There was a lot of stuff in this section that I had already known. Most of it I’d never been trained in, which is something that I actually have a little bit of a beef with every time that I read an article like this (or any of theatrical design books). My issue (forgive me, but I just have to say this) is that a lot of the time I feel like people don’t take these ideas into consideration when creating the work, but only when analyzing it. In the creation, I feel like there is more of doing and pure emotion than analytical thought process of where to put the vertical line. This makes me wonder how much of this stuff is intuitive and how much is contrived. Thoughts?
I know they were talking about reading an image at the time, but I liked the discussion of “determine the ‘figure’ and the ‘background’” at the beginning of the article. The discussion talked about how different images may or may not include an actual “figure” in them, but that there still is a figure there, and that that figure may change based on what your perspective is on “figure” and (I believe) your perspective on the image itself. I think that this can be applied to verbal texts as well as visual. As both actors and artists my students will have to consider both the verbal and visual implications of “figures”. Visually they will have to do as discussed – determine what is the figure and what is the background. Using this as an exercise could help them to understand how to place themselves on stage according to where the focus should be, which parts of the stage to avoid and which to capitalize off of. They could repeat this idea using only themselves, or in groups of anywhere from 2-your entire cast. Verbally the idea is slightly different, but similar in fundamentals. When reading a text, usually a poem but occasionally plays as well, there is room for interpretation. Students’ own backgrounds can lead to different thoughts and meanings for the text. (As mentioned in the article, this often occurs with visual texts as well.) This can be a hazard unless it is recognized. If recognized, it then allows the students to explore the differences between their own ideas and others (the class, the author if available, etc) and compare and contrast the differences in meaning that surface. This exploration can (not will) lead to a greater understanding of the text and their classmates’ views and personalities.
Another topic discussed that I find transcends the area discussed (visual text) is tone. Tone is something that is a part of every text – visual, verbal, physical, and anything else you can think of. Its manifestation varies depending on the medium (body, paint, words), but the result should be the same when used appropriately. The tone of the piece can completely change the idea that the observer comes away with. I think the best way to help my students understand this idea is to let them experience it through as many mediums as possible – paintings, poems, plays, short stories, etc. One way that just came to mind would be to greet them two consecutive days using the exact same words, but using a completely different tone (physically and verbally), and to have them compare their reactions. Or, play with one word – “Oh.” “Ohhhhhh.” “Ooooooohhhhhhh.” can all yield different reactions.
Mixed media is definitely an interesting thing to consider in the lens of a theatre teacher. If you think about it, all plays present mixed media – text, bodies, paintings, wood, metal, fabric, music, light… all come together to present one message. Discussing mixed media wouldn’t be so different than our own discussion of concept and how to tie in each of the design elements to the central theme so that nothing stand out by itself and attracts undue attention, or how to make something attract a lot of focus. As the book mentioned, the discussion of materials (or at least what the materials are made to resemble) and realisms/abstract/impressionism, and the relationship with the text are all extremely important thoughts to consider in conveying the desired theme of a theatre piece.
2 comments:
I agree that it is irritating that there is a lack of training on visual media, and I also agree that there is something more instinctive in setting up something that is visually stimulating than there is in someone taking the time to pose things and think through the poses and shapes of things. I think that it is still valid to go through and analyze the different meanings in visual images, despite the fact that the creator may or may not have meant that image to have meaning. This pulls in the idea that there are multiple ways to read text, whether that text be seen, read, or heard. There are not only multiple meanings that can be found in a piece of work, but there are multiple ways to approach that work. A person brings to a text their own history and their own ideas. When a person looks at something, they are not coming to the object with an empty slate. They are coming to it with their history and their ideas already there, which will shape the meaning that will come. I think that because of this, it might be important to sometimes realize that there is not a meaning behind things and to acknowledge it, but also to appreciate the fact that even though there might not have been a meaning intentionally, a person can learn from the things they see.
In a classroom, I think it will be important to remember that there are a lot of different types of media that you can use as a new teaching method. Media is a great way to reach a variety of people, and even though I’m going to be an English teacher, I feel like there are a lot of different types of media that will help to bridge the gap between the text and the student. I can use media to have students understand different ideas that might be hard for them to understand without using something that is in their own “language.”
I agree that it is irritating that there is a lack of training on visual media, and I also agree that there is something more instinctive in setting up something that is visually stimulating than there is in someone taking the time to pose things and think through the poses and shapes of things. I think that it is still valid to go through and analyze the different meanings in visual images, despite the fact that the creator may or may not have meant that image to have meaning. This pulls in the idea that there are multiple ways to read text, whether that text be seen, read, or heard. There are not only multiple meanings that can be found in a piece of work, but there are multiple ways to approach that work. A person brings to a text their own history and their own ideas. When a person looks at something, they are not coming to the object with an empty slate. They are coming to it with their history and their ideas already there, which will shape the meaning that will come. I think that because of this, it might be important to sometimes realize that there is not a meaning behind things and to acknowledge it, but also to appreciate the fact that even though there might not have been a meaning intentionally, a person can learn from the things they see.
In a classroom, I think it will be important to remember that there are a lot of different types of media that you can use as a new teaching method. Media is a great way to reach a variety of people, and even though I’m going to be an English teacher, I feel like there are a lot of different types of media that will help to bridge the gap between the text and the student. I can use media to have students understand different ideas that might be hard for them to understand without using something that is in their own “language.”
Post a Comment