I haven't re-read this one but I remember being particularly proud of it. I'd like to do more research and expand it a bit. This is from a class called Creative Play in the ARts . . .
Where Turner and Huizinga Meet: the Liminal State in Play
In my opinion, Homo Ludens is difficult to follow because the intent of the book is unclear. Who is the audience? What is Johan Huizinga trying to prove? Unlike Victor Turner, who writes about ritual and theatre from a anthropological point of view, Huizinga seems to pontificate on various aspects of play without an overarching thesis, which leads to a series of chapters that rarely reference each other and are seemingly repetitive and, at times, contradictory. Huizinga presents a lot of interesting and important information but I found I had to dig for it; I found a sentence here or an idea there that I wanted to remember but could not because we had suddenly moved in a new direction without any evidence or argument to support said finding. In order to glean as much as possible from Homo Ludens I found myself filtering Huizinga’s thoughts through the other readings our Creative Play in the Arts class has addressed thus far. More specifically, as I read Homo Ludens I was constantly looking for links to the topics from From Ritual to Theatre we discussed in class. I therefore propose that Huizinga and Turner would agree on at least one thing: the liminal state can be found in play.
As Turner explains, the term liminality derives from the Latin “limen” for “threshold” (24). Turner finds liminality is most prevalent in pre-industrial and tribal cultures. “The liminal phases of tribal society invert but do not usually subvert the status quo, the structural form, of society” (41). Those in the liminal state are pushed outside of society where they live and operate on a set of rules only acceptable for those experiencing liminality. Those experiencing a liminal state as a rite of passage create a temporary sub-society. “Even in liminality, where the bizarre behavior so often remarked upon by anthropologists occurs, the sacra, masks, etc., emerge to view under the guise at least of ‘collective representations’” (43). Specifically, those in the liminal state may experience feelings typically associated with an age or period of transition:
Liminality is, of course, an ambiguous state, for social structure, while it inhibits full social satisfaction, gives a measure of finiteness and security; liminality may be for many the acme of insecurity, the breakthrough of chaos into cosmos, of disorder into order, than the milieu of creative interhuman or transhuman satisfactions and achievements (46). More generally, the “ . . . blurring and merging of distinctions may characterize liminality” (26). Essentially, liminality is a state of being in between, of elation, and presupposing an impending change for the person(s) in the liminal state.
Similarly, Huizinga discusses a state outside of supposed “ordinary” or “real” life. The presentation of this idea, however, is scattered throughout the book and is less clear than Turner’s idea of liminality. Huizinga explains, “Play only becomes possible, thinkable and understandable when an influx of mind breaks down the absolute determinism of the cosmos” (3) but he does not go into more detail about this break down. It seems, however, that his aim is not so much to explain why we play but how we play. The idea that “into an imperfect world and into the confusion of life [play] brings a temporary, a limited perfection” (10) certainly seems to include some kind of liminality. A perfect moment or a perfect state of being could only be temporary and it would require an elated state of mind. In that light, Huizinga describes the state of a child’s mind at play: "The child is quite literally ‘beside himself’ with delight, transported beyond himself to such an extent that he almost believes he actually is such and such a thing, without, however, wholly losing consciousness of ‘ordinary reality’" (14). The child at play is in a liminal state: outside of “ordinary” society and in an atypical frame of mind. When the game is over he or she has crossed a threshold to a new level of understanding or brain activity level.
Huizinga does not approach this level of being in adults, which seems both unexpected and unsurprising. Huizinga discusses child play only in depth at the beginning of Homo Ludens and he goes on to cite examples of play in adult life for the majority of the rest of the book, but he never returns to the psychology of play. For example, he explains, “. . . play is not ‘ordinary’ or ‘real’ life. It is rather a stepping out of ‘real’ life into a temporary sphere of activity with a disposition all of its own,” which is very similar to Turner’s definition of the liminal (8). Huizinga goes on, however, to relate this specifically to children: “Every child knows perfectly well that he is ‘only pretending’, or that it was ‘only for fun” (8). Although Huizinga approaches the concept of play existing on a threshold, he only does so only in regards to child play, which is curious because the majority of the book considers play in adult situations.
Both Huizinga and Turner mention some concept liminality in play, or vice versa, but I feel both authors should have presented this discussion in more depth. While Turner discusses play in the liminality of ritual, Huizinga deals with the placement of play only. Turner, however, does a more complete job of incorporating the three ideas together: "For there are undoubtedly ‘ludic’ aspects in ‘tribal,’ etc., culture, especially in the liminal periods of protracted initiation or calendrically based rituals (32); . . . liminality may involve a complex sequence of episodes in sacred space-time, and my also include subversive and ludic (or playful) events" (27). Whereas Huizinga only hints at concepts outside of play alone: “The exceptional and special position of play is most tellingly illustrated by the fact that it loves to surround itself with an air of secrecy” (12). It seems that this “air of secrecy” may derive from ritualistic activity, even in child play. Similarly, I think Huizinga misses the mark when he says, “ . . . play must serve something which is not play, . . . it must have some kind of biological purpose” (2). Could not this thing, this thing play serves be ritual, society, or culture? None of these are biological concepts. Turner proves very clearly the many links between play and culture, although I think what I am discussing and his allusions to play in liminality are separate from the liminoidal state, which involves leisure activities and has nothing to do with an altered state of mind or being. Huizinga himself mentions, “ . . . play is to be understood here not as a biological phenomenon but as a cultural phenomenon” (Foreword). This statement is in clear contradiction to other points Huizinga makes, such as the quote above from page 2. Turner argues that through culture we find play, which may lead to the liminal state: " . . . it is the analysis of culture into factors and their free or ‘ludic’ recombination in any and every possible pattern, however weird, that is of the essence of liminality, liminality par excellence" (28). It seems to me that there should be more overlap between Huizinga and Turner in these ideas. There is a piece missing from both texts in that neither author truly tackles play and liminality in specific. They are mentioned throughout both books but I think the obvious connection between play and liminality is too important to simply gloss over.
