the coronation of the coroners
the , so called, "theatre" (as we know it, see it and experience it)....has been dead for such a long time that those that are involved in it are simply taking pictures of a corpse. they are portraying a portrait, they are re_presenting the barely preserved , they are giving (what they believe to be ) life's blood to a fossil.
one of the forms of communication that is supposedly one of the most direct, as far as it's impact on the viewer, is autistic and has imploded.
It communicates no_thing to no_one.
One of the main reasons is that it has been infiltrated by the league of philology (and this league is un_aware of what is called-radical philology and its connection to cognitive philology)
if it is literature then let us read it
if it is not then let us experience it
what we do not accept is a dressed up reading party of dead texts which is what the league of philology offers us
we turn our backs to the march of the coroners
this procession has no desire
exit extinction !
one of the forms of communication that is supposedly one of the most direct, as far as it's impact on the viewer, is autistic and has imploded.
It communicates no_thing to no_one.
One of the main reasons is that it has been infiltrated by the league of philology (and this league is un_aware of what is called-radical philology and its connection to cognitive philology)
if it is literature then let us read it
if it is not then let us experience it
what we do not accept is a dressed up reading party of dead texts which is what the league of philology offers us
we turn our backs to the march of the coroners
this procession has no desire
exit extinction !
posted by Vinqo Denken at 3:46 PM
11 Comments:
the theatrical act serves first and foremost the actor himself and not the audience, it communicates the actors desire that implodes within him
this is exactly the egoism that pervades the theory(and practice)of acting
if the theatrical act serves first and foremost the actor himself then the actor should "perform" his/her actions in his/her own room.
desire imploding has no force of communication to "the other" and is therefore of no use in communication and therefore negates the act of acting itself/except if it is used for the self-cleansing of the actors persona , in which case i say:
i do not want psychology set before me, as much as i do not want philology
THE ACTOR THAT SERVES HIMSELF SERVES NO ONE (IN THE END< NOT EVEN HIMSELF)
more to follow if necessary
for further texts on the communication "tools" of the actor and the act of acting and therefore communication/transmission, i would suggest to Sovereign Actres to at least look at some basic texts(perhaps begin with the modern classics, such as grotowski)and to comment again
i dare say that if the actor didn't need to display himself before communicating anything he would not be on the stage....
thinking in general cannot be defined as psychology or philology
an actor that displays (?)
is a storefront (also, personally, i do not care what an actors needs are and certainly do not care to see them on stage)
i dare say that your views on acting are out_dated
if this is the acting that interests you, so be it
note: this is not about thinking in general, nor are these notes on cognition, but on a specific form of communication
that which is called acting and therefore theatre(in all it's mutations)
once you have finished grotowski..go to Kantor
it is quite a leap
but......he's the man ( as they say)
how can i finish sth i have never started when i'm forced to by patronizing comments?
insecurity doesn't have dates to be outdated.
acting is innate, give it whatever form you please.
no force at all
at your own leisure...take your time
and
do not confuse the direct text(language)with patronizing language
grotowski to kantor is a leap...it was for me, perhaps it might not be for you (i do wish that it is not)
oh yes
by the way
othing is innate
nothing is innate
to act, to do things (in some fashion) is innate as in natural, no hard feelings and no need to wish anything.... ε δε θα τσακωθούμε κιόλας. byeeeee
to dicusss what is natural or not seems to drift off into a completley other area(actually many areas..)
it seems that there could/should (etc...) a difference between the , by nature, moving of a finger or drooling at the site(smell) of food and the act of acting
yes, and no needs
if you have none
and if you, then surely you will find them yourself
also....mporoume kai na tsakothoume
distihos e singrousi einai kati pou leipie kai apo ton "dialogo" alla kai sigoura (gia na epistrepsoume sto arhiko antikimeno tis sizitisis) apo to theatro
now who's outdated by working with (chinese) boxes, as in categories cause even they are still some form of container, whereas to say natural means to practically include everything in nature, the whole interrelated scope of being, given and not given (including spectrality). c if this is you ase mas savatiatika kai kalutera na pame gia poto sto kentro, aman aderfe.... let's drool over a drink by acting...
i meant chinese rocks....
Post a Comment
<< Home