I watched the first link and here are my answers to your questions: How does it fit with what you have learned of Artaud? I can see how it fits in with what we have learnt before. The screaming and suffering seems to me to be a lot like the radio show we have been reading and the task we did on Monday where Liam read some of it and we were making tapping noises and noises with our voices as well. What do you think the desired effect for a spectator is? Each scene of the video has a message that can be understood in different ways and sometimes is difficult to respond to. The character seemed to be in a lot of physical and more importantly mental pain, but I found myself laughing nervously at some points. I think I did this because I'm undecided as to what to feel about the performance. The whole appeal of this piece is that it is, with the use of dark costumes and the way they talk, with screams and shouting overpowering the talking, a disturbing and strange slice of theatre. What do you think the message is? I think that the message is to represent how Antonin Artuad felt when he was in the mental institution. (Maybe completely wrong but that what I seem to get from that video :/) Finally Is it entertainment? This is very difficult for me to answer because to me it wasn’t entertaining it was creepy and made me a little scared in certain parts and nervously laughing at some points, but I don’t know why so to answer this question I feel that it is up to that person whether it’s entertaining or not because It depends on whether you like that type of theatre, but then I contradict myself because even though it wasn’t entertaining to me I found it watchable and would watch more and even go see a play in that style of theatre (maybe I just mental like him:D)
(this is not my work this is other peoples) LIAM SAYS: Well I watched the first video and well erm...Well I can see how it fits in with what we have previously learnt. Lots of screaming and suffering; for me it bares a lot of similarity to the radio show we have been reading. As each section of the video has a message that can be interpreted in different ways and at sometimes is difficult to react to. I sometimes find myself giving a weird laugh because it is strange but the character seems to be in a lot of physical and more importantly mental pain I do this because I'm unsure what to think about the performance. I think the overall desire is to shock them, with the use of music epically it gives a haunting scream and dark costumes, and it is a shocking price of theatre. The message I believe is to present either a mental institution and it's inner working. A future which is bleak and barren or hold a mirror into the play writes mind. Well is it entertaining well that's a difficult question; depends on the person. To me however I dunno I feel I should say yes, not for the fact its someone in pain but you can watch and learn from it. So I'm going to say entertaining no; watchable yes.
There is No More Firmament... My initial reaction to this video was what was the Firmament and why is it so important to these people?? But after some research on what it was i understood, why it fitted in with what we have been learning about Artaud, such as the main aim of shocking and disturbing the audience in order to make the audience change their initial views on what they believe. What do you think the desired effect for the spectator is? The desired reaction of shock from the spectator is achieved from the beginning of this piece as the audience is shocked, as i was really freaked out!! And really confused i didn’t even know what to think about or how to react to this piece, as it was alien to me as i have never seen anything like it before because it was very different from what i am used to seeing from other performances and had a significant effect on my view of the theatre of cruelty. How does it fit in with what you have learnt of Artuad? This fits in well with what I have learnt from Artaud, Such as the excersises we did in class such as making the strange noises and taping tables in different beats and rhythms while Liam was trying to read because it made harder to understand what he was saying, just like the first link i tried to understand what was being said but i couldn’t because i was being distracted by strange noises, movements and camera affects they used on this video. Is this entertainment? With some understanding of the Theatre of cruelty, I don’t think I would ever consider this piece to be viewed upon as entertainment but rather as a scheme to confuse or to challenge the audience on their beliefs. What do you think the message is? I don’t really know what the message is for this piece because i couldn’t watch it till the end but i would say it does challenge the spectator’s beliefs and the knowledge and understanding they have.
The top rated Youtube comment; "absolutely fantastic! made me feel really uncomfortable! good work guys!"
Made me laugh because it sums up exactly how I felt. Like Blessing, my first response was utter confusion. I had to tinker with my video settings, thinking there was nothing going on. As the piece progressed, I could feel myself getting physically ill, and I was unsure why; the conclusion was very poignant, what I perceived to be a tree cannibalising itself.
-How does it fit with what you have learned of Artaud?
The myriad of noises and the eerie beat is something we have touched on as we've studied Artaud. I was unsure whether the 'language' as such was French, or simply "nonsensical". I use parentheses because, as Artaud made clear in his first manifesto, it was a desire to create some sort of 'Language of the stage'; perhaps it is not so much nonsensical, though unnamed. The use of Artaud's "hieroglyphics" is briefly countenanced; a number of symbols are projected onto the white screen, chief among them the turning gear.
