As a student of Dramaturgy, I've noticed that theatre is approached, sometimes, through the prism of 'cultural studies,' an intriguing hotch-potch of quasi-scientific and sociological analyses. Much as I love the books and essays (as long as I understand the jargon), I worry that it misses something essential about the theatre experience - and it is the very part that the critic wants to discuss.
Cultural Studies can be all about the context: the careful study of texts to reveal the social assumptions that they carry, hidden deep in the weft of the words. In the old days, art tended to be examined in terms of quality - and the theatre critics still carry a torch for this romantic vision of creativity. Cultural Studies doesn't always worry too much about the quality. It's all about the significance of the art within the wider society.
I love semiotics (pending comprehension), but I don't want to see theatre - or comic books - reduced to mere aspects of a culture system. Examining a performance in terms of the political meaning subtracts the core experience - the one when the audience member engages with the art and finds meaning. There's a sense of flattening out the art to explain social values, ignoring the creative process (although that too can express a social value) and the emotional experience.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e32c8/e32c830931aa690ca05775e2736bfee732357dd1" alt=""
I love me some Debord, some Phelan, some Deleuze and Guattari. But more than that, I love talking about the way Miss Julie or School of the Damned made me feel. Does that make me hopelessly conservative?
No comments :
Post a Comment