Creating Narrative Without Text - Assignment Example

Creating Narrative Without Text How individuals view the world is often shaped by the way in which the media of the day present the ‘real’ world around them. However, what constitutes the ‘real’ world or how that portrayal is interpreted is based upon the given approach to narrative. Literary criticism, narrative, is shaped by the cultural, economic and political spheres of the greater community. For most people, narrative is thought to be a matter of text or words. Without words, the theory holds, there is no narrative. However, this is not the case as narrative can take the form of anything that conveys meaning. While it might be argued that this form of non-verbal, non-literary narrative is not as able to communicate complex thoughts and ideas, it can be equally argued that narrative without text can be a far more superior means of communicating ideas and emotions that transcend the boundaries of language. To illustrate this idea, this paper will take a look at the theories expounded by three masters of theatre art – Jerzy Grotowski, Antonin Artaud and Merce Cunningham. Jerzy Grotowski (1933-1999) was a Polish theatre director largely credited with founding the experimental theatre movement. Antonin Artaud (1896-1948) was a French playwright and director who worked in Surreal theatre and is most known for his Theatre of Cruelty. Merce Cunningham (1919-2009) was a famous dancer and used his knowledge of the expressive forces of the body and founded the Merce Cunningham Dance Company, which has been at the forefront of American avante garde art since its founding. Each of these individuals developed their own means of communicating with their audience without relying on the power of spoken language. Jerzy Grotowski began introducing the world to his concept of non-textual narrative with the creation of his Theatre Laboratory in 1959. He had already earned his degree in acting at the age of 22 from the State Higher School of Theatre in Krakow and continued his education at the Lunacharsky Institute of Theatre Arts in Moscow from 1955-1956 (Mokrzycka-Pokora, 2002). It was during these studies that he came into contact with some of the more innovative stars of Russian theatre and began to develop his thinking regarding the actor’s role in narrative communication. His work once he returned to Poland was a direct reflection of these Russian experiences as he continued to build on his understanding of the theatre arts and expanded his ideas. He did this both as assistant professor at the theatre school in Krakow and as a director of several plays prior to the opening of his own theatre. The Theatre Laboratory was originally located in Opole, Poland, which was then a town consisting of approximately 60,000 people (Grotowski, 1968). Within 6 years, it had moved to Wroclaw, which is the cultural center of Polish territory. In both locations, the theatre had established close connections with the leading thinkers in the fields of psychology, phonology, cultural anthropology and others. “It is not a theatre in the usual sense of the word, but rather an institute devoted to research into the domain of the theatrical art and the art of the actor in particular” (Grotowski, 1968). From it’s earliest productions, the theatre was concerned not so much with the traditional forms of acting, but the methods by which meaning was conveyed as an interactive process between the actor and his audience. From his earliest productions with the Theatre Laboratory, Grotowski demonstrated a unique approach to the text that tended to reinterpret the intentions of the author. In changing the title and the meaning of one of his early plays, the director was reported to say, “to select an author’s play, does not mean to share his views” (cited in Mokrzycka-Pokora, 2002). The emphasis he placed on certain aspects of the work, the way in which he combined it with other forms and media and the way in which he felt it should be performed all served to reflect his interpretation while leaving the door open for external interpretation on the part of the actor and the audience. In another interview, he said, “in terms of my attitude to the dramatic text, I think that the director should treat it solely as a theme upon which he builds a new work of art that is the theatrical spectacle” (cited in Mokrzycka-Pokora, 2002). He increasingly strove to include the audience in the performance as a part of the collective experience, insisting that it was only through this form of interaction that any type of communication could take place. His plays were deliberately selected because of their underlying appeals to the myths and legends that form our collective unconscious and are thus accessible to all with or without verbal or written explanation. As he developed his ideas, his focus became more and more centered on the non-verbal elements of the performance and the overall experience of the mind and body working as one rather than on the strict reproduction of an established text. This became clear as he continued working both with his own permanent troupe and as he coached other actors and directors through his methods. For Grotowski, communication could only be established when one allowed all superficial social ‘masks’ and external cares outside the theatre doors and existed only to discover harmony between body and mind through movement and expression. “What was important to Jerzy Grotowski was what the actor could do with his or her body and voice without aids and with only the visceral experience with the audience” (Bennett, 2009). This was accomplished by “gradually eliminating whatever proved superfluous,” discovering along the way that “theatre can exist without make-up, without autonomic costume and scenography, without a separate performance area (stage), without lighting and sound effects, etc.” (Grotowski, 1968). This was accomplished through the careful development of the actor as a being