Monday, October 27, 2008

Can Theater and Media Speak the Same Language?

I am going to start out by stating that as I sat down to read this essay, I was absolutely dreading the experience. "Can Theater and Media speak the something or other" might possibly be the biggest turnoff for an opening title (please don't ask me to explain myself, as a freshman I'm allowed to be irrational now and then). To my utter disappointment I actually found some of the article interesting, it gave me connections and explanations to the similarities of various art-forms without completely sounding like BS.
That is not to say I didn't have my qualms with the reading, but there was enough substance to get me through the material. Aronson makes the point that "projected scenery...does not work on the stage" (Aronson, 86). That virtually describes all he discusses in the text, what does work and what doesn't in art various art-forms, making somewhat valid argument to back up his claims. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but extravagant scenery or projected imagery on the stage can be much of a distraction rather than something that enhances the storytelling. I have seen countless films and several stage productions where the "communication is still possible, but content is overwhelmed by form" (Aronson, 87). Like a dreadful live performance of "Beauty and the Beast" from AMT or the Darren Aronofsky's artistic flop "The Fountain", some directors take overt advantage of the technology provided to us in this day and age. The projected visuals and props were obviously the main focus in both productions, rather than character development or relevant direction for the actors, for that matter.
Moving on, the author discusses how a play has its own time and how it coincides with our real time. I have yet to understand the significance of that bit of information being written down by scholars or anyone at any time, but I do get the point that the theater, film, and artwork suspends its story in a certain time frame other than the present. It might just be the utter obviousness of the statement that is getting me hung up, so I'll graciously let the text slide.
Thankfully directly after he made the point that art is always stuck in a very limited "viewing angle" (Aronson, 89), and that of all things caught my attention. Of course this is yet another obvious statement, but it's interesting the possibilities that can be taken from one image. For example, an artist paints a picture of a pond. Now the artist can start with a bleak, faltering pond with bare trees and not an animal in sight. With the idea presented by the author, the artist can spend his entire life painting various aspects of the pond and its surroundings and still not cover the entire scope of the pond's surroundings.
This example leads me into another point presented by Aronson; the unfortunate frame. The forced limitations of the theater, artwork, and film make it impossible to cover every aspect of the situation at hand. Considering it's absolutely impossible not to have boundaries and its excessiveness might say something about the artist's unstable state of mind, I won't blame Aronson for trying to make a point. He is at least successful in making film and paintings seen in the same in retrospect, which pretty much sums up what he is trying to prove with his article.
Then before his conclusion, Aronson walks about how images are put up against a wall and how our eyes are attracted to flickering light. I would feel silly, if not absolutely stupid, if I spent a paragraph on how he's right and how, yes, eyes are attracted to light. Amidst the further banter, his conclusion at least summarizes his essay quite well. "Too often the theater creators are more concerned with the technology...than with understanding and exploring the way in which two vocabulary systems [intersect]"(Aronson, 95). It's clear, concise, and has complete relevance in the contemporary art world. Aside from sometimes rambling incoherently here and there, Aronson has written a very well constructed and interesting comparison of art in several important forms.

-Elijah Sickel

1 comment:

ubik said...

Wow, Elijah, can you condescend some more? I'm sure a scholar like Aronson, who has written extensively on scenography for the last twenty years would bow down to your awesome intellect. But seriously despite your ATTITUDE, you seem to understand what he is talking about in terms of the mixing of media. Especially, and thanks for stating in your conclusion, that little attention is paid to why media clash. The key is time. This to me is the point of the class. Many of the readings, discussions and lectures, have mentioned a scenography that results in the recognition that the performers and the set and the audience occupy the same space. Time is the conjoined twin of space and their surgical separation kills off both. This is actually not obvious to designers and directors who produce illusionist work that requires a willing suspension of disbelief from it's audience. Time is the heartbeat of the time arts; poetry, music, theater, literature. To disregard the inherent discrepancies in the flow of time between the projection and the performer is as great a sin as a an actor believing that through some trick of method acting they can actually become their character. (confusing the historical personage with the performer)

P.S. I'm totally kidding about the attitude... I like a good screed as much as the next guy. We all could benefit from taking ourselves a little less seriously. Keep up the good work.