Thought I’d warm up the new blog with some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts:
Performance
A nice new pair of shoes can transform how a person performs their class identity – especially if they feel that they somehow straddle the line between two classes.
Production
The production apparatus – whether it’s related to theatre, publishing, or manufacturing – is as much the end product as the end product itself. In other words, a shoe factory is one of the primary products of a shoe factory.
Theory
I tend to prefer reading film theory over theatre theory because I think the mainstream film theorists have done a better job of building a pseudo-scientific framework around their ideas. So maybe film theory is more inclined to offer quick and easy prescriptive solutions to problems such as narrative. Theatre theory, though much older, tends to seem a bit on the loosey-goosey side, which probably means that it’s actually more evolved than film theory.
Nicely put Ian. I would say, rather than loosey-goosey, theatre theory much like some philosophy verges on the meta-physical. As defined by wikipedia:Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. So if you read Grotowski or Barba it can feel almost religious in nature, however if you read David Mamet, there is nothing loosey-goosey to it.
Mamet quote:
As actors we become convinced that doing our job well is down to luck, becoming envious of those who have “luck” or “technique.” We invest in a “technique based on luck” which becomes “a superstition, an investment in self-consciousness, in introversion.
Investing in luck? Sounds like what happened to the economy.
And theatre theory verging on meta-physical! That’s a great way to put it. You’ve put better language and more insight to the kernel of an idea I was trying to pop. Thank you.
Great quote. I need to read more Mamet.