Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Thursday October 29: The European Avant-Garde: Surrealism ***

'''1.	Goldberg, Roselee. “Surrealist Performance: ‘The Construction of Ruins’.” Performance: Live Art 1909 to the Present. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated, 1979. [PAGES: 49-62]'''

I found the whole "concept/material" concerning Dada movements and performances extremely...frustrating. For one it was hard to read with constant references to people and dates and places that I didn't care about. It would have been much more efficient, I think, too simply describe the concept of it all without carefully and cautiously making sure every minor detail and event, was properly credited. Apart from that, the concept itself, I found, seemed to suggest that Dadaism was only valuable when it was "spontaneous", new, unstructured, and always different. Since, attaining this was inevitable, it seemed only right to see Dadaism "fall." It reminded me of the notion that art is only art when it is extremely unpopular, unknown, and isolated. The moment it becomes common knowledge, accepted, or favourable it ceases to become art, and becomes convention (which as we all know is unacceptable in the ever-changing world of art). To me, this is absolutely ridiculous. A complete load of shit. There is structure in everything, and there is art in everything. Tying your shoe has a certain artistic quality. Even Math is artistic. Formulas, numbers, everything. That's because it's all life. Art is ever-involved with life. Everything life is, art is, and vice versa.

Surrealism is a movement that was derived from Dadaism. Surrealism explores the idea that instead of having many people on stage to be the world, you could have someone to represent that town. According to my understanding, Breton describes surrealism as a pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation. Dadaists and surrealists both wanted to abstain from naturalism.- AZIZ

'''2.	Un Chien Andalou. 1929. Film. Luis Bunuel.''' ''' The article Surrealist Performance: The Construction of Ruins is an article that depicts the transition from Dadaism into Surrealism. To be honest, the first page or so of the article didn’t seem to make sense to me. I could be reading this wrong, but I believe they start talking about the first surrealist performance under the sub heading “Apollinaire and Cocteau”. One of the more noteworthy quotes came from Apollinaire when he said “I have invented the adjective ‘surrealist’....which defines fairly well a tendency in art, which if not the newest thing under the sun, at least has never been formulated as a credo, an artistic and literary faith. This ‘surrealism’ protested against the realism of the theatre” So similar to the Dadaist, Surrealist sought to protest typical conventions of art and theatre of its time. They brought up the idea of "representing crowds with only one person; which confuses me slightly as they don’t seem to explain it any further than that. When describing the actual performance, the article states “Cocteau elaborated this new aesthetic in his first solo production, Les Maries De La Tour Eiffel...It also employed the vaudeville habit of a master and mistress of ceremonies announcing each new sequence and explaining the action to the audience...against a painted set of the Eiffel tower, the work according to Cocteau could have the frightening appearance of a drop of poetry under a microscope. The 'Poetry ended with a child shooting the entire wedding party in an attempt to get at some macaroons" They also brought up the convention of Noise Music in this sub heading, and upon further study I learned that this was basically making sound from anything that you can get your hands on (picking up a chair and smashing it down, banging to objects together, ect) and sometimes also involved chanting of nonsensical poems.

My favourite line in the Goldberg reading was about the resemblance of surrealism to realism, Appolinaire States that “when man wanted to imitate walking he created the wheel, which does not resemble a leg, in the same way [surrealism was created]” I don’t honestly see how this line relates to the line above in the reading (a quote by Appolinaire explaining that he had titled this new art movement ‘surrealism’ and that it was new and there was no philosophy attached to it yet) but I like it anyway. If I were to guess as to how they relate (other than from contemporary sensibilities) is that there were problems in the world. The war was raging and so was allot of the public. Instead of fixing the world to regain it to its old self, the surrealists wanted to create a world that was different. Something new to fuckup.

Although I understand and am grateful for new movements and ways of thinking in art, I also think there is something to be said for tradition. I agree with the initial post when they said that it seems that when art becomes accepted it ceases to be art. Many people seem to think that way now because we are so concerned with doing something that no one has ever seen or heard of before. I truly appreciate the dedication that the human race has towards expanding our culture and our minds. However, I also think that conventional performances that are done in a theatre and follow the norm shouldn't be looked at as not being art.

In the original post it was mentioned that: 'Everything life is, art is, and vice versa." I appreciated this comment because I too believe that everything in this world is so closely linked and it is better that way. In the Roselee Goldberg reading a quote from Picabia is given about his Relache performance. He said that his performance was life, "Life as I like it, all for today, nothing for yesterday, nothing for tomorrow." Art has always been a reflection of life, an intensified version of life or connected in life to some way. Do we need to change this? Do we need to make art more metaphorical? Personally I believe that performing from something real (such as life) is more powerfull. OR

'''3.	Un Chien Andalou. 1929. Film. Luis Bunuel'''.

