As for the second question, I have a hard time in seeing events such as the Holocaust should even be represented as artwork. Understanding the intense emotions these pieces provoke does help to see why they would be important, but if someone would to create a piece about a rape, should we approach this in the same way? I guess I'm not fully decided on where I stand on this issue because I see how both ways, whether they should be represented or not, could offend or upset those actually involved, whether it is the Holocaust or rape. Additionally, I think of films about the Holocaust such as the Schindler's List, how watching this shows a more positive side, if there even is one, to this event. I would agree that making this film allowed people, whether alive then or born after, to experience a different outlook.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Is it there? Nope, I don't think so!
The first theatrical abstraction that came to mind after reading this week's prompt comes from the Broadway musical Beauty and the Beast. I had the privilege of seeing it last semester at the Union Theater and it was fantastic! Though what stuck with me most afterwards was how Chip was portrayed. Remember the beloved little tea cup with a tiny chip on the top? Well, this beloved character turned into a slightly terrifying abstraction. Instead of placing a kid actor into a tea cup costume, they chose to only use his head on top of a moving round table. I assume what was used to cover his body was some sort of reflecting prop, but it did not help with the creepy look of a head floating around. I even had seats on the third row on the right side of the stage and could catch glimpses of the backstage but still was not able to see how they were hiding this kid's body. By not showing his body (until the end when everyone turned human again), they were participating in Sofer's concept of dark matter. Having his body absent the entire show gave the convincing illusion that his floating head was the tea cup, Chip. Personally, I was distracted for a good part of the time by this high-pitched, cute floating head. Though I think it accomplished what it wanted to do and that was to be effective in showing Chip.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's very interesting that you are so undecided as to if horrific events should be represented in art because of the possible offense it could produce. Personally, I am under the impression that often art's goal is to produce a reaction, rather that specific reaction it happens to create is intended or not is out of the artist's control. When a piece doesn't move me, what's the point of it? I don't think that it's good art so why even create it. Is it art at that point? I think art is suppose to create a reaction and it's suppose to be informative or reflective and I find that it is much more important to take that risk then to let important pieces of history and important yet maybe uncomfortable aspects of life to not be discussed because it might unintentionally hurt someone's feelings.
ReplyDeleteYvette! Thanks for your comment. I totally agree that art is supposed to provoke a reaction to it's viewer, whether a positive or negative one. Personally, I've had trouble in finding a line (if there is even one) whether something should not be represented. Even though I have never experienced something as traumatic as the Holocaust or rape, I always think what if I had, would I want to see an art piece that represented what I went through. I do see your point in then what's the point of art if not having a reaction to it. Thanks for continuing a dialogue on this topic.
ReplyDelete