The lack of concentrated and specific information in Homo Ludens led me to compare it to the starkly different layout of information in From Ritual to Theatre. Although Turner often presents an idea followed by the definition terms he uses, which can be confusing, I feel his text is more organized overall. Where Turner is clearly writing for anthropologists, it is unclear who Huizinga anticipates reading his book. Although Huizinga has clearly delineated chapters I feel his presentation of the ideas that fit under the theme of each chapter is not well presented because it is confusing, contradictory, and does not have a clear through-line.
What intrigues me is the overlap between Turner and Huizinga’s concepts of play and culture and ritual, more specifically the overlap of play and liminality. As Huizinga says, “The joy inextricably bound up with playing can turn not only into tension, but into elation” (21). I believe it is this elated state of mind that drives creative artists. If Turner’s statement that “one works at the liminal . . .” is true it only further proves that point (55). I think Huizinga would agree: “The thrill, the ‘being seized’ by the phenomena of life and nature is condensed by reflex action, as it were, to poetic expression and art” (17). I would argue that we see some degree of liminality in anyone at play: a child playing in his or her yard, a daydreaming school student, an artist impassioned by inspiration. I think Turner and Huizinga would enjoy studying liminality in play; it is a shame they did not take the opportunity when it was in front of them.
Works Cited
Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens. Boston: Beacon, 1955.
Turner, Victor. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York:
Performing Arts Journal Press, 1982.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Aristotle Across the Curriculum
This is a term paper I wrote for my Dramatic Criticism class last semester. I really struggled with this assignment and haven't revisited this paper so I don't know what you guys will think of it . . .
Language Arts teachers are, in essence, molding their students to understand and become literary theorists. Students in an English class analyze, critique, and write their own pieces of literature. From exploring poetry to epic novels, the basic framework for approaching literature is read/experience, break-down/analyze, and reflect/critique. Even at the Elementary School level students are taught to identify who, what, when, where, why, and how when reading and/or telling a story. The essence of those questions can find their root in Aristotle’s as a literary theorist.
Aristotle’s vast consideration of and opinions on teaching, analyzing, and using language, both written and spoken, can be a rooting guide for the Language Arts teacher. In fact, Aristotle had strong opinions on education in general and he even relates public speaking directly to teaching: “ . . . to make truth prevail by presenting it effectively in the conditions of actual communication, to move . . . to advance inquiry by such methods as are open to men generally, to teach . . .” (Baldwin, 9). For the teacher, the key points in this statement are truth, effectiveness, communication, and teaching; educators should certainly use these themes as a very basic approach to creating a framework for education. Considering the educator as a sort of rhetorician, it seems fitting that the teacher should situate him or herself in a theoretical and philosophical stance in order to present him or herself clearly and concisely. After all, Aristotle says, “ . . . the practice of education not only may be guided by philosophy, it must be” (Baldwin, 6). So where does the teacher begin?
Aristotle broke theatre down into six main elements: plot, character, thought, diction, song, and spectacle. Re-sequence these elements, according to importance, and the building blocks of different genres will be apparent. “The immediate concern is the meaning of the definition and the division [of the elements] for dramaturgy” (Baldwin, 146). Perhaps the teacher could ask the students to rank the elements for each reading and writing assignment in order to give the students’ analysis specific direction (e.g. Catcher in the Rye is a plot-driven novel told through the voice of one character, whose particular view of the events in the event leads to a surprise ending). More advanced classes might be broken into groups with each group assigned an element to use as a focused lens in interpreting a novel or other reading assignment. Students may have to be reminded what element they are considering or what exactly that means; what seems like a plot point may actually be a moment of character development. Of course those things are debatable and both sides might be argued, which would be a dynamic class discussion or debate as well. As students become more comfortable with making the differentiations between the six elements, their analysis will be more intricate and they will provide more evidence for the points they are making in discussion or formal assignments. Regardless of the level the students are at, exercises such as these are an easy for the students to grasp and can lead to in-depth discussions about the text and about the importance of each of these elements.
Once students grasp the concept that all literature can be analyzed based on these six elements they can begin to apply them in a less direct manner. Discussions can be held on how each of these elements affected the piece. Does the use of language over plot (e.g. a spoken-word poem) make the reader feel a certain way? Was that the author’s intent? “As Aristotle conceived it, the purpose of epideictic rhetoric was the praise or blame of the values addressed by the rhetor or the persons or deeds held up as examples of those values” (Selby, 95). This is applicable to other art forms as well: theatre, literature, visual art, etc. can be used to a specific purpose. Ask the students if they can root the piece they are studying in some event or relationship the author would have experienced or known about using the six elements as clues. For example, how might the characters and the setting in one of Shakespeare’s history plays relate to the politics of the government in England when Shakespeare wrote the play? Are there plot similarities between the play and history? Did similar events happen? Are there any clues in the words? It is likely that either the students will take this challenge and run with it or they will need a good amount of help and prompting. These kinds of investigations can be taken even further because they work well as inter-disciplinary projects where the students are studying linking material in several subjects. Literature, communications, and social studies classes can often create cross-curriculum lesson plans that will prepare the students for larger projects that incorporate the six elements across the curriculum. In fact, the six elements can be used to break down historical events, newspaper articles, films, etc. Action films are often driven by spectacle; an interesting ad campaign may be driven by a complex plot, etc. Utilizing the elements across the curriculum will encourage students to think critically and logically without making assumptions. It will also remind the students that abstract correlations will not hold up under scrutiny.