'''4.	Artaud, Antonin. "The Theatre of Cruelty (First Manifesto)." Trans. Mary Caroline Richards. The Theater and Its Double. New York: Grove Press, 1958. [Pages 89-100].'''

When reading the Theatre of Cruelty first Manifesto I was reminded of our first 360 class together in which Eric asked us all to close our eyes, imagine a theatre and describe it. I remember Eric then asked "why" and that one word pretty much encompasses the general feeling the article gave to me. Why does theatre have to be portrayed the way the audience expects it to be? Why do we have to put labels on a performance? It really got me to thinking about the absolute freedom we have when we decide to put on a performance. Why does the story have to be clear? Why does there need to be a story? Why does something need to appeal to our senses? Could a performance not repel and disgust instead?

Artoud speaks about theatre as though it is a living breathing organism, a feeding, evolving energy that twists and changes form as more people put their thoughts into a project. I think when someone puts their heart and soul or "metaphysical self" into a work, it becomes its own entity, maybe just because of the effort pulled to create it. How do you guys think a love of a work changes the outcome? Do you think maybe and audience can feel the difference when something has been a life's work or an improvised creation? Is there really a difference in how much each of those creations is cared for?

Language is repeatedly written of by Artoud. I think he is trying to explain how he would like to abandon the direct and streamlined meanings of words and instead create an almost musical way of communication. By appealing to our deepest instincts, could any random words be used to get across a completely opposite point simply by the way they are pronounced?

The word, "Cruelty"

What does it mean to you?

Antonin Artaud spoke of cruelty (french: cruauté) not in the sense of being violent, but the cruelty it takes for actors to completely strip away their masks and show an audience a truth that they do not want to see. He believed that text had been a tyrant over meaning, and advocated, instead, for a theatre made up of a unique language that lay halfway between thought and gesture. Artaud described the spiritual in physical terms, and believed that all expression is physical expression in space. I believe that the theatre of cruelty was meant to make the audience think about what’s going on in the society around them. - AZIZ!

Individuals may agree that a performance needs to portray a sense of meaning or relation. Although this structure may be more appealing to some, I believe that a performance is what one makes of it. While watching a performance I reflect on the impact that it has had on me, structured or not, my view on a performance as a whole is determined by a performance that had captured my attention. A performance that only includes lights and sound can potentially be far more interesting than an actor “acting” like someone in which they are not. This performance creation class has given me a better insight to the possibilities that the art of drama has to offer. I have discovered a new meaning to “acting” and my imagination feels a lot more free and comfortable when it comes to creating a performance.

Like the comment above, i do believe that a performance is what you make it. however at the same time, i believe that there has to be something within the performance that captures me as an audience member. i dont necessarily need to relate or love the performance so to speak, but if i dont find any "meat and potatoes" in the performance, im not going to enjoy it no matter how positive my attitude was. For example, as a traditionally actress, i find it difficult to watch these expressionist or dadaist performances simply because i dont understand why they have to be so abstract. this art form and its abstractness goes against the art form in which i participate in, which i suppose we would call conventional theatre. also like the post above, i find my imagination has been broadened by this class as well as i liked being able to find out "why" it is i do what i do, however i dont feel ready to abandon my traditional acting training for schools of thought like surrealism.

To answer the question, cruelty means one person being mean to another person for the sake of being mean. Behavior that is completely uncalled for, there is no desire for revenge but there is a person being rude, harsh,bitchy, for no good reason. To comment on surrealism, I personally don't think that I would personally enjoy it--maybe I am far too conventional when it comes to my preferences but the idea of noise music, and Theatre of Cruelty would drive me insane and bother me. I think there is a way of opening up the eyes of an audience member without actually inflicting pain on them. I do however understand the idea of false reality. He was also a niahlist, the idea that life does not have meaning. That brings up the idea to me, is art created for art's sake or is art created for another reason? In Artouds article the part I found most interesting was on page 100, "Works from the Elizabethan theatre stripped of their text and retaining only the accouterments of period, situations, character and actions." I think I found this so interesting because, without text imagine the things one could do with works. With just the action and characters, it could be something totally different. I would like to take it to the level so you don't need the period, or situations. Take the characters and the action to something totally different. Now that would be awesome.

We are often taught in society the difference between humans and animals and when situations arise in which we see the definition between the two fade, we become discomforted and painfully aware of our primal instincts and barbarianism that has been repressed so deeply. These feelings are pushed to the surface in Theatre of Cruelty. While reading the manifesto on Theatre of Cruelty I was able to appreciate this art form’s unique and effective way of getting its message across but I realized that this type of art form is not something I would like to experience.

