HOME
Executive Committee
Institutional Members
International Directory
Congresses
National Collections
Research Sites
Partner Organisations
WHAT'S NEW
FORUM
|
What may Stage-props convey
about the Art of Acting
Kari Gaarder Losnedahl
(Bergen)
Documentation et Art de
l'Acteur
Records and Images of the Art of the Performer
18ème Congrès
International, Stockholm 3-7 septembre 1990 / 18th
International Congress, Stockholm 3-7 September 1990
Editor: Barbro Stribolt (Drottningholms Teatermuseum).
Stockholm : 1992, p. 77-82
"Theatre",
Umberto Eco claims, is "among the various arts, the
one in which the whole of human experience is
co-involved, the very place in which complete "son
et lumière" events take place, in which human
bodies, artefacts, music, literary expressions (and
therefore literature, painting, music, architecture and
so on) are in play at the same moment." (The Drama
Review/ T73:108)
In the theatre these elements - and we might add even
more - are combined into one single whole and constitute
as such the object of investigation, that is the genuine
object of theatre studies, namely the
theatre-performance.
Furthermore, the elements act on and affect each other
and thus lose their independence.
One frequently debated question is which element is the
most important and the one on which all the other
elements depend. I will, however, confine myself to
noting that at different periods emphasis has been put on
different elements in the performance, and therefore the
theatre ought to be studied as a phenomenon in continuous
change and development. The same type of element is not
even necessarily present in every theatre production.
This means that the presence of and relationship between
the objects on stage are based on conventions and
agreements which are subject to change in the course of
time.
An analysis of the performance or of theatrical styles
must, therefore, focus on the questions of how the
different elements work and play upon each other, and on
their function in the performance as a whole. This
implies the study of a functional hierarchy of elements
and their possible change in the hegemony according to
historical context.
The problem is, however - and this is what characterizes
theatre studies in general: the lack of adequate
documentary material. The elements seem to be as fleeting
as the work of art they are part of. From the curator's
point of view, this is one of the main problems. The
acquisition of items, material and immaterial, are
incidental, sporadic, as well as sparse. This deficiency
must be our challenge. Our task must be to find
analytical approaches to the different existing artefacts
in order to increase their potential as theatrical
sources. In contrast to written documents the primary
intention of artefacts is not a communicative one.
However, an artefact may also be invested with meaning -
it imposesses a language, so to speak. When decoded it
will be able to serve as a reliable source of information
if asked the right questions. This means that decoding is
as active and creative as encoding because all codes rely
on social convention. Decoding is thus a complicated
task. When the artefact is read by a person belonging to
a different culture, different codes will be brought to
it because different cultures will produce different
meaning. Consequently the problem of background knowledge
will be among the fundamental factors in the decoding
process. The more we know the smaller will the chances of
aberrant decoding be. We need to know the function of the
artefact, and we need to know its context. In order to
become objects of scholary research, therefore, our
museum items have to be seen as signs, not as mere
things.
Is it possible or legitimate, then, to use one special
element or a limited selection of evidence as a source in
theatre studies? The question follows as a logical
consequence of what is stated above: theatre is a complex
piece of art consisting of different elements which are
in play at the same moment. Furthermore the elements act
on and affect each other, and therefore lose their
independence.
My thesis is that focusing on the special feature among
the complexity of elements which together constitute the
object of investigation, namely the theatre-performance,
and deriving information and knowledge about it by doing
so, is both legitimate and possible, because of, not in
spite of, the co-acting of the elements. By this I mean
that knowledge about one feature should quite logically
deduce information about another feature, the elements
being mutually dependent upon each other. Following this
line of thought I will therefore ask: "What do f.i.
stage props tell us about the art of acting?"
Two items will make the basis of my discource: a pudding
and a cheese, made of pasteboard, used as props in the
theatre in Bergen during the last century, assumably
during its first half. The props were rediscovered by
accident in 1985 together with some other painted props,
accompanied by a short documentation, dating them back to
the 1790'ties when they were made, and well into the next
century as to the use of them - probably they were in use
till after 1850.
The discourse will be divided into two parts: one
descriptive and one interpretative.
Research-model
My investigation will be based on four basic concepts:
- The elements are
interacting.
- Artefacts in order
to have meaning must be part of a sign-system.
- Artefacts function
as sources when it is possible to read - or
decode - them.
- The interaction and
dependence of the elements make it possible to
get information trom one artefact about another.
For pursuing this line
of research I will insist on three basic conditions or
criteria:
- Background
knowledge.
- Knowledge of
function.
- Knowledge of
context.
Stylistic
conventions, theatrical reality and functional hierarchy
of elements on stage are the three aspects I will
concentrate on in my investigation.