Given the time and support of the school’s administration, complex interdisciplinary projects can assigned and can be of great value to the students’ education. “Using an integrated approach to education . . . can effectively provide a dynamic curriculum structure that can dramatically and positively affect the school’s curriculum and learning community” (Kritsonis and Watkins). There are any number of ways to accomplish cross-curriculum work using the six elements. Study a historical event and look at it critically by examining what was more important: the people in the event, the event itself, how the event was executed, etc. The students can use primary sources and period literature to prove their stance. If there is an appropriately sized space students could be put in role as investigators who take the case to mock trial. “Instead of writing academic papers, students gain genuine preprofessional and interdisciplinary experience by writing the ads, speeches, reports, or legal arguments that would be expected of them were they employed in these respective fields” (Singley and Stockton). Or have the students create advertising or political campaigns for chemical substances using one or two of the elements as a metaphor for their main method for persuasion. Or the students can study a famous mathematician’s work then create a Public Relations campaign for them because they have a reputation for being difficult to work with. With some creativity, it is possible to make the six elements applicable across the curriculum, bringing any subject into the mix. A series of assignments that culminate in one larger scale assignment or event can guarantee that proper assessment is made for each subject involved.
Many of the activities or assignments suggested thus far may stand out as being group-oriented. While there is plenty of room for individual work involving working with the elements of theatre it is important to remember that encouraging discussion is particularly important when using reflective and critical techniques. An abundance of individual work in these areas can lead to isolating the student, which can be overwhelming and counter-productive. Furthermore, small group work can easily become busy work so it is important that the teacher remembers to inspire some depth to whatever discourse the students are having. “ . . . exclusion of feelings and . . . silence from the reflective or thinking process” can lead to apathy or a misdirected critical lens (Caranfa). As Aristotle believed art is meant to instruct the viewer/reader in what ought to be by reflecting real world situations, he would likely agree. “According to Aristotle, the habits of feeling pleasure or pain, of thinking and of moral choices that we experience in looking at a work of art are the same as those we experience in real life” (Caranfa). The students will learn more if they share those feelings, thoughts, and choices. As noted above, reminding the students that art of all kinds is often meant to illicit certain emotions can be yet another way to tie in a discussion of the importance of each of the elements. “Although reason is paramount in Aristotelian rhetoric, appeals to emotion (pathos) and character (ethos) also serve important functions, namely, to move an audience” [sic] (Robidoux, 117). The ability to persuade an audience, be it one person or thousands, is a skill students will need for successful interactions throughout their lives.
Considering persuasion as a life skill, students can think of situations such as interviewing for a job or pitching an idea to corporate executives. What do they want the focus of their interview/presentation to be? They can focus on themselves (character), their experience (plot or diction), their abilities (spectacle or song), etc.
Aristotle divides oratory into three divisions: political, ceremonial and forensic. While political speaking urges audiences to do or not do something and ceremonial oratory either praises or censures someone, forensic oratory is more relevant to courtroom scenarios (Walker).
Students should be taught to remember who their audience is and what it is that both parties, performer and audience/interviewee and interviewer want. How can they use the tools Aristotle explains to make both parties happy? Aristotle’s views on the poet can be applied to such situations as well: “The poet being an imitator, like a painter or any other artist, must of necessity imitate one of three objects—things as they were or are, things as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to be” (Gassner and Quinn, 948). Does the student want to focus on the truth of the status quo, what people think of the status quo, or what can be done to change the status quo? How can they use the six elements to help them make that choice? Prompting the students to come up with their own modern adaptations of Aristotle’s ideas, they can use these basic tools to create highly effective materials from literature and beyond.
The key is to encourage students to be creative and to make sure there is evidence that supports their approach. “We moderns have inherited from the ancients the technique of composing in imitation of established models . . .” (Kemp). Aristotle, who believed “the objects of imitation are men in action,” may not have fully supported the idea that students should not simply imitate what they have seen and/or heard but it is important that they do so (Aristotle). They must learn to support their own arguments, rather than replicate someone else’s stance, work, etc. Remind them of the school’s position on plagiarism and encourage truly unique work, for originality can be just as moving and persuasive as anything else.
Challenge the students to not only understand but question Aristotle’s stance. Although he had a clear vision or opinion on what elements were important or highest-ranking in the theatre, it is up to the modern individual to re-organize these elements because doing so could mean clearly stating one’s position with an audience-friendly approach. Modern people are accustomed to having things tailored to suit their life or lifestyle. Artists certainly re-organize or refute Aristotle’s ideas all the time. Bertolt Brecht and Augusto Boal set out to create specifically non-Aristotelian theatre. “According to Brecht, ‘Pure imitation would only bring out what had been observed; and this is not enough, because the original says what it has to say with too subdued a voice’” (Thomas). Although Aristotle’s writings are in good standing because they have withstood the test of time, there are certainly those who would disagree with him entirely. His theories have been debated back and forth for centuries and many times what was widely attributed to Aristotle turned out to be a misinterpretation. This should also encourage the students to try new approaches. Perhaps they may even come up with a new element to add to the list.
Remember that the six elements can also be used by the teacher as an entrance into the work as well. That does not necessarily mean just discussing the work from a specific point of view; trying something new and interactive can enhance the students’ learning experience. Throw a party when studying The Great Gatsby and enter the text through spectacle and song. After reading a chapter in a book during class, turn on some music and let the students free write, completely throwing plot to the wayside and letting diction be the focus. Ask the students to write a short story that is inspired by a character; explore the character to the fullest instead of what happens to him or her. These simple exercises will help the students to learn from a kinesthetic approach, allowing them to absorb the material on a myriad of levels. Not only does this enhance the learning experience for each individual, it reaches out to students who learn in all different ways. Utilizing different approaches to literature, and the curriculum as a whole, allows the teacher to observe each unique student’s method of learning.