fully in touch with himself and fully open to his audience. Without both of these elements in place, narrative without text did not connect. “The actor’s act – discarding half measures, revealing, opening up, emerging from himself as opposed to closing up – is an invitation to the spectator. This act could be compared to an act of the most deeply rooted, genuine love between two human beings” (Grotowski, 1968). Words and text merely got in the way of this kind of fully open expression as language necessarily limited and constrained the message at the same time that it reintroduces the ideas of civility, gender and ‘correctness’ into the interaction. This type of narrative without text seems to be greatly different from the approach taken by Antonin Artaud. The vision of this innovator was greatly influenced by his personal experiences beginning from a very young age. According to Wakeman (1975), Artaud suffered from a severe attack of meningitis at the age of four that affected his disposition for the rest of his life. His adolescence was marked by a nervous and highly irritable temperament, stammering, bouts of depression and neuralgia, which is essentially nerve-induced pain (Wakeman, 1975). In an effort to get him some relief, his parents spent a great deal of money housing him in various sanatoriums for often lengthy stays. In all, Artaud spent five years in the sanatoriums with a break of only two months during which he was called for his mandatory service in the army. Records indicate he was released from service because of a habit of sleepwalking (Wakeman, 1975). However, it was during his time at the sanatorium that Artaud became familiar with authors such as Charles Baudelaire, Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Rimbaud, of whom he would style much of his later philosophy. By 1919, he had been prescribed laudanum to help him with his pain and mental disorder. Laudanum is “a mixture of alcohol and opium derivatives” (Harding, Olivier & Jokic, 2000) which was both widely used during this time period as a strong pain reliever and highly addictive. Although there is evidence that Artaud attempted to kick the habit in his later years, the drug proved too strong and he died still addicted to the substance and others like it. Unsurprisingly, the drug also gave him strong visions which, because of his natural disposition, tended toward the darker elements. A playwright, poet, actor and director, Artaud’s work was constantly characterized by a preoccupation with the dream-state. Artaud’s concept of the theatre was that it should have a profound impact upon its audience and that this was best achieved through a sort of shock factor. In developing his ideas, he established what he termed a Theatre of Cruelty in which reality was intentionally shattered in order to force the audience into a new understanding. This was accomplished through the deliberate use of strange lighting, sound and performance techniques that were carefully choreographed for maximum impact. In labeling his philosophy a Theatre of Cruelty, Artaud was careful to explain that he was not encouraging specific and exclusive focus on sadism or deliberately causing pain, but that there should be a violently physical attempt to shatter the illusion of reality common to audiences and the general public. One of the key elements of his ideas was based on his understanding of Eastern theatre, particularly Balinese theatre. Although he wasn’t able to fully understand the concepts, Artaud appreciated its rituals and the precise physicality of the performances (Bentley, 1968). Although a writer himself, he firmly believed that the text had been allowed to gain too great importance in the overall process of communication and felt theatre should be striving to recapture the essence of communication by developing a unique language of its own. This language, Artaud said, should exist somewhere between thought and gesture with little or no dependence upon verbal language or text. The spiritual was merely an element of the physical and the theatre was the means by which it could be realized. “The Theatre of Cruelty has been created in order to restore to the theatre a passionate and convulsive conception of life, and it is in this sense of violent rigor and extreme condensation of scenic elements that the cruelty on which it is based must be understood. This cruelty, which will be bloody when necessary but not systematically so, can thus be identified with a kind of severe moral purity which is not afraid to pay life the price it must be paid” (Artaud cited in Bentley, 1968). Thus, Artaud demonstrates the problems of language to fully articulate meaning. To fully understand Artaud’s ideas, one must embark on a mission of discovery to determine just what he intended when he used the word ‘cruelty’ to define his life’s work. According to Jamieson (2007), there are at least four ways in which Artaud conceptualized this word. The first concept is as a metaphor for the human condition that is sharply in line with the nihilistic views of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche felt “all art embodies and intensifies the underlying brutalities of life to recreate the thrill of experience … Although Artaud did not formally cite Nietzsche, [their writing] contains a familiar persuasive authority, a similar exuberant phraseology, and motifs in extremis” (Jamieson, 2007). Cruelty can also be interpreted in Artaud’s writings as referring to a type of discipline in which form was rejected and chaos was released at the same time that all was contained within a strictly disciplined approach patterned on Artaud’s performance techniques. In Jamieson’s view, the third understanding of Artaud’s ‘cruelty’ was the way in which his theatre was designed to violently throw his audience out of their comfort zone of the ‘real’ and into the action of the make-believe of the play. It was only through this kind of disturbance that the audience would be awoken