Description
Picture 1 is showing the front of the pudding,
placed on a plate, fastened to a wodden block. The
material of the pudding is pasteboard, which has been cut
and painted, the colours ot the pudding being brown and
yellowish, the plate green. The shape may be defined as
roundish, or dome-shaped, and it is two-dimensional. The
style is realistic in as much as it looks like a real
pudding, but it measures 0.23 by 0.30 cm. The prop is
somewhat torn, the plate is slightly damaged, and there
are evident marks of nails in the front. Considering the
item is approximately two hundred years old the condition
might be described as very good.
Picture 1
Picture
2. The reverse of the pudding. There is no paint on
the back which shows the technical device: the pudding is
fastened to a vertical stick of wood, placed on a wooden
block, the vertical stick probably not being the
original, as the wood here is lighter.
Picture 2
Picture
3 is showing the front of the cheese placed on a
plate. Like the pudding it is made of pasteboard. The
colours are yellow and brown for the cheese, the plate
being grey. The shape of the cheese is rather square
whereas the plate is roundish, the whole prop is
two-dimensional. The size of the cheese is about the same
as for the pudding, but whereas the cheese is put right
down on the table, the pudding is raised a few
centimetres above.
The style is realistic. The prop is both worn and torn,
and there are water-spots and evident marks of nails in
the front. The plate has been mended. Still the condition
may be described as good.
Picture 3
Picture 4. The reverse of the cheese. No paint on
the back. Technical device: the cheese is fastened to a
stick of wood which again is fastened to a small wooden
block. Both the props are supposed being made in the
1790ies for the theatre in Bergen, and the artistic
quality of the work is of high standard. The responsible
artist might be Johan Georg Müller.
Picture 4
Interpretation
Let me start with the artistic quality, here judged as
being of high standard.
As the elements in the theatre affect each other, it
would be reasonable then to assume this quality also goes
for the art of acting. How the actors performed,
is not yet answered. But the perfection we find in the
props, is therefore granted being equalized in - or at
least reflected in the acting due to the co- and
interacting of the elements. The props, we know, belonged
to The Dramatic Society in Bergen, established in 1794. A
dramatic society, consisting of mere amateurs, was the
first type of organized theatre in Norway, and towards
the end of the 1700's and the beginning of the 1800's
similar societies were created in most of our costal
towns. These societies were closed, and the members -
mainly recruited from the top of the bourgeoisie -
alternately served as actors and audience. Their ambition
was to copy the professional theatre on the Continent.
The artistic standard of the props in question emphasizes
this ambition.
We also know that Johan Georg Müller, the best-known
artist in Bergen at the time, was engaged by the dramatic
society as theatre decorator. Therefore he is assumed to
be responsible for the pudding and the cheese. Consulted
art-historians agree to this conclusion, both because of
the quality and of the style of the props. Thus we might
state: the high artistic standard of the props - combined
with knowledge about theatre-conditions in Bergen at the
time, implies (ambition of) high standard as to the art
of acting, cfr. the elements affecting and playing on
each other.
Their shape may probably convey more accurate
information. First of all the two-dimensionality of the
props suggests a picture-frame theatre, at least it
eliminates an arena-stage, because by making them
two-dimensional it means they are meant to be seen only
from one direction. Inevitably the surroundings and the
environment will influence the style of acting. In what
way I will not comment on here, only state the fact while
pointing to the information that might be drawn from the
props concerning the type of theatre which has been in
use.
The two-dimensionality furthermore, indicates that the
props were placed frontal and parallel with the
stage-floor. Hence the conclusion might be drawn that
also the acting has been frontal. The support of this
theory are two crowns in the Bergen Theatre Museum, made
of paper, decorated with coloured glass, dating from the
same period (maybe a little later). The decoration,
however, is only on the front of the crowns, indicating
that the actor never turned his back to the audience. The
interacting of the elements, being parts ot the same
conventions, means that the frontal implication of the
props reflects the general frontality of the whole
"picture", including the art of acting. A
strict frontal play may be defined as conventional, not
realistic or natural.
The shape, colours and style of the props, on the other
hand, might point to realism because of the resemblance
between the items and the genuine objects they are icons
of. The question is: How far does the illusion go? The
props are not imitations of real objects, and are not to
be mistaken for real food. And because they are made of
paper, they never have been intended to be eaten.
Thus the intention never was to make them identical with
reality, but rather to create feelings of recognition by
informing the audience about the environment, and
supporting the actor in giving him a milieu -
insisting all the way on the fiction they belonged to.
Picture
5
Picture 6
Picture
5 emphasizes this function of the props. By putting
together the pudding and a genuine human hand, it is
obvious that these props are not to be handled by the
actor. They are there to create an atmosphere in order to
support the actor - and the audience -, not to be active
co-players.
It is worth noting, though, that the prop is not painted
on the wall. It is an independant artifact standing by
itself. This denotes a tri-dimensionality compared to a
mere wall-painting implying an illusion the wall-painting
was deprived of.