Asking the students to use their creativity and applying different approaches to work in the classroom and across the curriculum shows the students that they can learn in any number of ways they may not have expected or anticipated. In Poetics Aristotle asserts, “if it be objected that the description is not true to fact, the poet may perhaps reply, ‘But the objects are as they ought to be’” (Chapter XXV). This is a good model for the students to inquire into the author’s, the teacher’s, each other’s stances on literature, theory, presentation, etc. Encourage the students to ask why and how. Why is the text interpreted that way? How did this theory come to have so much influence? Again, these questions can lead into other subject areas, allowing for cross-curriculum experiences.
In conclusion, there are a vast number of approaches to using Aristotle in the classroom. Starting with the basic building blocks of the six elements of theatre will make some things more clear for the students and will inspire questions about other things. In particular, the elements might be useful in teaching students who use English as a second language. Asking about the plot, character, thought, diction, song, and spectacle of literature, building their understanding of the work piece by piece, may help their understanding and analysis of the piece. Regardless of their language skills, however, all students can be shown the impact these elements have on literature and other subjects. The key is to build and scaffold. None of the activities or ideas mentioned in this paper are meant to be just thrown into the classroom. It is imperative to work toward an ultimate goal, whatever that may be. Start simple so the students stay engaged and on point. Work toward complex interdisciplinary projects and assignments. Keep in touch with the other teachers and remember that if the students get off track, they can always go back to the elements to reaffirm their stance.
Works Cited
Aristotle. “Poetics.” Trans. S. H. Butcher. The University of Adelaide Library
Electronic Texts Collection. 27 Jan. 2000. 9 Dec. 2008.
Baldwin, Charles Sears. Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic: Interpreted from Representative
Works. Fraser, Australia: Kessinger Publishing, 2007.
Caranfa, Angelo. “Voices of Silence in Pedagogy: Art, Writing and Self-Encounter.”
Journal of Philosophy of Education. Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 85-103.
Gassner, John and Edward Quinn, eds. The Reader's Encyclopedia of World Drama.
Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications, 2002.
Kemp, Paul F. “Aristotle in the Classroom: A Rhetorical Bridge Between Literature and
Composition.” Bloomington, IN: Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouse, 2002.
Kritsonis, William Allen and Debbie Watkins. “Aristotle, Philosophy, and the Ways of
Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning: A National Study on Integrating a Postmodernist Approach to Education and Student Academic Achievement.” National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal. Volume 21, Number 3, 2008.
Robidoux, Charlotte A. “The Human Genome Project: Novel Approaches, Probably
Reasoning, and the Advancement of Science.” Advances in the History of Rhetoric: The First Six Years. Ed. David E. Beard and Richard Leo Enos. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2007.
Selby, Gary S. “A rhetorical Liturgy: Ephesians I and the Problem of Race Relations in
the Early Christian Church.” Advances in the History of Rhetoric: The First Six Years. Ed. David E. Beard and Richard Leo Enos. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2007.
Singley, Carol J. and Kathryn B. Stockton. “Merging Discovery and Control: New
Approaches to Persuasion and Argumentation.” Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition: 1984.
Thomas, Kathryn A. “Aristotle and Bertolt Brecht: Theories of Dramatic Art.” Classical Bulletin, Volume 48, Number 6 (April 1972) 86-91.
Walker, Felicia R. “The Rhetoric of Mock Trial Debate: Using Logos, Pathos and Ethos
in Undergraduate Competition.” College Student Journal. Volume 39, Number 2 (June 2005) 277-86.
Aristotle and the Elements of Theatre as Applicable to Teaching the Language Arts
and Across the Curriculum
and Across the Curriculum
Language Arts teachers are, in essence, molding their students to understand and become literary theorists. Students in an English class analyze, critique, and write their own pieces of literature. From exploring poetry to epic novels, the basic framework for approaching literature is read/experience, break-down/analyze, and reflect/critique. Even at the Elementary School level students are taught to identify who, what, when, where, why, and how when reading and/or telling a story. The essence of those questions can find their root in Aristotle’s as a literary theorist.
Aristotle’s vast consideration of and opinions on teaching, analyzing, and using language, both written and spoken, can be a rooting guide for the Language Arts teacher. In fact, Aristotle had strong opinions on education in general and he even relates public speaking directly to teaching: “ . . . to make truth prevail by presenting it effectively in the conditions of actual communication, to move . . . to advance inquiry by such methods as are open to men generally, to teach . . .” (Baldwin, 9). For the teacher, the key points in this statement are truth, effectiveness, communication, and teaching; educators should certainly use these themes as a very basic approach to creating a framework for education. Considering the educator as a sort of rhetorician, it seems fitting that the teacher should situate him or herself in a theoretical and philosophical stance in order to present him or herself clearly and concisely. After all, Aristotle says, “ . . . the practice of education not only may be guided by philosophy, it must be” (Baldwin, 6). So where does the teacher begin?
