Název: Between intentionality and affect: on Jan Mukařovský's theory of reception
Zdrojový dokument: Theatralia. 2014, roč. 17, č. 2, s. 24-40
Rozsah
24-40
-
ISSN1803-845X (print)2336-4548 (online)
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/130875
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
Erin Hurley and Sara Warner in their insightful study "Affect/Performance/Politics" (2012) remind us that humanities and social sciences today experience a new sweep of theoretical inquiry, focusing on studying affect as a leading mechanism of our cognition and communication, as well as making and receiving art products. This paper takes this theoretical proposition further. I argue that although the theory of affect is still struggling to find its own methodology of textual and performance analysis, when it is paired with semiotic approaches in theatre scholarship, it can offer interesting insights on how theatrical performance capitalizes on its built-in structural or artistic intentionality – Jan Mukařovský's semantic gesture - to evoke the audience's emotional responses.
eng
Reference
[1] BALINT, Michael. 1978. Thrills and Regressions. London: Karnac Books, 1987.
[2] BOGART, Anne. 2010. Foreword. In Erin Hurley. Theatre and Feeling. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2010: ix‒xv.
[3] CULL, Laura. 2012. Affect in Deleuze, Hijikata, and Coates: The Politics of Becoming-Animal in Performance. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism (2012): 2: 189‒203.
[4] DOLEŽEL, Lubomír. 1999. Epistemology of the Prague School. In Herta Schmid and Vladimir Macura (eds.). Jan Mukařovský and the Prague School. Brandneburg: University in Potsdam, 1999: 15‒25.
[5] DI BENEDETTO, Steve. The Provocation of the Senses in Contemporary Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2010.
[6] DELEUZE, Gilles and Felix GUATTARI. 1994. What is Philosophy? Trans. Graham Burchell and Hugh Tomlinson. New York: Verso, 1994.
[7] FISCHER-LICHTE, Erica. 2008. The Transformative Power of Performance: ANew Aesthetics. Trans. Saskya Iris Jain. London/New York: Routledge, 2008.
[8] FIZER, John. 1988. Mukařovský's Aesthetic Object in Light of Husserl's Phenomenology of the Intentional Object. In Jane GaryHarris (ed.). American Contributions to the 10th International Congress of Slavists. Columbus (OH): Slavica, 1988: 155–65.
[9] HURLEY, Erin. 2010. Theatre and Feeling. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2010.
[10] HURLEY, Erin and Sara WARNER. 2012. Affect/Performance/Politics. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism (2012): 2: 99‒102.
[11] LEVITIN, Daniel J. 2006. This is Your Brain to Music. The Science of a Human Obsession. New York: Penguin, 2006.
[12] LOTMAN, Yuri. 1994. Jan Mukařovský – teoretik iskusstva [Jan Mukařovský – Theoretician of Art]. In Jan Mukařovský. Issledovaniya po estetike i teorii iskusstva [Works in Aesthetics and Theory of Art]. Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1994: 8‒35.
[13] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1970. Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value. Trans. Mark E. Suino. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Contributions, 1970.
[14] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1977. The Individual and Literary Development. In John Burbank and Peter Steiner (transl. and eds.). The Word and Verbal Art: Selected Essays by Jan Mukařovský. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977: 161‒80.
[15] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1978a. Intentionality and Unintentionality in Art. In John Burbank and Peter Steiner (transl. and eds.).Structure, Sign, and Function: Selected Essays by Jan Mukařovský. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978: 89‒128.
[16] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1978b. Place of the Aesthetic Function Among the Other Functions. In John Burbank and Peter Steiner (transl. and eds.). Structure, Sign, and Function: Selected Essays by Jan Mukařovský. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978: 31‒49.
[17] MUSE, John H. 2012. Performance and the Pace of Empathy. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism (2012): 2: 173‒88.
[18] PESCHEL, Lisa. 2012. "Structures of Feeling" as Methodology and the Re-emergence of Holocaust Survivor Testimony in 1960s Czechoslovakia. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 26 (2012): 2: 161–172. | DOI 10.1353/dtc.2012.0015
[19] RANCIÈRE, Jacques. The Emancipated Spectator. Trans. Gregory Elliot. London/New York: Verso, 2009.
