the National Boy Scout Jamboree and our "exhibit" was called "The Underground Mine." It was held on an Army Base (the found space) and we had several huge shipping containers (like the kind you find on an 18-wheeler) and converted them into different areas of the "mine" The participants walked through the experience including a simulated elevator down into the mine and a simulated earthquake (in which the ground actually moved). At the end, they experienced the feeling of a train coming at them (using very bright lights shining at them) as they "escaped" through another tunnel. We had another shipping container with monitors in which other people could see watch the expressions of the participants faces (through infra-red cameras) as they stumbled through the dark.
I was thinking of a show that could be done is such a way as a "found" space. I think that the show Raisin could be a cool show. It could be held in an old apartment building. Each floor or each apartment could be part of each scene. I think that the audience could get the feel of what it is like in the world of the play. I think that this could be an instance in which I would agree with Kanter's view in which the audience would not necessarily expect what would happen next especially if the audience did not know what the original story is. In the case of The Underground Mine, The audience did not know what was going to happen since there was no real story or script that had been arranged in which the audience had previous knowledge of. That made each part of the experience new to them.
Another time, I was at the National Boy Scout Jamboree and our "exhibit" was called "The Underground Mine." It was held on an Army Base (the found space) and we had several huge shipping containers (like the kind you find on an 18-wheeler) and converted them into different areas of the "mine" The participants walked through the experience including a simulated elevator down into the mine and a simulated earthquake (in which the ground actually moved). At the end, they experienced the feeling of a train coming at them (using very bright lights shining at them) as they "escaped" through another tunnel. We had another shipping container with monitors in which other people could see watch the expressions of the participants faces (through infra-red cameras) as they stumbled through the dark.
I was thinking of a show that could be done is such a way as a "found" space. I think that the show Raisin could be a cool show. It could be held in an old apartment building. Each floor or each apartment could be part of each scene. I think that the audience could get the feel of what it is like in the world of the play. I think that this could be an instance in which I would agree with Kanter's view in which the audience would not necessarily expect what would happen next especially if the audience did not know what the original story is. In the case of The Underground Mine, The audience did not know what was going to happen since there was no real story or script that had been arranged in which the audience had previous knowledge of. That made each part of the experience new to them.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Performance Art vs Theatre
Question one is really up to the individual. I don't think that we will ever completely lose performance art in which there is a live body performing. Yes, today we can incorporate other media with in the productions but live performance will always to a viable source of entertainment. Look at Frankenstein as an example. Of course this is more "theatre" than performance art. There was many different projections which really enhanced the live performance of the actors. In this case, we are not in danger of, as your post says, "losing the only truly present artistic expression." It's just like when televisions first came on the scene and people thought that would be the end of the movie experience. Televisions did not replace the movies and the theatre or live performances will never be able to be replaced.
On the other hand, some performance art can be caught on film which is a chance to witness a particular performance that would not otherwise be witnessed. The clip attached is from 1971, a time in which most of the students at LSU were not born and yet it was caught on film and audio. This performance, called The Shoot, is preserved on film so that other generations can see it again and again. True, it is not the same as actually witness it, but all the same, it has been preserved.
As far as the second questions goes, I found an article about performance art that say that technology itself can become performance art. This article talks about the history of performance art as far back as 1919 and though the 1980s. The end of the article say that,
"an 80's pop musician made the news for Performance Art pieces which
use a Microsoft® PowerPoint presentation as the crux of the performance. Where Performance Art goes from here is only a matter of combining
technology and imagination. In other words, there are no foreseeable
boundaries for Performance Art."
In this case, the live person was "performing" by using the computer. If a person just sat in front of a computer in a public place, would that be a piece of performance art? What if they sat in a public place and did nothing but play video games? Is that also a type of performance art? As far a having an impact on the theatre, what if they did it on the stage and nothing else? Who knows? The way people today communicate with each other via text or smart phones, if done in an artistic way could be it be the same as a performance art? It makes for an interesting idea to think about.
The Shoot
http://arthistory.about.com/cs/arthistory10one/a/performance.htm
On the other hand, some performance art can be caught on film which is a chance to witness a particular performance that would not otherwise be witnessed. The clip attached is from 1971, a time in which most of the students at LSU were not born and yet it was caught on film and audio. This performance, called The Shoot, is preserved on film so that other generations can see it again and again. True, it is not the same as actually witness it, but all the same, it has been preserved.
As far as the second questions goes, I found an article about performance art that say that technology itself can become performance art. This article talks about the history of performance art as far back as 1919 and though the 1980s. The end of the article say that,
"an 80's pop musician made the news for Performance Art pieces which
use a Microsoft® PowerPoint presentation as the crux of the performance. Where Performance Art goes from here is only a matter of combining
technology and imagination. In other words, there are no foreseeable
boundaries for Performance Art."
In this case, the live person was "performing" by using the computer. If a person just sat in front of a computer in a public place, would that be a piece of performance art? What if they sat in a public place and did nothing but play video games? Is that also a type of performance art? As far a having an impact on the theatre, what if they did it on the stage and nothing else? Who knows? The way people today communicate with each other via text or smart phones, if done in an artistic way could be it be the same as a performance art? It makes for an interesting idea to think about.
The Shoot
http://arthistory.about.com/cs/arthistory10one/a/performance.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)