Aristotle broke theatre down into six main elements: plot, character, thought, diction, song, and spectacle. Re-sequence these elements, according to importance, and the building blocks of different genres will be apparent. “The immediate concern is the meaning of the definition and the division [of the elements] for dramaturgy” (Baldwin, 146). Perhaps the teacher could ask the students to rank the elements for each reading and writing assignment in order to give the students’ analysis specific direction (e.g. Catcher in the Rye is a plot-driven novel told through the voice of one character, whose particular view of the events in the event leads to a surprise ending). More advanced classes might be broken into groups with each group assigned an element to use as a focused lens in interpreting a novel or other reading assignment. Students may have to be reminded what element they are considering or what exactly that means; what seems like a plot point may actually be a moment of character development. Of course those things are debatable and both sides might be argued, which would be a dynamic class discussion or debate as well. As students become more comfortable with making the differentiations between the six elements, their analysis will be more intricate and they will provide more evidence for the points they are making in discussion or formal assignments. Regardless of the level the students are at, exercises such as these are an easy for the students to grasp and can lead to in-depth discussions about the text and about the importance of each of these elements.
Once students grasp the concept that all literature can be analyzed based on these six elements they can begin to apply them in a less direct manner. Discussions can be held on how each of these elements affected the piece. Does the use of language over plot (e.g. a spoken-word poem) make the reader feel a certain way? Was that the author’s intent? “As Aristotle conceived it, the purpose of epideictic rhetoric was the praise or blame of the values addressed by the rhetor or the persons or deeds held up as examples of those values” (Selby, 95). This is applicable to other art forms as well: theatre, literature, visual art, etc. can be used to a specific purpose. Ask the students if they can root the piece they are studying in some event or relationship the author would have experienced or known about using the six elements as clues. For example, how might the characters and the setting in one of Shakespeare’s history plays relate to the politics of the government in England when Shakespeare wrote the play? Are there plot similarities between the play and history? Did similar events happen? Are there any clues in the words? It is likely that either the students will take this challenge and run with it or they will need a good amount of help and prompting. These kinds of investigations can be taken even further because they work well as inter-disciplinary projects where the students are studying linking material in several subjects. Literature, communications, and social studies classes can often create cross-curriculum lesson plans that will prepare the students for larger projects that incorporate the six elements across the curriculum. In fact, the six elements can be used to break down historical events, newspaper articles, films, etc. Action films are often driven by spectacle; an interesting ad campaign may be driven by a complex plot, etc. Utilizing the elements across the curriculum will encourage students to think critically and logically without making assumptions. It will also remind the students that abstract correlations will not hold up under scrutiny.
Given the time and support of the school’s administration, complex interdisciplinary projects can assigned and can be of great value to the students’ education. “Using an integrated approach to education . . . can effectively provide a dynamic curriculum structure that can dramatically and positively affect the school’s curriculum and learning community” (Kritsonis and Watkins). There are any number of ways to accomplish cross-curriculum work using the six elements. Study a historical event and look at it critically by examining what was more important: the people in the event, the event itself, how the event was executed, etc. The students can use primary sources and period literature to prove their stance. If there is an appropriately sized space students could be put in role as investigators who take the case to mock trial. “Instead of writing academic papers, students gain genuine preprofessional and interdisciplinary experience by writing the ads, speeches, reports, or legal arguments that would be expected of them were they employed in these respective fields” (Singley and Stockton). Or have the students create advertising or political campaigns for chemical substances using one or two of the elements as a metaphor for their main method for persuasion. Or the students can study a famous mathematician’s work then create a Public Relations campaign for them because they have a reputation for being difficult to work with. With some creativity, it is possible to make the six elements applicable across the curriculum, bringing any subject into the mix. A series of assignments that culminate in one larger scale assignment or event can guarantee that proper assessment is made for each subject involved.
Many of the activities or assignments suggested thus far may stand out as being group-oriented. While there is plenty of room for individual work involving working with the elements of theatre it is important to remember that encouraging discussion is particularly important when using reflective and critical techniques. An abundance of individual work in these areas can lead to isolating the student, which can be overwhelming and counter-productive. Furthermore, small group work can easily become busy work so it is important that the teacher remembers to inspire some depth to whatever discourse the students are having. “ . . . exclusion of feelings and . . . silence from the reflective or thinking process” can lead to apathy or a misdirected critical lens (Caranfa). As Aristotle believed art is meant to instruct the viewer/reader in what ought to be by reflecting real world situations, he would likely agree. “According to Aristotle, the habits of feeling pleasure or pain, of thinking and of moral choices that we experience in looking at a work of art are the same as those we experience in real life” (Caranfa). The students will learn more if they share those feelings, thoughts, and choices. As noted above, reminding the students that art of all kinds is often meant to illicit certain emotions can be yet another way to tie in a discussion of the importance of each of the elements. “Although reason is paramount in Aristotelian rhetoric, appeals to emotion (pathos) and character (ethos) also serve important functions, namely, to move an audience” [sic] (Robidoux, 117). The ability to persuade an audience, be it one person or thousands, is a skill students will need for successful interactions throughout their lives.
Considering persuasion as a life skill, students can think of situations such as interviewing for a job or pitching an idea to corporate executives. What do they want the focus of their interview/presentation to be? They can focus on themselves (character), their experience (plot or diction), their abilities (spectacle or song), etc.
Aristotle divides oratory into three divisions: political, ceremonial and forensic. While political speaking urges audiences to do or not do something and ceremonial oratory either praises or censures someone, forensic oratory is more relevant to courtroom scenarios (Walker).
Students should be taught to remember who their audience is and what it is that both parties, performer and audience/interviewee and interviewer want. How can they use the tools Aristotle explains to make both parties happy? Aristotle’s views on the poet can be applied to such situations as well: “The poet being an imitator, like a painter or any other artist, must of necessity imitate one of three objects—things as they were or are, things as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to be” (Gassner and Quinn, 948). Does the student want to focus on the truth of the status quo, what people think of the status quo, or what can be done to change the status quo? How can they use the six elements to help them make that choice? Prompting the students to come up with their own modern adaptations of Aristotle’s ideas, they can use these basic tools to create highly effective materials from literature and beyond.
