Aristotle’s theory of tragedy has greatly influenced the theory of Western theatre. Brecht and Boal made a radical revolution in Aristotle’s theory. Aristotle thought the meaning of tragedy is entertaining people. As the representation of human behavior, in Poetics, Aristotle defines tragedy as a mode of imitation, to inspire ‘pity and fear’ between the spectator and characters. While Brecht argued Aristotle’s idea about ‘purification’ and ‘pity and fear’. Through stating A-effects, Brecht hope audience can be critical and rational when viewing the character, and also performer can keep a distance from the role he played — ‘At no moment must he go so far as to be wholly transformed into the character played’. Furthermore, contrary to Aristotle`s idea of Greek tragedy, Boal thinks Empathy is dangerous—’When rational foundations of physical acts are not there, Empathy turns into a relationship of pure irrational animality’. Boal states ‘when rational foundations of physical acts are not there, Empathy turns into a relationship of pure irrational animality’–In Hollywood super-hero movie, Empathy may potentially lead the audience to emerge a fascism inclination. Boal have already broke barrier between the performers and actors to create a new notion of theatre and decomposed the original power order in the theatre. For me, the idea of Boal inspired me to reconsider what is theatre? Is it presenting a work as art products or is it activism? Maybe the answer can be found in Taylor`s Performance. ‘Breaking norms is the norm of performance’. Performance allows us to see, experience and examine the power structure of society. Thus, theatre gets rid of the framework of mimetic repetition, it becomes a possibility of chance, a methodology of critics.
Attached Video: Audience-performer co-working process in arts creation. Contact Improvisation was largely used in community dance and dance therapy. Also, Music therapy use a similar structure of composing.
I have a little confuse about Boal`s opinion about spectacle. As Boal thinks: “Spectacle is not confined to a fifteenth birthday party at which the young woman dances her first waltz with her father, or the dance of the commoner Angelica with the Prince in Visconti’s The Leopard, which opens the doors of nobility to her, or the marriage ceremony of a bride all dressed in white; nor is it only when the president of the Republic lays wreaths on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier, or a new road is officially opened. Spectacle is not just these moments of extravagance and pomp; it also embraces the hearty family Sunday lunch, where people eat and talk according to established rules, as in any piece of theatre. Spectacle has the function of revealing who is who, as if planting a legend on the brow of each protagonist or supernumerary.” He potentially agree with spectacle in some way. I would like bring dance artist Yvonne Rainer`s No Menifesto here for the discussion of politics hehind “spectacle”: As Rainer wrote here, the first and foremost of her artist idea is to anti spectacle.
No
to spectacle.
No to virtuosity.
No to transformations and magic and make-believe.
No to the glamour and transcendency of the star image.
No to the heroic.
No to the anti-heroic.
No to trash imagery.
No to involvement
of performer or spectator.
No to style.
No to camp.
No to seduction of spectator by the wiles of the performer.
No to eccentricity.
No to moving or being moved.
What is the definition of “spectacle”? Does the “spectacle” potentially lead the inclination to fascism?