Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Thursday September 10: Introduction Continued: Considering Performance Creation

'''1.	Barba, Eugenio. The Deep Order Called Turbulence. TDR: The Drama Review, Winter 2000, Vol. 44 Issue 4, pp. 56-67. -- ''' In Eugino Barba's writings it is evident that the metaphysical world is quite prominent in every aspect of performance creation and with that, the theatre. He focuses on simultaneously bringing together the three dramaturgy's(organic or dynamic dramaturgy, narrative dramaturgy, and dramaturgy of changing states) by using his philosophical theories such as that of chaos and order. With the notion of the equilibrium between chaos and order Barba states that there is most definitely evidence of turbulence. Turbulence is a violation of the order, and this can evidently be compared to a day in the theatre. There are times in performance when things are chaotic, and times when everything seems to be in order. For example, turbulence in the theoretical world can be translated in to the world of performance with something as simple as having a bad rehearsal. A bad rehearsal disrupts the order of the performance therefore Barba's theories are quite verifiable. With this comes his idea's of confusion as neither a beneficial or detrimental force. It may have been pre conceived as negative, but in actuality it forces someone, such as a performer or a director to grow and discover what it was they had been thriving for in the moments of chaos. With creative work, there is always waste. Things are always evolving in performance and with this evolution comes trial and error. The things that are not needed are thrown away as waste and will only help the creation thrive. Every metaphysic aspect that Barba uncovered was distinctly translatable to performance in all of it's aspects. --Janelle.kraemer 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agreed with Janelle's comments on Barba's belief on order and disorder.

"Order and disorder are not two opposing options, but two poles that coexist and reinforce on another reciprocally. The quality of the tension created between them is an indication of the fertility of the creative process"--Barba

I am in total agreement with Barba with this statement due to the incredible discipline that is needed when performing. If an actor or artist was not disciplined and did not show up for rehearsal or a performance prepared--on time, lines and actions known etc. then the rest of the cast, crew, production team, and line of directors would have to take a step back and wait on that particular actor; or if it were a solo piece then the performance may not go up in time. That is where order needs to exist. However, fortunately, there is also the importance needed with disorder or the freedom. With creation and performance the artist needs to be open minded and allow the creative process to take place. With that creative process it is often difficult to attach strings and place rules or borders on or around it--meaning the creative process is difficult to harness because creativity takes time. That is where the other end of the pole lies. I also completely agree with the analogy of the "storm" in this context. To further this metaphor, one might suggest that the "order" is an artist preparing for the storm by putting together the first aid kit, the matches, candles, blanket and batteries or in other words preparing and rehearsing. The disorder that the artist needs is the beauty of the storm--the actual performance. --Courtney Keen September 8 2009 8:41pm

As with Courtney, I completely agree with both Janelle and Barba in their ideas about order and disorder. In addition to the point made by Courtney -about the artist needing to be open minded of the creative process in order to all the process to take place- Barba's essay brought up the idea that the artist, or actor in this case, must allow themselves to become completely involved with the actions they perform on stage. This meaning that the actor must believe themselves in what they are doing and do it honestly and realistically. If this is done accurately, only then can the audience logically believe what they are seeing on stage and enter a state of suspended disbelief. In other words the actions "must appear credible". In addition to this, Barba brings up the idea that all actions performed on stage must have "their granite foundations". This meaning that the actor must believe and know why they are doing what they are doing. The stronger the foundations, the more credible an action is. The more credible and action is, the more likely the spectators will buy into it. Barba states this by saying "The granite foundations are their quality of credibility, their ability to stimulate the attention of the spectator and to be rooted in the body-mind of the actor." Barba also states they "granite foundations" should be "based on their own particular independent logic" meaning that it is up to the actor alone to create the meaning and reasoning behind all actions performed by their character while on stage.--Elisa Mancina 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In Janelle's response she mentioned that Barba recognizes that turbulence played a major role in the chaos and order of the subject being studied. Though I agree with this statement (and the responces of Courtney, Elisa and Janelle), I find it to be th least interesting part of the essay (for me, anyways). The thing that caught my eye the most as the first sentence of the reading. "There exists an invisible revolt, apparently painless yet infusing every hour of work, and this is what nourishes 'technique'." I read the rest of the article 9really, I did), but kept coming back to the first four paragraphs, trying to make sense of the 130-or so- words. After read them again for the 4th time, I realized that I too felt like I was being sustained (in the acting orld) by my personal revolt. By abandoning my old acting ways and breaking down the wall of insecurities I have towards acting, I've grown so much more, and use that growth to help others revolt and therefore continue the nourishing process. Revolting against our comfortable ways nourishes our technique, and just like Barba said, "I do theatre because I want to preserve my freedom to refuse".--Nicoleporter 05:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the basis of almost all of Barba's writings, i especially enjoyed the analysis of the extent of a performer's freedom within their own role, "I do theatre because I want to preserve my freedom to refuse certain rules and values of the world around me. But the opposite is also true; I am forced or encouraged to refuse them because I do theatre." This excerpt explains readily how theatre gives us a small temporary freedom to express ourselves in way which perhaps we would never have dared tried in our normal day to day lives. However, Barba also points out that we are excersizing this freedom only because we are technically obliged to by theatre, which unroots the underlying question, to what extent do we obtain true freedom of expression and so forth, in theatre? How much do we as artists give up and release in order to gain the personal satisfaction of our vision? I was also intruiged by the small explanation of the importance of fortuitness in theatre. Fortuitness meaning, happening by accident or chance. Barba explains that Fortuitness is attractive to the spectator, and it is important also to impose upon the spectator that fortuitness happened because the actor prepared themselves for it. An Audience is more inclined to believe an honest or, organic performance. Something that could possibly take place in reality despite the unreality of the situation on the stage. This is opposed to a mechanical or inorganic performance in which an audience would reject the outcome as credible. Spectators enjoy theatre when it practices both Scylla and Charybdis so it is important for some events to occur as they would perhaps in the logical mind to seem believable,"...we must not forget Pasteur:"Chance only favors minds which are prepared."