The key is to encourage students to be creative and to make sure there is evidence that supports their approach. “We moderns have inherited from the ancients the technique of composing in imitation of established models . . .” (Kemp). Aristotle, who believed “the objects of imitation are men in action,” may not have fully supported the idea that students should not simply imitate what they have seen and/or heard but it is important that they do so (Aristotle). They must learn to support their own arguments, rather than replicate someone else’s stance, work, etc. Remind them of the school’s position on plagiarism and encourage truly unique work, for originality can be just as moving and persuasive as anything else.
Challenge the students to not only understand but question Aristotle’s stance. Although he had a clear vision or opinion on what elements were important or highest-ranking in the theatre, it is up to the modern individual to re-organize these elements because doing so could mean clearly stating one’s position with an audience-friendly approach. Modern people are accustomed to having things tailored to suit their life or lifestyle. Artists certainly re-organize or refute Aristotle’s ideas all the time. Bertolt Brecht and Augusto Boal set out to create specifically non-Aristotelian theatre. “According to Brecht, ‘Pure imitation would only bring out what had been observed; and this is not enough, because the original says what it has to say with too subdued a voice’” (Thomas). Although Aristotle’s writings are in good standing because they have withstood the test of time, there are certainly those who would disagree with him entirely. His theories have been debated back and forth for centuries and many times what was widely attributed to Aristotle turned out to be a misinterpretation. This should also encourage the students to try new approaches. Perhaps they may even come up with a new element to add to the list.
Remember that the six elements can also be used by the teacher as an entrance into the work as well. That does not necessarily mean just discussing the work from a specific point of view; trying something new and interactive can enhance the students’ learning experience. Throw a party when studying The Great Gatsby and enter the text through spectacle and song. After reading a chapter in a book during class, turn on some music and let the students free write, completely throwing plot to the wayside and letting diction be the focus. Ask the students to write a short story that is inspired by a character; explore the character to the fullest instead of what happens to him or her. These simple exercises will help the students to learn from a kinesthetic approach, allowing them to absorb the material on a myriad of levels. Not only does this enhance the learning experience for each individual, it reaches out to students who learn in all different ways. Utilizing different approaches to literature, and the curriculum as a whole, allows the teacher to observe each unique student’s method of learning.
Asking the students to use their creativity and applying different approaches to work in the classroom and across the curriculum shows the students that they can learn in any number of ways they may not have expected or anticipated. In Poetics Aristotle asserts, “if it be objected that the description is not true to fact, the poet may perhaps reply, ‘But the objects are as they ought to be’” (Chapter XXV). This is a good model for the students to inquire into the author’s, the teacher’s, each other’s stances on literature, theory, presentation, etc. Encourage the students to ask why and how. Why is the text interpreted that way? How did this theory come to have so much influence? Again, these questions can lead into other subject areas, allowing for cross-curriculum experiences.
In conclusion, there are a vast number of approaches to using Aristotle in the classroom. Starting with the basic building blocks of the six elements of theatre will make some things more clear for the students and will inspire questions about other things. In particular, the elements might be useful in teaching students who use English as a second language. Asking about the plot, character, thought, diction, song, and spectacle of literature, building their understanding of the work piece by piece, may help their understanding and analysis of the piece. Regardless of their language skills, however, all students can be shown the impact these elements have on literature and other subjects. The key is to build and scaffold. None of the activities or ideas mentioned in this paper are meant to be just thrown into the classroom. It is imperative to work toward an ultimate goal, whatever that may be. Start simple so the students stay engaged and on point. Work toward complex interdisciplinary projects and assignments. Keep in touch with the other teachers and remember that if the students get off track, they can always go back to the elements to reaffirm their stance.
Works Cited
Aristotle. “Poetics.” Trans. S. H. Butcher. The University of Adelaide Library
Electronic Texts Collection. 27 Jan. 2000. 9 Dec. 2008.
Baldwin, Charles Sears. Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic: Interpreted from Representative
Works. Fraser, Australia: Kessinger Publishing, 2007.
Caranfa, Angelo. “Voices of Silence in Pedagogy: Art, Writing and Self-Encounter.”
Journal of Philosophy of Education. Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 85-103.
Gassner, John and Edward Quinn, eds. The Reader's Encyclopedia of World Drama.
Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications, 2002.
Kemp, Paul F. “Aristotle in the Classroom: A Rhetorical Bridge Between Literature and
Composition.” Bloomington, IN: Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouse, 2002.
Kritsonis, William Allen and Debbie Watkins. “Aristotle, Philosophy, and the Ways of
Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning: A National Study on Integrating a Postmodernist Approach to Education and Student Academic Achievement.” National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal. Volume 21, Number 3, 2008.
Robidoux, Charlotte A. “The Human Genome Project: Novel Approaches, Probably
Reasoning, and the Advancement of Science.” Advances in the History of Rhetoric: The First Six Years. Ed. David E. Beard and Richard Leo Enos. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2007.
Selby, Gary S. “A rhetorical Liturgy: Ephesians I and the Problem of Race Relations in
the Early Christian Church.” Advances in the History of Rhetoric: The First Six Years. Ed. David E. Beard and Richard Leo Enos. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2007.
Singley, Carol J. and Kathryn B. Stockton. “Merging Discovery and Control: New
Approaches to Persuasion and Argumentation.” Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition: 1984.
Thomas, Kathryn A. “Aristotle and Bertolt Brecht: Theories of Dramatic Art.” Classical Bulletin, Volume 48, Number 6 (April 1972) 86-91.
