On Wednesday (1-7), we talked about theories of modernity from Marshall Berman, Stephen Toulmin and Hans Gumbrecht that will continue to inform our discussion of the development of new traditions of theatre and drama in 17th through early 19th century Europe. We also began a slideshow on single-point perspective and the innovations of the proscenium stage.
Key phrases/terms from Week 1: "a unity of disunities" (Berman), "invention of tradition" (Hobsbawm), "drunkenness of modernity" (Rousseau), "radical contradictions of modernity" (Marx), "a modern man can never really look well-dressed" (Nietzsche), "shift from humanism to rationalism" (Toulmin), "early 1600s as a time of crisis for Europe" (Toulmin), "modern as 'present' (vs. previous), 'new' (vs. old) or 'transitory' (vs. eternal)-- the 'past of a future present'" (Gumbrecht); single-point perspective, Sebastiano Serlio, Teatro Olimpico; how the medieval booth stage and Elizabethan popular stages (like the Swan and the Globe) differ from perspectival proscenium stages.
The agenda for Monday (1-12) is as follows:
1. Finish the slide show on perspectival scenery.
2. Lecture on Spanish golden age theatre.
3. Facilitation (by Dr. Winet) on Lope de Vega's "Arte nuevo de hacer comedias en este tiempo" (which the seminar track students will have discussed on Friday (1-9)
4. General discussion (bring your Theatre Histories texts!)
Your reading in Theatre Histories for Monday (pp. 151-162) begins by comparing the civilization of China around the 16th century with developments in Europe. It discusses the rise of neo-classical and professional theatres in Italy (including commedia erudita and commedia dell' arte) and the emergence of new secular dramatic writing in England in the late 16th century. Those of you who took World Theatre I have already discussed these practices. The rest should look at this section carefully as it is an important background to where this course begins, but which I won't take class time to repeat. I will instead concentrate on the part of the reading that deals explicitly with Spain (pp. 159-162), and elaborate a bit on what the text presents.
Here are some questions to think about for our discussion section: What is the argument that your textbook is making regarding the importance of "print culture" to the emergence of golden age Spanish theatre? What did the transition from feudalism to absolutism have to do with the emergence of this theatre? How did the "playhouses" of Spain differ from those of renaissance Italy or England? What do the dramatic genres of "comedia de capa y espada" and "auto sacramentale" reveal about the political and socio-cultural context of Spanish renaissance theatre?
And here are a few helpful videos depicting the "corrales de comedia" where secular plays such as Calderon's "Life is a Dream" were staged. First, a computer animation with a discussion of the layout and use of the "corral", including separations by class and gender (yes, the voiceover is entirely in Spanish. Sorry.):
And here is a scene of an audience at a corral performance from the film "Alatriste" (2006), based on popular novels by Spanish author, Arturo Perez-Reverte, about the adventures of a soldier in the 1620s (the time of Lope de Vega's popularity). Note differences in how the customs of the corral are depicted in the two videos. What can you conclude about the possibilities and limitations of the corral stage? What kinds of theatre would best be served by such a venue? And yes, that is Viggo Mortenssen in his Spanish film debut...
Wednesday, January 7
Monday, January 5
Scenic Perspectivism
For Wednesday, read Theatre Histories, pages 166-172, which talks about the relationship between the development of single-point perspective for scenic design and the development of aristocratic and monarchical government. Single-point perspective was developed by Italian painters in the 14th and 15th centuries, enabling them to create convincing renderings of three-dimensional space within two-dimensional drawings. Sebastiano Serlio innovated applications of these techniques for the stage. The techniques subsequently spread throughout renaissance Europe and beyond. For example, Inigo Jones brought the techniques back to Jacobean England, inspiring developments in court entertainments that looked very different from what was going on at the Globe and other public theatres.
A collection of Serlio drawings: http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/bytype/arch.sources/serlio/.
And here's a page from the British National Portrait Gallery with discussion of single-point perspective and a few theatrical images by Inigo Jones about halfway down the page: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/perspective.asp
And here's a video that traces the development of these stage technologies (with emphasis on works by several members of the Italian Bibiena family in the late 17th and early 18th centuries). Note the brief segment showing a scene change at the Drottningholm Court Theatre, a beautiful 18th century theatre whose elaborate machinery still works:
As your text points out, the development of perspectival scenography was not simply about making theatre imagery more "realistic". It was about turning the theatre into a place where the expanding realms being brought under the control of European rulers and scientific progress could be represented for the enjoyment of the rulers themselves. Though our modern proscenium stage is certainly related to ancient Greek and Roman spaces, it was developed during this period to facilitate stage imagery that would be "framed" just like perspectival painting, and which presumed a "best" seat. "The implicit visual demand on the other spectators in the auditorium, of course, was to imagine how the scene looked from the prince's or duke's point of view." (167) This basic condition of perspectival stages is still with us, which is why, for most proscenium productions, the best (and most expensive) seats are in the center, midway down the orchestra seating.
Think about how the perspectival stage differs from other theatrical spaces you've seen or learned about. How does the perspectival stage shape the experience of the audience differently than thrust, arena or amphitheatre stages? What does it have to do with the development of early modern society and culture? Does perspectival scenography have an implicit politics? What does it have to do with the expansion of European political influence and global empire?
A collection of Serlio drawings: http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/bytype/arch.sources/serlio/.
And here's a page from the British National Portrait Gallery with discussion of single-point perspective and a few theatrical images by Inigo Jones about halfway down the page: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/perspective.asp
And here's a video that traces the development of these stage technologies (with emphasis on works by several members of the Italian Bibiena family in the late 17th and early 18th centuries). Note the brief segment showing a scene change at the Drottningholm Court Theatre, a beautiful 18th century theatre whose elaborate machinery still works:
As your text points out, the development of perspectival scenography was not simply about making theatre imagery more "realistic". It was about turning the theatre into a place where the expanding realms being brought under the control of European rulers and scientific progress could be represented for the enjoyment of the rulers themselves. Though our modern proscenium stage is certainly related to ancient Greek and Roman spaces, it was developed during this period to facilitate stage imagery that would be "framed" just like perspectival painting, and which presumed a "best" seat. "The implicit visual demand on the other spectators in the auditorium, of course, was to imagine how the scene looked from the prince's or duke's point of view." (167) This basic condition of perspectival stages is still with us, which is why, for most proscenium productions, the best (and most expensive) seats are in the center, midway down the orchestra seating.
Think about how the perspectival stage differs from other theatrical spaces you've seen or learned about. How does the perspectival stage shape the experience of the audience differently than thrust, arena or amphitheatre stages? What does it have to do with the development of early modern society and culture? Does perspectival scenography have an implicit politics? What does it have to do with the expansion of European political influence and global empire?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)