본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

Non-Aristotelian Aesthetics of Theater (Ⅰ) : From Empathy to Active Communication

  • The Journal of Aesthetics and Science of Art
  • Abbr : JASA
  • 2011, 33(), pp.143-176
  • Publisher : 한국미학예술학회
  • Research Area : Arts and Kinesiology > Other Arts and Kinesiology
  • Published : June 30, 2011

Jun-Sik Won 1

1대전대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

Up to the 19th century, the main stream in the history of the western theater has been the aristotelian. In Poetics Aristotle defined catharsis as the aim of the tragedy, and it sets empathy forth as a premise. By virtue of the empathy, the spectator experiences the circumstances of the dramatic characters as his own. To make the spectator to easily identify himself with the character, the happenings on the stage need to look like a reality, not a fiction. This theatrical illusion is the essence of the aristotelian theater, and western theater has developed in the direction of reinforcing the illusion until the 19th century. Bertolt Brecht thought that the traditional theater hindered the spectator in his critical thought. According to him, in the theater pursuing empathy and theatrical illusion the spectator uncritically accepts the character’s perception, emotion and understanding. He wanted that the spectator took an active and critical stand instead of a passive attitude on the incident on the stage. Thus his epic theater aims at destroying the theatrical illusion through Verfremdungseffekt, and so appealing not to the spectator’s emotion but to his reason. In the aristotelian theater, the spectator delegates power to the dramatic character so that the latter may think and act in his place. Differently from him, Brecht’s spectator has the right to think for himself, but still delegates power to act to the character. So his experience is revealing on the level of consciousness, but not globally on the level of the action. In Augusto Boal’s theater of the oppressed, on the contrary, the spectator no longer delegates power to the characters either to think or to act in his place: he thinks and acts for himself. He is no longer an object of the theater, but becomes a subject of it. The aim of the theater of the oppressed is for the spectator to recover ability to think and to act through the theater, so to ready him for a subject of his real life. In this respect, the theater is a rehearsal of reality. For Brecht and Boal, the theater was not a laundry of emotion but a field for communication. And in it they tried to change the spectator from an object of the theater to a subject of the communication. For Brecht the communication was restricted to the level of consciousness, but Boal extended it to the level of action and so intended to abolish the distinction between actor and spectator. Consequently, his theater of the oppressed, in the respect of the communication between stage and audience, is the most democratic form of theater in the history of western theater up to now.

Statistics

  • 809 Viewed
  • 16 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search