I agree with Janelle's views on order and disorder but I was quite fond of Barba's opinions in the sections of coherence, and catastrophe and density. I believe like Barba that, "they [the actions] should be based on their own particular independent logic." I feel that for an actor to fully connect with an action it should be from their own creation not from what a director or write forced upon them. At the same time it is important for the actor to keep with the script but be creative and this view of independent logic is a very creative out put for the actor to use to his or her best ability to make their character different and sometimes better than the expectation. But the point in Barba's thinking that really had me thinking was what he said about density and how it "disorientates the spectators." It is always fascinating to go to a production and many events happening forcing the audience to think and differentiate between events. I feel that using the multi objective and possible catastrophe way to reach an audience is effective because it keeps people on their toes, and that is something that everyone needs in their lives.

In storm and meticulousness, Barba explores the choice to do theatre, stating that it is “a dfifficult answer to a difficult situation”. I think this relates to many actors and actresses in today’s society. So many people have a divided view of what an actor is, including those that succeed, and become big Hollywood stars and Broadway performers, or those that don’t and are starving, struggling, and left fending for themselves for the rest of their lives. Because of that viewpoint, I think there are many people, although wanting to, are afraid to try to act, or admit that they enjoy theatre and the dramatic arts.

I agree with Barba's views on "The Technique of Disorientation." I believe actors and directors should be given their freedom to develop their characters and make their own assumptions about their work. It is important to make the character you are playing your own and not be influenced by the ideas and assumptions that others have made. Barba compares a performance to being "its own living organism" growing, breathing, and changing as time goes on; it is the actors creation and therefore it is also important not to be swayed by previous versions of the production you may have seen or heard about. Even when developing relationships with other characters the actor needs to establish their side of the events and understand how their character feels towards the others and how they react to them. This "chaotic panorama" can lead to new discoveries and multi-dimensional characters with individual thoughts and feelings that have never been brought out in that character in previous productions. Because no two people are exactly similar, an exact repeat of an actor's interpretation of a character is vastly difficult.

Waste: In Barba’s article, she brings up the idea of waste. She uses a quote from someone name Kipling stating “You cannot learn to write if you do not learn to discard, and in order to cut a text in a way that is beneficial, the rejected parts must be of an equally high quality as those which remain” This quote is basically stating that in order to create something of worth, you have to find it first through your own mistakes and experiences. I believe this idea also connects back to the ideas of extracting the difficult from the difficult. The difficult being the ability to write something noteworthy, as well as the capability to do so without a preconceived idea of what to expect.

Eugene Barbara also states that the waste must be as equally high in quality as the high quality parts that remain in order to be able to reject them later on. This shows us that you can’t begin to rehearse a performance knowing that some actions will be a waste. This knowledge comes only after the action has been done and then through the process of learning and creative experiment, the action can be replaced or modified with something of higher quality. Eugene Barbara’s statement also implores us not to shy away from the risk or challenge of a creation because of the fear that it will be thrown away. Sifting through the best to find the very best is not an easy process and you have to be willing to let go of some parts to achieve the final product.

The final section of the article can easily be compared to our everyday lives and the difficulties and uncertainties connected to a performance career. Barba questions why someone would be so willing to use a process which can bring such distress to the worker. "In order to create a work that lives and stands alone, that belongs to me, in which I recognize myself, yet which does not need my presence to go on existing in the senses, the memory and the actions of others" We all want to be recognized for our own hard work and many wish to make a difference in the lives of people who see said work whether a life changing experience or a "Drop of water" No matter how daunting the journey the ends are worth the means when one has pride in what they have striven to create. Perhaps the creation is so significant that one is willing to overlook the discomfort and pain they had to pay.

