The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0075 Saturday, 16 January 1999.
[1] From: Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 11:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
[2] From: Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 10:23:58 -0600
Subj: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
[3] From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 08:58:14 -0800
Subj: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
[4] From: C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 12:02:52 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
[5] From: Tim Perfect <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 11:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
[6] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 14:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
[7] From: Catherine Fitzmaurice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 14:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Hill <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 11:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Terence Hawkes provokes, as always, when he pretends to differentiate
between the Drama and the Theatre by stating that the latter is merely
the location of the former, as if symphonies existed properly in their
scores rather than in their orchestral performance, an impossibly
Platonic idea.
Pepys indeed went to "hear a play" if the diaries are to be credited,
although I do not recall his noting that Inigo Jones' decorations
interfered with his satisfaction.
I suppose Dr.Hawkes is not alone in holding that, say, *Paradise Lost*
is a paper poem?
Harry Hill
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 10:23:58 -0600
Subject: 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Another thoughtful entry into this question can be found in Harry
Berger's Imaginary Audition: Sh on Stage and Page (California, 1989),
which makes a penetrating case (among other things) for various ways in
which reading plays does things that can't get done in the theater.
Those who insist on the superior richness of stage realizations
sometimes write as if reading is an arid process; Berger engages with
this unspoken view quite deeply, as he does with problems afflicting
those who regard reading texts and apprehending stage productions as
fairly simply disjunctive (unlike Dawson).
Frank Whigham
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 08:58:14 -0800
Subject: Re: Literature, Music, Language
Comment: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
> Ed Pixley makes an interesting point: 'Theater is truly the most
> collaborative of the arts'. But theatre isn't a ART, is it? Drama is
> the art. Theatre/theater is the building in which some forms of that art
> take place.
Terence Hawkes is not a stupid man, so I can only assume that he is
being obtuse. To what purpose?
Mike Jensen
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: C. David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 12:02:52 -0500
Subject: 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Comment: RE: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
I find it hard to believe that T. Hawkes isn't being merely
provocative. Surely a scholar and critique of his eminence and
erudition is aware of the long tradition of writing regarding the art of
theatre (I might mention Adolph Appia's Music and the Art of Theatre as
but one example). Equally, I'm sure he knows of the long-standing
debate about the relationship of the two terms: drama and theatre. Are
they synonyms? Is drama but a species of theatre? Do they refer to
different things: a text, a performance? All of which, perhaps, begs
another question: what do either Ed Pixley or T. Hawkes mean by "art?"
Do they have the same, or even a similar, definition in mind when
referring to either theatre or drama?
cdf
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Perfect <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 1999 11:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
>Ed Pixley makes an interesting point: 'Theater is >truly the most
collaborative of the arts'. But >theatre isn't a ART, is it? Drama is
the art. >Theatre/theater is the building in which some forms >of that
art take place.
You say tomato, I say tomato...hey that doesn't work on email.
You say tomayto, I say tomahto...
There we go.
Tim Perfect
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 14:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Terence Hawkes takes Ed Pixley to task: 'Theater is truly the most
collaborative of the arts'. But theatre isn't a ART, is it? Drama is
the art. Theatre/theater is the building in which some forms of that art
take place." In the US, there is a disposition (not more than that-lots
of people treat the two terms as synonyms) in academic/theatrical
circles to use "drama" for the written end of the process and
"theater/theatre" for the enacted end, comprising scenic and musical as
well as verbal elements. I trust our resident accipiter does not
exclude what Aristotle called opsis from the realm of the arts.
Theatrically,
Dave Evett
[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Catherine Fitzmaurice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 14:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0070 Re: Literature, Music, Language
Beg to disagree with the inestimable T. Hawkeye, but theatre is an art,
as well as a building. Words CAN have two "meanings." Calling what is
done in the building only performance has led to entropic studies of
tooth-cleaning observed in the mirror.
Theatre artist
Catherine Fitzmaurice
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