-What do you think the desired effect for a spectator is?
The effect on the spectators is a harsh one: one of Artaud's intentions was to attack the spectator's subconscious, this is achieved through the chaos of the sound used during the performance. There is no understanding what is being said, perhaps the fear of the unknown itself posing some sort of subliminal discomfort, coupling the perturbing sounds with the periods of utter darkness.
The presence of symbols doesn't give the spectator any better understanding of what is going on, I believe. While we can make our own conclusions and thoughts, we can't really be sure if that was the architect's vision: this is another intended effect, to force the spectator to consider just what these allusive symbols mean in this context.
-What do you think the message is?
This was a hard one. As per usual with work derived from Artaud, it seemed critical. In this case, I felt that "There is No Firmament" meant that there was no Firmament in the literal sense; no longer does the 'night sky' exist, as humanity had replaced the natural night sky with one of its own, a celestial ocean corrupted by aircraft, space travel and, wait for it -- Light pollution. The use of the cannibal tree at the end was synonymous for both arborcide and the fact we, as humans, abuse nature to further devastate nature; as one might make a bonfire for light in the darkness, we toss more boughs onto the original heap to keep the flame going. In my eyes, this 'bonfire' is synonymous with all forms of lighting we use outside of the home.
I was sure there was some religious undertones as well, considering what the Firmament actually was, but it wasn't terribly obvious to me.
-Is it entertainment?
No, never. If this was entertainment, I think that there would be some inclination towards treating the audience. From what I have seen of Artaud, he was very critical of the audience and to think that a piece derived from his theatre of cruelty would ever want to benefit the audience is madness; it's enough that he regards the audience as "spectators", almost like brainless cattle that stare at the theatre and drool at a performance.
But personally, I'm conflicted. I couldn't think of this as entertainment, but at the same time, I look at some analogues; we might watch a horror movie to 'scare' ourselves, or read a few creepypastas now and again for the same effect. Humans aren't above putting themselves through degrading or disturbing experiences, be that for entertainment or curiosity... To say I was entertained by this piece would be a lie -- To say it made me think, would be closer to the truth.
I watched the first link and here are my answers to your questions:
ReplyDeleteHow does it fit with what you have learned of Artaud?
I can see how it fits in with what we have learnt before. The screaming and suffering seems to me to be a lot like the radio show we have been reading and the task we did on Monday where Liam read some of it and we were making tapping noises and noises with our voices as well.
What do you think the desired effect for a spectator is?
Each scene of the video has a message that can be understood in different ways and sometimes is difficult to respond to. The character seemed to be in a lot of physical and more importantly mental pain, but I found myself laughing nervously at some points. I think I did this because I'm undecided as to what to feel about the performance. The whole appeal of this piece is that it is, with the use of dark costumes and the way they talk, with screams and shouting overpowering the talking, a disturbing and strange slice of theatre.
What do you think the message is?
I think that the message is to represent how Antonin Artuad felt when he was in the mental institution. (Maybe completely wrong but that what I seem to get from that video :/)
Finally
Is it entertainment?
This is very difficult for me to answer because to me it wasn’t entertaining it was creepy and made me a little scared in certain parts and nervously laughing at some points, but I don’t know why so to answer this question I feel that it is up to that person whether it’s entertaining or not because It depends on whether you like that type of theatre, but then I contradict myself because even though it wasn’t entertaining to me I found it watchable and would watch more and even go see a play in that style of theatre (maybe I just mental like him:D)
(this is not my work this is other peoples)
ReplyDeleteLIAM SAYS:
Well I watched the first video and well erm...Well I can see how it fits in with what we have previously learnt. Lots of screaming and suffering; for me it bares a lot of similarity to the radio show we have been reading. As each section of the video has a message that can be interpreted in different ways and at sometimes is difficult to react to. I sometimes find myself giving a weird laugh because it is strange but the character seems to be in a lot of physical and more importantly mental pain I do this because I'm unsure what to think about the performance. I think the overall desire is to shock them, with the use of music epically it gives a haunting scream and dark costumes, and it is a shocking price of theatre. The message I believe is to present either a mental institution and it's inner working. A future which is bleak and barren or hold a mirror into the play writes mind. Well is it entertaining well that's a difficult question; depends on the person. To me however I dunno I feel I should say yes, not for the fact its someone in pain but you can watch and learn from it. So I'm going to say entertaining no; watchable yes.
