Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

+ (presences of art)
unul narativ, care oferæ o imagine asupra lumii stabilitæ prin disputæ argumentativæ,
piesa ca întreg compunîndu-se într-un montaj cu o dezvoltare
autonomæ, unde fiinfla umanæ – a cærei gîndire urmeazæ logica existenflei
sociale – este în proces de constituire øi capabilæ ea însæøi sæ constituie,
øi unde spectatorul se transformæ într-un observator plasat în afaræ, spafliu
care-i permite fixarea privirii asupra desfæøurærii cursului evenimentelor,
capacitatea sa de acfliune øi de decizie fiind permanent instigatæ. „Avem
nevoie de un teatru, spune Brecht, care nu numai sæ elibereze sentimente,
prospecfliuni interiorare øi impulsuri posibile în cadrul cîmpului istoric al
relafliilor umane în care are loc acfliunea, ci øi sæ angajeze øi sæ încurajeze
acele gînduri øi sentimente care ajutæ la transformarea cîmpului însuøi.“ 19
În teatrul clasic aveam de-a face cu un personaj principal în a cærui conøtiinflæ
era reflectatæ întreaga semnificaflie a piesei øi care, aøa cum aratæ Althusser
20 , era purtætoarea temelor ideologice (politice, morale, religioase),
niciodatæ puse sub semnul întrebærii. Aceste mituri nu sînt nimic altceva
decît falsa oglindæ în care o societate se recunoaøte pe sine, paravanulcei
zædærniceøte accesul cætre sine. Brecht a rupt aceastæ interfaflæ, rupînduse,
în acelaøi timp, de condifliile ideologice ale teatrului; prin urmare, din
piesele sale dispare condiflia formalæ a conøtiinflei de sine împlinite în personajul
principal. La Brecht, niciun personaj nu confline în sine totalitatea
condifliilor tragediei.
Aceastæ rupturæ devine vizibilæ spectatorului odatæ ce el este supus programatic
unui „efect de alienare“. „O reprezentare care alieneazæ este una
care ne permite sæ-i recunoaøtem subiectul, dar în acelaøi timp îl face nefamiliar.
[…] Pentru cæ pare imposibil de schimbat ceea ce nu a mai fost
de foarte multæ vreme schimbat. Întotdeauna ne izbim de lucruri pe care
le gæsim prea evidente pentru a ne mai deranja sæ le înflelegem. Ceea ce
oamenii experimenteazæ între ei este conceptualizat drept experienfla umanæ.“
21 Aici are loc, aøadar, instituirea unui nou tip de relaflie între public øi
spectacol, o relaflie care devine activæ øi criticæ pe mæsuræ ce reprezentaflia
de teatru se distanfleazæ de spectatorul ei, astfel încît cel din urmæ sæ fie
incapabil sæ se bucure de ea. „Pentru a produce efectul de alienare, actorul
trebuie sæ se lepede de toate instrumentele pe care le-a învæflat pentru
a face publicul sæ se identifice cu personajul pe care-l interpreteazæ.
Avînd scopul de a nu-øi pune publicul în transæ, el însuøi nu trebuie sæ intre
în transæ.“ 22 Misiunea acestei strategii este ca, odatæ piesa de teatru
încheiatæ, însuøi spectatorul sæ se transforme într-un actor care continuæ
sæ performeze în viafla realæ. Dupæ cum putem înflelege citindu-l pe
Althusser, acest nou model de semiozæ respinge atît modelul transformærii
spectatorului în judecætor, cît timp el este transformat în camarad al personajelor,
cît øi modelul identificærii spectatorului cu vreunul dintre personaje.
