Article
| Title: | Phenomenological aspects of the Prague School theatre theory |
| Author: | |
| Source document: | Theatralia. 2014, vol. 17, iss. 2, pp. 162-171 |
| Extent: | 162-171 |
| ISSN: | 1803-845X (print); 2336-4548 (online) |
| Type: | Article (English) |
| Stable URL: | http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/130886 |
| License: |
PDF
Abstract(s):
The rise of Structuralism and semiotics in Western thought during the 1970s and 1980s led most theatre theorists to misinterpret the Prague School contribution as a mere transfer from Russian Formalism. They consequently disregarded those aspects of several Czech theorists' work which pointed to the dynamism, changeability and flexibility of the system of theatre signs, thus going beyond the taxonomic formality of semiotics and actually anticipating contemporary phenomenological readings of the stage. A revisionist reading of a number of theatre-related issues, raised by various theorists of the Prague School, proves that their work was indeed pioneer in that it definitely discerned and articulated the binocular nature of theatre mechanics and created a chiasmic perception in theatre studies between semiotics and phenomenology much earlier than any such theoretical perspective was conceived elsewhere in the West.
Keywords:
semiotics; phenomenology; performance; performativity; mobility of the sign; transformability of the sign
References:
[1] AUSTIN, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.
[2] BOGATYREV, Petr. 1976. Semiotics in the Folk Theatre, trans. by Bruce Kochis. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 33‒50.
[3] BRUŠÁK, Karel. 1976. Signs in the Chinese Theatre. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 59‒73.
[4] BUTLER, Judith. 1988. Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal 40 (1988): 4: 519–31. | DOI 10.2307/3207893
[5] ELAM, Keir. 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London/New York: Methuen, 1980.
[6] FISCHER-LICHTE, Erika. 2008. The Transformative Power of Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[7] GARNER, Stanton B., Jr. 1994. Bodied Spaces: Phenomenology and Performance in Contemporary Drama. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1994.
[8] GARVIN, Harry R. (ed.). 1964. A Prague School Reader on Ethics, Literary Structure, and Style. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1964.
[9] GARVIN, Harry R. (ed.). 1976. Phenomenology, Structuralism, Semiology. Bucknell Review. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press/London: Associated University Presses, 1976.
[10] HONZL, Jindřich. 1976a. Dynamics of the Sign in Theatre. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 74‒93.
[11] HONZL, Jindřich. 1976b. Hierarchy of Dramatic Devices. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 118‒27.
[12] LEHMANN, Hans-Thies. 2006. Postdramatic Theatre. London: Routledge, 2006.
[13] MATĚJKA, Ladislav and Irwin R. TITUNIK (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976.
[14] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1976. The Essence of the Visual Arts. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 229‒44.
[15] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1978a. Intentionality and Unintentionality in Art. In id. Structure, Sign and Function: Selected Essays. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978: 89‒128.
[16] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1978b. On the Current State of the Theory of Theatre. In id. Structure, Sign and Function: Selected Essays. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978: 201‒19.
[17] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1978c. Structure, Sign and Function: Selected Essays. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978.
[18] OSOLSOBĚ, Ivo. 1979. On Ostensive Communication. Studia Semiotyczne 9 (1979): 63‒75.
[19] PAVIS, Patrice. 2012. Semiology After Semiology. Theatralia (2012): 2: 37‒49.
[20] PUCHNER, Walter. 2012. Jiří Veltruský. An Approach to the Semiotics of Theatre, a review. Theatralia (2012): 2: 220‒6.
[21] QUINN, Michael L. 1995. The Semiotic Stage: Prague School Theater Theory. New York: Peter Lang, 1995.
[22] STATES, Bert. O. 1985. Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theater. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.
[23] STEINER, Peter (ed.). 1982. The Prague School Selected Writings, 1929‒1946. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982.
[24] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1976a. Basic Features of Dramatic Dialogue. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 128‒33.
[25] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1976b. Dramatic Text as Component of Theatre. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 95‒117.
[26] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1976c. Some Aspects of the Pictorial Sign. In L. Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT University Press, 1976: 245‒64.
[27] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1964. Man and Object in the Theatre. In Harry R. Garvin (ed.). A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 83‒93.
[28] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 2012. An Approach to the Semiotics of Theatre. Brno: Masaryk University/Prague Linguistics Circle, 2012.
[29] VOLEK, Emil. 2012. Theatrology an Zich, and Beyond: Notes Towards a Metacritical Repositioning of Theory, Semiotics, Theatre, and Aesthetics. Theatralia (2012): 2: 168‒85.