There is No More Firmament...
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to this video was what was the Firmament and why is it so important to these people?? But after some research on what it was i understood, why it fitted in with what we have been learning about Artaud, such as the main aim of shocking and disturbing the audience in order to make the audience change their initial views on what they believe.
What do you think the desired effect for the spectator is?
The desired reaction of shock from the spectator is achieved from the beginning of this piece as the audience is shocked, as i was really freaked out!! And really confused i didn’t even know what to think about or how to react to this piece, as it was alien to me as i have never seen anything like it before because it was very different from what i am used to seeing from other performances and had a significant effect on my view of the theatre of cruelty.
How does it fit in with what you have learnt of Artuad?
This fits in well with what I have learnt from Artaud, Such as the excersises we did in class such as making the strange noises and taping tables in different beats and rhythms while Liam was trying to read because it made harder to understand what he was saying, just like the first link i tried to understand what was being said but i couldn’t because i was being distracted by strange noises, movements and camera affects they used on this video.
Is this entertainment?
With some understanding of the Theatre of cruelty, I don’t think I would ever consider this piece to be viewed upon as entertainment but rather as a scheme to confuse or to challenge the audience on their beliefs.
What do you think the message is?
I don’t really know what the message is for this piece because i couldn’t watch it till the end but i would say it does challenge the spectator’s beliefs and the knowledge and understanding they have.
"There is no More Firmament"
ReplyDeleteThe top rated Youtube comment; "absolutely fantastic! made me feel really uncomfortable! good work guys!"
Made me laugh because it sums up exactly how I felt. Like Blessing, my first response was utter confusion. I had to tinker with my video settings, thinking there was nothing going on. As the piece progressed, I could feel myself getting physically ill, and I was unsure why; the conclusion was very poignant, what I perceived to be a tree cannibalising itself.
-How does it fit with what you have learned of Artaud?
The myriad of noises and the eerie beat is something we have touched on as we've studied Artaud. I was unsure whether the 'language' as such was French, or simply "nonsensical". I use parentheses because, as Artaud made clear in his first manifesto, it was a desire to create some sort of 'Language of the stage'; perhaps it is not so much nonsensical, though unnamed. The use of Artaud's "hieroglyphics" is briefly countenanced; a number of symbols are projected onto the white screen, chief among them the turning gear.
-What do you think the desired effect for a spectator is?
The effect on the spectators is a harsh one: one of Artaud's intentions was to attack the spectator's subconscious, this is achieved through the chaos of the sound used during the performance. There is no understanding what is being said, perhaps the fear of the unknown itself posing some sort of subliminal discomfort, coupling the perturbing sounds with the periods of utter darkness.
The presence of symbols doesn't give the spectator any better understanding of what is going on, I believe. While we can make our own conclusions and thoughts, we can't really be sure if that was the architect's vision: this is another intended effect, to force the spectator to consider just what these allusive symbols mean in this context.
-What do you think the message is?
This was a hard one. As per usual with work derived from Artaud, it seemed critical. In this case, I felt that "There is No Firmament" meant that there was no Firmament in the literal sense; no longer does the 'night sky' exist, as humanity had replaced the natural night sky with one of its own, a celestial ocean corrupted by aircraft, space travel and, wait for it -- Light pollution. The use of the cannibal tree at the end was synonymous for both arborcide and the fact we, as humans, abuse nature to further devastate nature; as one might make a bonfire for light in the darkness, we toss more boughs onto the original heap to keep the flame going. In my eyes, this 'bonfire' is synonymous with all forms of lighting we use outside of the home.
I was sure there was some religious undertones as well, considering what the Firmament actually was, but it wasn't terribly obvious to me.
-Is it entertainment?
No, never. If this was entertainment, I think that there would be some inclination towards treating the audience. From what I have seen of Artaud, he was very critical of the audience and to think that a piece derived from his theatre of cruelty would ever want to benefit the audience is madness; it's enough that he regards the audience as "spectators", almost like brainless cattle that stare at the theatre and drool at a performance.
But personally, I'm conflicted. I couldn't think of this as entertainment, but at the same time, I look at some analogues; we might watch a horror movie to 'scare' ourselves, or read a few creepypastas now and again for the same effect. Humans aren't above putting themselves through degrading or disturbing experiences, be that for entertainment or curiosity... To say I was entertained by this piece would be a lie -- To say it made me think, would be closer to the truth.