Walker, Felicia R. “The Rhetoric of Mock Trial Debate: Using Logos, Pathos and Ethos
in Undergraduate Competition.” College Student Journal. Volume 39, Number 2 (June 2005) 277-86.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Springtime!
AH! It's been months . . . many, many long months . . . since I've posted. That gives you an idea of how busy I've been! I want to start a project that will keep me in touch with this blog so I'm going to give you a taste of what I've been up to by posting some of the papers and projects I've turned in for grad school. Please feel free to comment, critique, etc. Hopefully in doing this I will be motivated to keep up some of my more regular posts as well!
To give you some framework: I'm enrolled in the Master's program for Educational Theatre at NYU. I am on the EDTA track, which means I am studying both educational theatre and pedagogy as I work toward my teacher's certificate to teach theatre for all ages.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We'll start off simple with a mock research proposal I wrote for my Methods and Materials of Research class with Jason Zanitsch. I actually really like this topic and might persue it as some point . . .
Topic: 20th century women innovators in theatre and education: how did they affect each other?
Description:
The 20th Century proved to be an era of change for many art forms. It was also a time of more inclusive involvement by women in both the arts and education. How did women leaders working in education and in theatre affect each other? How did their methods become so cross-pollinated? Observing Hallie Flannagan, Joan Littlewood, Winifred Ward, and Dorothy Heathcote as major contributors to theatre and/or education in the west, we will dissect shared techniques, new discoveries, and collaborations.
We will also observe praxis of some of the techniques these innovative women employed and/or founded. What is the theory behind the discoveries these women made? How do certain activities function psychologically? We will break down a set of activities by discussing potential outcomes and uses of them after participants take part first hand.
To give you some framework: I'm enrolled in the Master's program for Educational Theatre at NYU. I am on the EDTA track, which means I am studying both educational theatre and pedagogy as I work toward my teacher's certificate to teach theatre for all ages.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We'll start off simple with a mock research proposal I wrote for my Methods and Materials of Research class with Jason Zanitsch. I actually really like this topic and might persue it as some point . . .
Topic: 20th century women innovators in theatre and education: how did they affect each other?
Description:
The 20th Century proved to be an era of change for many art forms. It was also a time of more inclusive involvement by women in both the arts and education. How did women leaders working in education and in theatre affect each other? How did their methods become so cross-pollinated? Observing Hallie Flannagan, Joan Littlewood, Winifred Ward, and Dorothy Heathcote as major contributors to theatre and/or education in the west, we will dissect shared techniques, new discoveries, and collaborations.
We will also observe praxis of some of the techniques these innovative women employed and/or founded. What is the theory behind the discoveries these women made? How do certain activities function psychologically? We will break down a set of activities by discussing potential outcomes and uses of them after participants take part first hand.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Show to See
Go see The Angel Eaters Trilogy being produced by the Flux Theatre Ensemble. This is a series of shows not to be missed!!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Upcoming
I haven't posted in a while and this is part of the reason . . . come check it out!
The Estrogenius Festival continues with Program Two of short plays this week, October 8 - 11, 2008.
Program Two includes:
THE PERFECT PLAN by John McKinney, directed by Norah Turnham
Starring: William Allgood & Amelia Campbell
YOG SOTHOTH by Lia Romeo, directed by Meg Sturiano
Starring: Libby Collins*, Joe DiSalle*, Angela Funk, Stephen Alan Wilson*
FOREIGN POLICY by JJ Hunt, directed by Nichole Donje
Starring: Katherine Alt Keener*, Sally Kemp* & Mami Kimura
WAFFLES by Martha Garvey, directed by Angela Astle
Starring: Meg Loftus & Michael Wolfe*
MADRIGAL IN BLACK & WHITE by Patricia Montley, directed by Jessica McVea
Starring: Simone Harrison*, Corey Ann Haydu, Dana Monagan & Laurie Schroeder*
YOG SOTHOTH by Lia Romeo, directed by Meg Sturiano
Starring: Libby Collins*, Joe DiSalle*, Angela Funk, Stephen Alan Wilson*
Performance Dates: October 8 - 11
Wed - Fri at 8pm & Sat at 3pm & 7pm
Tickets are $18 at http://www.ovationtix.com/trs/pr/60782 or (212) 352-3101.
For more information, visit www.estrogenius.org/estro.html
Founder: Fiona Jones
Co-Executive Producers: Tegan Meyer & Lanie Zipoy
Program 2 Producer: Jennifer Thatcher
Program 2 Asst. Producer: Helene Galek
Lighting Design: Kia Rogers
Sound Design: Joe Brent
Costume Design: Nicky Smith
Special Thanks Ien DeNio, Andrew Bellware, Stephanie Orr & Montserrat Mendez
Estrogenius is one of New York City's largest women's arts festival. Running through November 1 at Manhattan Theatre Source (177 MacDougal Street), the festival presents a diverse array of short plays, solo shows, dance, visual art, music, performances by teens and a benefit for girls' education in Africa.
*denotes a member of AEA. An Equity-approved showcase
The Estrogenius Festival continues with Program Two of short plays this week, October 8 - 11, 2008.