By this follows that the realism in the props is
relative. But the elements of realism in the props hints
at a realism which must have been reflected in the acting
according to my thesis. From this I deduce there was
ambition of putting some emotions into the play in order
to diminish the declamatoric and stylistic way of acting
known from earlier periods. The fictive elements we find
in the props, on the other hand, - suggest a conventional
style compared to the conception of reality in modem
theatre. The style we are looking for, then, seems to be
close to what we would define as a romantic style.
Another relevant factor concerning the discussion about
realism is the size of the props. In picture 6 we
see the prop cheese and a genuine cheese, unveiling the
overdimensionality of the prop. This should mean that the
props were placed away from the actor. The appearent
realism in the icon signifies a realism which would be
broken if the actor came close up to them. The
"picture" would get out of proportion. The size
of the props therefore indicates physical distance
between the actor and the prop, and it is worth noting
that this lack of contact is intended (cfr. pict. 5).
Furthermore the size indicates a position in the
background - they are made big to be seen from distance -
and thus the actor is put to the fore part of the stage.
Consequently his movements are limited as only a part ot
the stage is for his use.
But even though the props were not meant to be active
co-players, the coherence between the props and the
actors has not been eliminated. The affectness among the
elements will always exist, and the independency of the
elements is what the interpretation and decoding is
dependent on. As size and two-dimensionaiity of the props
indicate something static f.i. - they were not to be
moved, not to be touched by the actor -, it is natural to
think the same confined mobility might have been
reflected in a similar confined mobility for the actor.
The condition of the props support this supposition.
The damage and the mending - not primarily caused by
aging - show they were used over and over again,
assumably until they were outdated. This might be a
metaphorical sign for the art of acting of the period:
Also the gestures of the actor are limited and repeated
over and over again. Evidence might be found in the
frontal play and the limitation of space as pointed out
above.
Conclusion
The answer to the question - what do stage props convey
about the art of acting? - asked in the introduction,
will then be as follows: the acting-style of the period
in question was frontal, the actors possessing the fore
part of stage, and a similar, rather relative confined
mobility also applied to the gestures. Elements of
realism in the props, though, point to romanticism, and
might suggest a break away from a conventional
declamatoric acting-style.
Using these props as sources to an understanding of the
art of acting does not automatically put them on top of
the functional hierarchy of elements on stage, however.
On the contrary, the function of these artefacts was to
give the context. They were to help and support the
actor. They stressed the importance of the visuality on
stage, still they were kept in the background.
In this way the props are bringing the actor and acting
into focus of attention, and the actor's speech and
movement of "limb and body" become the main
instruments of transmitting the message. This means that
in the existing hierarchy of functions on stage, acting
conveyed the predominant values of the performance
compared to the visuality on stage. Compared to the
textual element, I also find the style of acting
predominant, for the same reasons.
The props have been placed there to support the actor and
to give him a milieu to play in. If the text had been the
predominant factor the props would have hardly been
necessary. The props, however, are kept in the background
and thus emphasizing the role ot the actor. However,
acting being as fleeting as the work of art it is part
of, the excisting props become valuable objects of
scholarly research due to their capability of resistance,
keeping in mind the mutual dependence of all the elements
in the performance.
The props in question further more than symbolise the
theatre in general: Theatre is fiction. It is an art form
and it is artificial. It is not reality, but reflects -
or should we rather say refracts reality. It is
imaginative. It creates its own universe, its own
reality. The cheese and the pudding were made to work in
the theatrical universe, not in the real world. The
actors on stage and the audience in the auditorium both
knew this. The theatre is based upon a special agreement
between the two parties - a cultural convention, which,
as we know, is subject to change in the course ot time.
Therefore the set of conventions the pudding and the
cheese are part of,
presupposes - among other things - an active
participation of the human
imagination unrecognized by people in the 20th century.
If put on stage today the pudding and the cheese would
give quite different connotations to the audience and the
actors - than they did 200 years ago.
Bibliography
Aspelin, Kurt & Lundberg, Bengt
A. (red.): Tecken og tydning. Stockholm 1976.
Aspelin, Kurt (red.): Teaterarbete. Stockholm
1977.
Bjergo, Tore & Heradstveit, Daniel: Politisk
kommunikasjon. Intsoduksjon til semiotikk og retorikk.
Oslo 1987.
Eco, Umberto: A Theory of Semiotics: Bloomington
1979.
Fiske, J.: Introduction to Communication
Studies. London 1985.
Holm, Ingvar (red.): Teater. Tecken. Språk. Struktur.
Stockholm 1981.
Kleberg, Lars: Teatern som handling. Stockholm
1980.
Rogan, Bjarne: Materiell kultur som kommunikasjon.
Noen kildeteoretiske perspelrtiver. Dugnad 4, 1986.
Smith, Charles Saumarez: "Museums, Artefacts, and
Meanings" in Vergo, Peter (red.): The New
Museology, London, 1989.
18th Congress
SIBMAS Home Page
URL:
http://www.theatrelibrary.org/sibmas/congresses/sibmas90/sto_16.html
Information about
this site: Claire Hudson, Secretary General
Last modified:
November 21, 2000
|