to the truth that reality was little more than an agreed-upon myth. “Artaud sought to remove aesthetic distance, bringing the audience into direct contact with the dangers of life. By turning theatre into a place where the spectator is exposed rather than protected, Artaud was committing an act of cruelty upon them” (Jamieson, 2007). Although he never fully engaged his audience in the play, his ideas centered upon this kind of involvement. Finally, Artaud sought to define his philosophy within the term ‘Theatre of Cruelty’ in which his inner demons and suffering were an essential element of human existence and revealed the unreality of reality. Moving even further into the abstract, Merce Cunningham approached the ideas of performance from the perspective of a dancer. He rejected the harsh linearity of traditional expression in favor of unordered chance. This was made possible in large part because of his long-term collaboration with composer John Cage. His journey to the Merce Cunningham Dance Company and the changes it brought to modern dance began with his involvement with Martha Graham. Under Graham, he learned how to extend himself beyond the strict movements of classical ballet in order to use the forces of gravity to create an expressive form. However, he had difficulty accepting Graham’s dependence on the narrative as a means of leading the work and the overly emotional output of her style. “Even when I was first there, I thought the way she moved was very amazing, but I didn’t think the rest of it was interesting at all ....  I just tried to see what the movement was, not to expect it to be like she did it, not in the least.  The same with ballet exercises: if I put my leg out there and it’s supposed to go out at a 180 degree angle and your back’s supposed to be straight, how do I do that?” (Cunningham, 1985). While still under Graham’s direction, Cunningham began experimenting with the mechanics of movement, quickly developing his own style with Cage already composing the music for his performances. It was the desire of both Cunningham and Cage to find a means of allowing their art to remain independent while also finding a means of showcasing it that led to the development of their long-term partnership. “John Cage didn’t like the idea of one art supporting another or one art depending on another.  He liked the idea of independence and wondered if there were another way we could work separately to produce a work of music and dance.  The first things we made were short solos, and it was difficult for me to do, not having the music as support in the traditional way.  But at the same time there was marvelous excitement in this way of working, so I pursued it” (Cunningham, 2004). This eventually led to the use of the I Ching, an ancient Chinese means of divination that relied on pure chance to determine the hexagrams that ordered time and space. Cunningham used this method to determine choreographic sequences, number and position of performers and points of entry and exit. Cage would work independently of Cunningham to develop his music while the art directors would work independently of both to design their individual performances. Many times, these elements would not be fully brought together until the night before opening night, ensuring that none of the movements or events were created by design but instead celebrated the beauty of chance. For all three of these performance artists, the art of their work defies precise narrative definition even as it seeks to communicate something beyond the linear narrative structure. At the heart of all three artist’s work was a desire to escape the world commonly held as being the ‘true’ reality in order to discover a deeper, truer and more purely human reality. For Grotowski, this existed in the shedding of masks, discovering the inner soul and finding the passive courage to allow that soul to be seen and interact with a viewing audience. This was considered neither a positive nor a negative movement, simply a deepening of the human experience which was necessarily entwined with the experiences of others. Cunningham also worked within a neutral space of experience but depended less upon the personal encounter in favor of an exploration of chance encounters and unplanned interactions. In doing so, he discovered the beauty of the forces that help shape our lives and gave them form and expression. Artaud focused more upon the negative forces that operate to deceive us from the truth of our existence and sought to shock his viewers into the realization that reality is little more than what we agree upon. While both Grotowski and Artaud attempted to convey a specific sense of meaning through their non-narrative framework, Cunningham intentionally erased meaning from his work and strove instead to celebrate the serendipity of chance encounters. However, all three managed to convey their ideas in a way that neither depended upon nor could be shaped by the use of traditional narrative, introducing a creative narrative of their own that existed beyond the scope of text. Works Cited Bennett, Jason. “Jerzy Grotowski.” JB Actor’s Workshop. (2009). January 23, 2010 Cunningham, Merce. The Dancer and the Dance: Merce Cunningham in Conversation with Jacqueline Lesschaeve. New York: Marion Boyars, 1985. Cunningham, Merce. “Four Key Discoveries: Merce Cunningham Dance Company at Fifty.” Theatre 34. (Summer 2004). Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1968. Harding, Stephen; Lee Ann Olivier & Olivera Jokic. “Laudanum.” The Victorians’ Secret. (2000). January 23, 2010 < http://drugs.uta.edu/laudanum.html> Jamieson, Lee. Antonin Artaud: From Theory to Practice. London: Greenwich Exchange, 2007. Mokrzycka-Pokora, Monika. “Jerzy Grotowski.” Culture Poland. (2002). January 23, 2010 < http://www.culture.pl/en/culture/artykuly/os_grotowski_jerzy#top> Wakeman, John. World Authors, 1950-1970: A companion volume to Twentieth Century Authors. New York: Wilson, 1975. Read More