Program Two includes:
THE PERFECT PLAN by John McKinney, directed by Norah Turnham
Starring: William Allgood & Amelia Campbell
YOG SOTHOTH by Lia Romeo, directed by Meg Sturiano
Starring: Libby Collins*, Joe DiSalle*, Angela Funk, Stephen Alan Wilson*
FOREIGN POLICY by JJ Hunt, directed by Nichole Donje
Starring: Katherine Alt Keener*, Sally Kemp* & Mami Kimura
WAFFLES by Martha Garvey, directed by Angela Astle
Starring: Meg Loftus & Michael Wolfe*
MADRIGAL IN BLACK & WHITE by Patricia Montley, directed by Jessica McVea
Starring: Simone Harrison*, Corey Ann Haydu, Dana Monagan & Laurie Schroeder*
YOG SOTHOTH by Lia Romeo, directed by Meg Sturiano
Starring: Libby Collins*, Joe DiSalle*, Angela Funk, Stephen Alan Wilson*
Performance Dates: October 8 - 11
Wed - Fri at 8pm & Sat at 3pm & 7pm
Tickets are $18 at http://www.ovationtix.com/trs/
For more information, visit www.estrogenius.org/estro.html
Founder: Fiona Jones
Co-Executive Producers: Tegan Meyer & Lanie Zipoy
Program 2 Producer: Jennifer Thatcher
Program 2 Asst. Producer: Helene Galek
Lighting Design: Kia Rogers
Sound Design: Joe Brent
Costume Design: Nicky Smith
Special Thanks Ien DeNio, Andrew Bellware, Stephanie Orr & Montserrat Mendez
Estrogenius is one of New York City's largest women's arts festival. Running through November 1 at Manhattan Theatre Source (177 MacDougal Street), the festival presents a diverse array of short plays, solo shows, dance, visual art, music, performances by teens and a benefit for girls' education in Africa.
*denotes a member of AEA. An Equity-approved showcase
Friday, September 5, 2008
I'm sorry for marketing myself . . . WHAT?!?
I read an article recently that really resonated with me. It's from a promotional newsletter from a group for actors in CA and I think they are really doing their members a great service in telling them that it's okay to advertise what you are up to because you should be proud of your work. Don't start your e-mail with the oh-too-common "sorry for the mass e-mail!" You won't be sorry if the people you contact show up so don't be sorry for inviting them!
Similarly, your invite e-mails, Facebook groups, etc. will be more valuable if you really do only invite your network to a project you are proud of. If you've had a hard time with a particular production or if it didn't turn out the way you expected, it's okay to still do your job (obviously -- don't burn bridges unless you really, really have to!) but not advertise the crap out of it. If your network knows that your invitations are genuine requests to come see something you are proud of you bet they'll do their best to show up!
Similarly, your invite e-mails, Facebook groups, etc. will be more valuable if you really do only invite your network to a project you are proud of. If you've had a hard time with a particular production or if it didn't turn out the way you expected, it's okay to still do your job (obviously -- don't burn bridges unless you really, really have to!) but not advertise the crap out of it. If your network knows that your invitations are genuine requests to come see something you are proud of you bet they'll do their best to show up!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
I'm a bad blogger
I've never been good at journal-ing or keeping a diary. I wish I was better at it but I get busy and focus on doing what I'm doing and forget to take the time to reflect. Bad, bad, bad! I'm going to try to work on that a little harder (e-mails encouraging me to put up a post will be much appreciated).
This post was originally supposed to be a plug for another Producer Sprint show I directed but I just never finished it. For me, the Sprint was even crazier this time around than before, believe it or not! We put a 50 minute musical together in 3 ridiculous days. I also started classes this week. It's mostly been syllabus reading so far but it looks to be a promising semester.
In the midst of this craziness, two other things were brought to my attention this weekend:
- We have bed bugs. Ick. Disgusting. Pain in the ass. Nightmare. Lots of money spent and stress later, it looks like they're on their way out. Oddly enough, I wasn't getting bit until after the exterminator did his thing. (Hate. Bugs.)
- Patrick McMurphy, a Dickinson Alum who did theatre and who was a close friend (or more) to some of my close friends, passed away at the end of last week after sustaining injuries from a bad fall. I didn't know Patrick particularly well but he most certainly had an impact on my life and it was a shock to learn that he is gone. The past few days have been a time of coming together, laughing and crying, sharing stories, staying up late, and connecting with people from my past.
Needless to say, I'm beyond exhausted. I had planned on doing some follow-up blogging about the Fringe but it seems too far removed now. Too many other, bigger things have happened. I'll keep you posted on how I'm doing and what I'm up to. My posts in the next months will likely be about the city itself, theories that catch my interest in class, or parts of papers I have to write and less about shows I see, as I don't expect to be seeing too many.
This post was originally supposed to be a plug for another Producer Sprint show I directed but I just never finished it. For me, the Sprint was even crazier this time around than before, believe it or not! We put a 50 minute musical together in 3 ridiculous days. I also started classes this week. It's mostly been syllabus reading so far but it looks to be a promising semester.
In the midst of this craziness, two other things were brought to my attention this weekend:
- We have bed bugs. Ick. Disgusting. Pain in the ass. Nightmare. Lots of money spent and stress later, it looks like they're on their way out. Oddly enough, I wasn't getting bit until after the exterminator did his thing. (Hate. Bugs.)
- Patrick McMurphy, a Dickinson Alum who did theatre and who was a close friend (or more) to some of my close friends, passed away at the end of last week after sustaining injuries from a bad fall. I didn't know Patrick particularly well but he most certainly had an impact on my life and it was a shock to learn that he is gone. The past few days have been a time of coming together, laughing and crying, sharing stories, staying up late, and connecting with people from my past.
Needless to say, I'm beyond exhausted. I had planned on doing some follow-up blogging about the Fringe but it seems too far removed now. Too many other, bigger things have happened. I'll keep you posted on how I'm doing and what I'm up to. My posts in the next months will likely be about the city itself, theories that catch my interest in class, or parts of papers I have to write and less about shows I see, as I don't expect to be seeing too many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