Aceastæ identificare nu are loc dintr-un motiv foarte simplu: baza
oricærei identificæri o reprezintæ o recunoaøtere ideologicæ, datæ atît de instituflia
spectacolului, cît øi de miturile comune, temele care ne guverneazæ
færæ consimflæmîntul nostru, în aceeaøi ideologie træitæ spontan. De aceea
ne recunoaøtem în piesa de teatru încæ de la început, împærtæøim aceeaøi
istorie øi aceleaøi evenimente tulburæ liniøtea noastræ. Dar dacæ în teatrul
clasic condifliile de posibilitate, adicæ structurile acestei recunoaøteri, nu erau
chestionate, ele constituie baza criticii teatrului epic brechtian. „Brecht avea
dreptate: dacæ singurul mobil al teatrului ar fi acela de a fi un comentariu
– chiar øi dialectic – al acestei autorecunoaøteri eterne øi a nonrecunoaøterii,
atunci spectatorul ar øti deja melodia: e a lui. Dar dacæ, dimpotrivæ,
This fracture becomes visible for the spectator as he is programmatically subjected
to an “alienating effect”. “A representation that alienates is one which
allows us to recognize its subject, but at the same time makes it seem unfamiliar.
. . . For it seems impossible to alter what has long not been altered. We are
always coming on things that are too obvious for us to bother to understand
them. What men experience among themselves they think of as ’the’ human
experience”. 21 So this is where the establishment of a new type of relation
between the public and the play occurs, a relation becoming active and critical
as the theatre play distances from its spectator, making it impossible for the latter
to enjoy it. “In order to produce A-effects the actor has to discard whatever
means he has learnt of getting the audience to identify itself with the characters
which he plays. Aiming not to put his audience into a trance, he must not go
into a trance himself.” 22 The mission of this strategy is that once the play ends,
the spectator himself must turn into an actor continuing to perform in real life.
As we may understand in reading Althusser, this new model of semiosis rejects
both the model of transforming the spectator into a judge, as long as he is
turned into a comrade of the characters, and the model of identifying the spectator
with any of the characters. This identification doesn’t occur for a very simple
reason: the basis for any identification is an ideological recognition, given by
both the institution of the play and the common myths, the themes governing us
without our consent, in the same spontaneously lived ideology. That’s why we
recognize ourselves in the theatre play from the beginning, we share the same
history and the same events disturb our peace. But if in the classical theatre the
conditions of possibility, that is, the structures of this recognition, were not
questioned, they are the bases for the Brechtian epic theatre critique. ”Brecht
was right: if the theatre’s sole object were to be even a ’dialectical’ commentary
on this eternal self-recognition and non-recognition — then the spectator would
already know the tune, it is his own. If, on the contrary, the theatre’s object is to
destroy this intangible image, to set in motion the immobile, the eternal sphere
of the illusory consciousness’s mythical world, then the play is really the development,
the production of a new consciousness in the spectator – incomplete,
like any other consciousness, but moved by this incompletion itself, this distance
achieved, this inexhaustible work of criticism in action; the play is really the production
of a new spectator, an actor who starts where the performance ends,
who only starts so as to complete it, but in life.” 23
Waking Up
If, as Boris Buden says, today we are incapable to live the experience of the
present time as an experience of a crisis, the reason for this state of fact may
well consist in the fact that we have been subtly integrated in the infinitely more
sophisticated and more efficient machinery of a hypokrisis, becoming incapable
of acknowledging the actual conditions we live in. Assaulted by everyday life,
which develops melodramatically in the daily imaginary turned into a soapopera,
in the emotionalized politics and in the permanent excursions of the talkshows
in the thematic parks miming criticality, but in themselves being deeply
inoffensive, the artist – like many of us – considers that the responsibility of
resisting is on someone else’s shoulders, preferring to withdraw within the realm
of pure aesthetics. He reserves the right of pointing to the more or less acknowledged
failure of the two waves of institutional critique and, he says to himself, at
least aesthetics is something he knows best. In this text we have seen, however,
that the horizon of hope is not totally closed and that art still posses instruments
that we could use in order to re-conquer our subjectivities. Instead of setting
203