The quote which caught my attention most “Kind of unique language halfway between gesture and thought” It is such a different way of looking at how more can be brought out of a piece of art. We rely so much on what is set for us from the text of a production, to the set. We need to go beyond these boarders and find something that is inventive all on its own. Our minds are a chamber of so much information and thought, if we could bring that out into the way we express ourselves in art it would be pure. I shouldn’t be classifying anything because this manifesto says “Language cannot be defined except for its possibilities.”

To two of the posts above, I don't feel surrealism and dadaism are in place to crush our need for conventional theater, but they are in place to give us a different perspective on performance and its purpose. The thing that I love most about dadaism is that it required a curiosity from outsiders in order to keep it alive and moved it forward. People believed that the dadaists were going to do something drastic and therefore showed up (whether or not the dadaist actually did what they said they were going to do is another story) and this is what motivated the dadaists further. Also, when you look at the surrealists, you need examine dreams in the same way - some don't make sense on their own, but it may simply be in place to evoke feelings that only you can understand by drawing some conclusions based on the flow of your own life, or even in the context of that very moment in your life. Some of the most beautiful pieces of art in the world may only last as long as an idea or a single moment. As said in the article, "Life as I like it, all for today, none for yesterday, none for tomorrow."--Cody.thompson 08:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing I’ve noticed with the more recent readings and the manifestos of the isms, is that the creators are extremely discontented with the status quo. Instead of simply changing slightly, they create entirely different perspectives. Everything seems like it needs to be extreme, excessive, and just completely opposite of anything else in place. It’s like walking into a 360 class, where everything needs to be as fucked up as possible, in order to rid ourselves of the norm. The theatre of cruelty also reminds me a lot of futurism, in that they were both radical movements that attempted to change society’s views.

So, I’m attempting to write out what I feel Artaud is talking about within his manifesto. These could be completely wrong and up for debate but this is my interpretation;

A focus of the beauty and religious icons of spectacle (masks, costumes, lighting, sound) and used to invoke a sensual response.

Degradation of language and speech into movements, music, harmonies, visuals (masks) but to a point where the broken pieces are laid out to a code or rhythm that makes it replicate-able but separate from it’s original meaning.

Music is vital and another character unto itself, moving in harmonies and discords like a physical being

A re-examination or recreation of musical instruments to get them to produce sounds they have never made or to discover new sounds to introduce, even to the finding of sounds that can reach piercing heights...

Light must also be re-examined and recreated because it’s current use it outdated and cannot create the desired responses. Light must be able to pair appropriately with musical tones to create these sensations.

Costumes should absolutely not be modern dress and instead lean more towards a traditionally, ritualistic ideal, a beauty in the traditions that gave birth to them.

The removal of the stage and the creation of a blank playing space in which the audience is at center, enveloped completely in the goings on of the performance.

Any masks or props used should be of abnormal proportions and cannot be anything in which a stereotype or meme is required to comprehend it.

There is no set. The set is made up of the disproportionate objects within a performance.

...not sure what Immediacy means but dictionary says “immediate presence of an object of knowledge to the mind, without any distortions, inferences, or interpretations, and without involvement of any intermediate agencies.” I think I need to think on that more.

Written works will be explored through themes instead of through a performance of the written word.

The actor is both a man and an instrument and, being vital to the performance, must be effective in his own work.

The overall performance must follow an adhered to rhythm so there is no step or beat out of place and all falls as it must.

All theatre must have an element of cruelty. (Cruel being ‘willfully or knowingly causing distress or pain to others, but can also mean ‘strict, unrelenting, stern, rigid.’) I really am unclear on this cruelty element. I don’t think it has to do with bodily harm though.

A reworking of classic works with a focus on reconstruction, eroticism, and cruelty

And then there is the last little bit on pg 8. Where I feel that he begins to explain the choice on the word ‘cruelty’ a little bit more. Take a quick look at if but I don’t want to quote it. We all have the reading. It’s the bit on letters.

And to conclude; I really get the feeling that the people writing these manifestos have in their head a clear and distinct picture of what they are describing but that what they are describing is really hard to explain. (Naturally.) And as such, they rant and describe and go on with their clear view of they mean while I’m left in the dust, struggling with their phrases and ideas and getting hung up on stupid things like “Why did he just use the word Oriental there? What is particularly ‘Oriental’ about a form of expression? What is it being or not being Oriental have to do with anything? Is he referencing something I know nothing about or is that more of an adjective? Is there something I need to go look up? But WHAT is it I need to look up? Is it the word ‘Oriental?’ Or is there some sort of Oriental theatre form that I am completely in the dark about?’ In any case, I wish I could understand better what these guys are trying to say to me. It was important enough for them to put it to paper and publish it. Confusing to me, clear to them.