I entirely understand and agree with Janelle’s ideas on Turbulence, like life theatre too can have its ups and downs. I as well quite enjoyed Barba’s” Catastrophe and Destiny”. Two extremes can ironically work well together. Why should theatre be predictable? When something is a mystery and when you mind is being pulled in so many directions you can’t help but simply wonder the possibilities of the outcome. “Destiny disorientates the spectators, allowing them to extract the difficult from the difficult, shaking them out of the familiar trains of thought” When one has an Idea on anything really it is destiny that allows the mind to go further and in theatre that can be incredibly imperative. It may not always turn out right and that is when catastrophe comes into play. But without error there is never room to learn and expand your own view on acting, character work, working with others etc. In theatre you gain knowledge of acceptance, and no matter how diverse destiny and catastrophe may be I believe they go hand in hand.[ Diana Sposito]

In the article, The Deep Order Called Turbulence, Eugenio Barba shares his thoughts on the craftsmanship of acting and his deep love for the theater. He says “I do theatre because I want to preserve my freedom to refuse certain rules and values of the world around me. But the opposite is also true I am forced or encouraged to refuse them because I do theater.” What I truly think is neat is the fact that he believes that an actor must always reflect on his work because he will learn and benefit from it. “Now I can begin. All the mistakes I have made up to now are teaching me the picture I must paint.”

This article speaks of the dichotomy of art. Though nominally it is about theatre, it could as easily be speaking of composing a musical score, carving a sculpture, or even creating a dance. Each of this contains the same elements spoken of in the article. The same seeming opposite ideas come together in art and help to create something of beauty. Are there not contained in any art both order and disorder, confusion and lucidity, emotion and purest control? Without both poles balanced with extreme cautiousness the entire thing would fall apart like a house of cards nudged out of alignment. Both together, however, give the art an air of the natural; make it the piece which people experience and think, "wow, that looked easy" not knowing the many hours of work that went into it before they even knew it existed.

It is obvious that Barba works in a distinctly original way, and as of such, he creates original pieces. We all want to be and create original, genuine and memorable pieces of art. According to Barba, to practice turbulence and density and find that third dramaturgy (the dramaturgy of changing states) would be ideal for all artists. Yet, Barba does note that while pursuing the ever elusive 'dramaturgy of changing states' he, and whoever he is working with, leaves everything on the stage, setting themselves up for hurt, disappointment and a loss of heart. Someone mentioned that the life on stage reflects reality and I couldn't agree more. In life and on stage we need to find the order, the drive to continue, through the emotional chaos. Without the emotional chaos there wouldn't be any passion - an artist's most important tool.

We need to take a minute here to discuss this “tool”. I wholly agree that passion is the artist’s greatest gift to the world but one need to ask, when considering its importance, why? Passion is the artist’s interest and devotion to the piece. The artist strives to display this passion to his/her audience by whatever means possible and whatever method necessary. Weather it be through chaos or confusion or doing and re-doing and pulling apart and re-creation the objective is to create something that the invoked the audience with some sort of thought or emotion. This, as I understand it, is the dramaturgy of challenging states, when the piece is no longer about the actions and words or the color of paint on a canvass, but the raw and powerful emotion behind it. That is the power that the artist wields with his/her prevailing tool of passion.

Barba speaks a lot about extracting the difficult from the difficult, a process he is fond of referring to and indeed utilizing within his own article. I hope I was not the only one that was re-reading passages for the hope that the conflicting and contradictory statements would make more sense. I was beginning to wonder at the irony of it, he takes the time [in my perception] to clear things up a bit in the end. What I got from Barba’s idea of ‘difficult from the difficult,” is the idea of the complexity of a performance is ‘difficult’ to understand and perhaps harder to explain. It’s a process that is about challenging yourself as a creator and about not being afraid to let go, to frustrate yourself and others, to look behind the curtain of your own experiences and to whether the storm no matter how it may come. That, and to just suck it up and don’t take the easy way out. It’s about learning, becoming better, achieving artistic magnificence. [Kira Sams]

Something nobody has quite touched on specifically yet is Barba's section on "the technique of disorientation" wherein he suggests that each actor must follow a seperate track and find their own story completely disconnected from the director's story or those of the other actors. However within the same section he seems to say that this all has to do with a search for relationships between the diverging paths, that there is a necessity to create coherency among the seperately travelled paths. This seems very contradictory (like most of the essay) but there is some sense to it, he mentions that by forging one's own path of confusion you may achieve unexpected solutions. Disorientation it seems generates a magnetic field which "stimulates and generates a contiguity of material, prospects and proposals" - Barba. Thus by creating disorientation it becomes easier to orient oneself with others. Although I believe Barba doesn't like the idea of anything being easy.[Noah Herbst-Aylesworth]

I partly agree with Noah, but there is not a complete disconnection between the members of the artistic process. The individual paths of the actors, directors, etc. show the nature of chaos dues to their very individual patterns, goals, objectives, obstacles, that make their role completely unique, but they are all drawn towards that single path of Scylla, where there is a uniform, complete, and singular product. He uses the idea of the underground rivers all being connected somehow, yet following their own paths. This allows for his idea of chaos, but this chaos falls within the bounds of creating a probability of the paths necessarily diverging at different points. Barba wants to allow for that freedom in acting, while still having that very necessary consistency.