[20] RUSH, Ormond. 1997. The Reception of Doctrine: An Appropriation of Hans Robert Jauss' Reception Aesthetics and Literary Hermeneutics. Rome: Georgian University Press, 1997.
[21] STEINER, Peter. 1984. Production versus Reception: The Esthetic Axiologies of Otakar Zich and Jan Mukařovský. In Benjamin A. Stolz, I. R. Titunik and L. Doležel (eds.). Language and Literary Theory, in Honor of Ladislav Matejka. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984: 527‒34.
[2] BOGART, Anne. 2010. Foreword. In Erin Hurley. Theatre and Feeling. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2010: ix‒xv.
[3] CULL, Laura. 2012. Affect in Deleuze, Hijikata, and Coates: The Politics of Becoming-Animal in Performance. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism (2012): 2: 189‒203.
[4] DOLEŽEL, Lubomír. 1999. Epistemology of the Prague School. In Herta Schmid and Vladimir Macura (eds.). Jan Mukařovský and the Prague School. Brandneburg: University in Potsdam, 1999: 15‒25.
[5] DI BENEDETTO, Steve. The Provocation of the Senses in Contemporary Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2010.
[6] DELEUZE, Gilles and Felix GUATTARI. 1994. What is Philosophy? Trans. Graham Burchell and Hugh Tomlinson. New York: Verso, 1994.
[7] FISCHER-LICHTE, Erica. 2008. The Transformative Power of Performance: ANew Aesthetics. Trans. Saskya Iris Jain. London/New York: Routledge, 2008.
[8] FIZER, John. 1988. Mukařovský's Aesthetic Object in Light of Husserl's Phenomenology of the Intentional Object. In Jane GaryHarris (ed.). American Contributions to the 10th International Congress of Slavists. Columbus (OH): Slavica, 1988: 155–65.
[9] HURLEY, Erin. 2010. Theatre and Feeling. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2010.
[10] HURLEY, Erin and Sara WARNER. 2012. Affect/Performance/Politics. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism (2012): 2: 99‒102.
[11] LEVITIN, Daniel J. 2006. This is Your Brain to Music. The Science of a Human Obsession. New York: Penguin, 2006.
[12] LOTMAN, Yuri. 1994. Jan Mukařovský – teoretik iskusstva [Jan Mukařovský – Theoretician of Art]. In Jan Mukařovský. Issledovaniya po estetike i teorii iskusstva [Works in Aesthetics and Theory of Art]. Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1994: 8‒35.
[13] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1970. Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value. Trans. Mark E. Suino. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Contributions, 1970.
[14] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1977. The Individual and Literary Development. In John Burbank and Peter Steiner (transl. and eds.). The Word and Verbal Art: Selected Essays by Jan Mukařovský. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977: 161‒80.
[15] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1978a. Intentionality and Unintentionality in Art. In John Burbank and Peter Steiner (transl. and eds.).Structure, Sign, and Function: Selected Essays by Jan Mukařovský. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978: 89‒128.
[16] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1978b. Place of the Aesthetic Function Among the Other Functions. In John Burbank and Peter Steiner (transl. and eds.). Structure, Sign, and Function: Selected Essays by Jan Mukařovský. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978: 31‒49.
[17] MUSE, John H. 2012. Performance and the Pace of Empathy. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism (2012): 2: 173‒88.
[18] PESCHEL, Lisa. 2012. "Structures of Feeling" as Methodology and the Re-emergence of Holocaust Survivor Testimony in 1960s Czechoslovakia. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 26 (2012): 2: 161–172. | DOI 10.1353/dtc.2012.0015
[19] RANCIÈRE, Jacques. The Emancipated Spectator. Trans. Gregory Elliot. London/New York: Verso, 2009.
[20] RUSH, Ormond. 1997. The Reception of Doctrine: An Appropriation of Hans Robert Jauss' Reception Aesthetics and Literary Hermeneutics. Rome: Georgian University Press, 1997.
[21] STEINER, Peter. 1984. Production versus Reception: The Esthetic Axiologies of Otakar Zich and Jan Mukařovský. In Benjamin A. Stolz, I. R. Titunik and L. Doležel (eds.). Language and Literary Theory, in Honor of Ladislav Matejka. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984: 527‒34.