George Hunka over at Superfluities started this great project back in March ’07 . . . and finished it a couple of days ago.
A sampling:
20. In taking into the theatre the languages of mass culture, of advertising and marketing, we prove we have fallen in love with our screens.
30. The language of the stage must lose its stammer.
69. The typical member of the community does not throw the first stone; but he eventually reveals his ego, if not his self; he throws the fifth or sixth, then gleefully jumps around, telling everyone that he was the first.
Click here to read all of Hunka’s 95 sentences about theatre. (Thank you to Isaac Butler and Matt Freeman for the head’s up.)
I may agree that theatre is a pedagogical tool, but it is much more than that (other than something something about the dynamic will). For example, in neurological studies, chimp brains fire differently when reading symbols (language) vs. viewing action that has meaning for them. The particular area is called “mirror neurons.” Similarly, humans respond to meaning acted out (theatre?) differently than the written word and two different brain centres are involved. Thus, is theatre not coded meaning? Perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but pedagogical seems too perjorative.
Hey there Anon,
Interesting ideas. Two questions for you:
1) Which one of Hunka’s sentences are you referring to?
2) What is dynamic will?
Thanks!