演劇批評の問題
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
The difficutly of theatre criticism derives from that of defining the theatre as an art form. The work of theatre (if one may use such a term) is not anything real and objective but a phenomenon produced on the basis of the relation between actors and the audience. This phenomenon is the object of theatre criticism. To make its problem clear, we have to analyze the structure of this phenomenon at first. The theatre is generally regarded as mimesis of action. But an action is a Gestalt with meanings, necessarily understood under a language form. And it is always someone's action, not a mere abstract one. Therefore one can describe an action instead of acting it by himself. This is the ground for the epic. But to speak is in itself an action, and that action does not endorse the content of the description. For example, when one says, "I am dead, " the description is contradicted by the very action of speaking these words. Every speech conceals the real text : "I say that..." The speech, "I am dead", could be rewritten as "I say that I am dead." The contradiction in the speech is that between "I say" and "that..." Every speech, that is, every action, has this conflict to a greater or lesser degree. In everyday life we minimize or simply ignore this contradiction. But sometimes we find ourselves in the situation which forces us to face it. It cannot be replaced by any description. To show it, one must present the action by himself. Here begins the theatre. But the contradiction automatically requires the judgment whether an action is right or wrong. In fact it is the judgment that makes clear the contradiction as such. That is why the drama takes a dialogue form and why the audience is indispensable for the work of theatre. But when an actor speaks on the stage, his speech conceals "I show that he says that..." 'He' is, needless to say, a dramatic character. So, the audience sees and judges the double contradictions. If an emphasis is put on "I show, " the theatre tends to be epical. If, on the other hand, "I show" is almost completely concealed, it tends to be lyrical. In both cases, the contradiction in the action tends to be ignored. The essential feature of the theatre is the recognition of the contradiction between an action and the judgment on it. There also exists a social institution whose form is parallel to that of theatre. That is the trial at the law court. Here, as there, the third party puts the judgment on a past action presented by the conflicting parties in the prasent form. To judge something is essentially a social action. The value of the theatre, therefore, comes from its social significance in the future. The significance of court judgment is determined by the law, and the fairness of adjudication is examined by the higher court. But no law binds the theatre. Theatre is rather a place where new laws are made. Law court depends on jurisprudence ; theatre on ethics and philosophy. Then, the theatre critic is, so to speak, a higher court judge. But he is also participating in law making as a member of the audience at the theatre. So for the theatre criticism the whele phenomenon becomes a kind of theatre within theatre.
- 美学会の論文
- 1975-09-30
美学会 | 論文
- ダヴィッド派の中のアングル
- ダヴィッド派の中のアングル(美学会第四十六回全国大会報告)
- アクションペインティングの変容とその政治経済的条件について(第五十八回美学会全国大会発表要旨)
- アウグスティヌスにおける両義性の美学 : 「アウグスティヌス美学」を構築するoxymoron的語法の射程
- ストア学派における詩的言語の位置(美学会第四十六回全国大会報告)