without using the door
Previous page12
    [1946]

    Gilles pulling off trick of not putting on act? Shadow of involuntary smile tension and tics of defense. Stage is shelter and no protection at all.

  • [1949]

    How does haute couture relate to work wear? As galant party to work formal language to traffic of speech. Haute couture appropriate at fashion shows formal language in court.

    [1950]

    Diderot question whether actor felt or feigned cooks down to whether words and moves are prompted or deliberate. Reach down to state of insecurity of indecision (degrees of freedom of a system) produce forced silence and paralysis-of-embarrassment or the opposite: eruptive, faked or masked behavior, aspects of same unbalance, obvious to both actor and audience

    Eigenstate of uncertainty characterizes new theatre as when basically home turn strange place

    Confer Greek theatre, heavy on orientation: logic of location where reluctantly compelled to retrace one’s steps back to source of deep cut translate to language of sentence

    New theatre is heading nowhere, no path to follow no solution. Why new theatre comes close to pictorial rendition: no narrative but a telling state as in framed silence or faked company, on some screen of projection (Le Nain)

    Confer track and field, ballcourt rink et cetera, setting distinct limits to space of performance, even including penalty box, as well as, sometimes, divided stands of divided supporter clubs to pump up heat of event

    Wall and floor tend to differentiate sports from arts since leverage of action largely depend on negotiating weight and friction hence track and field, while imagination less so, hence screen or wall for perception to penetrate and explore. But all sorts of mixtures of course, squash sport for instance, engage both wall and floor in the game cf. Pollock, painted on floor but presented on wall. Duchamp’s chessboard on wall or floor no difference since mental space set weight at bay: for maze of mirror and window to be brought to the fore. Homestead Warhol for one of course

     

     

    [1952]

    Is not Gilles looking at us as through bars? Exposed and nowhere to hide figures in background blocking way of escape.

  • [1953]

    Why Waiting for Godot played by prisoners in prison, why Shakespeare play-within-play, why box in box. Because words within walls. Wittgenstein A Lecture on Ethics:

    all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language. This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless.

    Confer same author’s building-site example of language-game (PI 21) does it not have a certain Beckett feel to it?

    Imagine a language-game in which A asks and B reports the number of slabs or blocks in a pile, or the colours and shapes of the building-stones that are stacked in such-and-such a place. —Such a report might run: "Five slabs".  Now what is the difference between the report or statement "Five slabs" and the order "Five slabs!"? —Well, it is the part which uttering these words plays in the language-game.

    No walls but constructive language every word counts as part of operation: of making better place for doing something together, including ‘waiting’ cf. Shakespeare explore mirror-maze of mostly retaliative language

    Say Beckett home on stage is nowhere house of words, chosen and placed with care like those pieces of fruit in a Juan Sánchez Cotán still life against total dark of outside cf. homeless Shakespeare: words happen as excitations in field of energy relative to some momentary framework of a situation

    Imagine Beckett’s book Company as play for stage confined from all sides by invisible walls of no light at all. Would this be a boxed-in compartment? or open space. First sentence:

    A VOICE comes to one in the dark. Imagine.

    [1954]

    Burial at Ornans funeral ceremony in Courbet home province. Somewhere behind lurks El Greco up-lifting Burial of Count Orgaz to which Courbet gave horizontal response. Paris public reacted in the negative.

  • [1955]

    To act somebody no problem: Say after me. Do this after me. But 'to be' somebody? In what sense could I be somebody else if not by acting? What about modeling? Modeling is not acting. Acting is acting out affect environment whereas modeling means moving in the opposite direction inwards towards an empty or unspecified center, a void.

  • [1956]

    One can act somebody else but not occupy his or her space. Only volume I can occupy without conflict is my self. What a model does, modeling his or her own self as a model. Not what actor does.

  • [1957]

    Typecasting is modeling. Scena deals more with modeling than with acting.

  • [1958]

    Jungian analysis should focus on modeling since archetype of types. A model is person fills out space of model exactly in every respect.

Previous page12