Mimesis, Chinese Aesthetics, Post-modern Theatre

327 Pages·2011·4.58 MB·English

In Search of Another Eye:
Mimesis, Chinese Aesthetics, Post-modern Theatre

Won Jung Sohn

Thesis submitted for the examination for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of London

DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA AND THEATRE
Royal Holloway, University of London
2011
1
Declaration of Authorship

I, Won Jung Sohn, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is
entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly
stated.

2
Abstract

Although a new tradition of non-mimetic theatre has secured a place in Western
theatre history, I find that existing critical vocabularies fail to embrace various
theatrical forms of today. Alternative frames of discussion are sought after, and I
propose that a culturally distinct one will open up possibilities of perceiving
contemporary performances in different ways. In this thesis I turn to the aesthetics of
Chinese painting. The Western concept of mimesis in theatre is seen as being strictly
related to the verbal aspects of the drama rather than the performed spectacle.
Turning to paintings as a lens through which to look at theatre enables one to focus
on the extra-textual aspects of performance. At the same time, looking at painting
directs one to the issue of ways of seeing, which is fundamental to theatre. Looking
at Chinese paintings will disclose the unique Chinese ways of seeing that affected
their artistic creation and reception, as well as what different concepts of
representation prevailed. In this thesis I trace the mimetic foundations of Western
theatre by investigating the writings of Plato and Aristotle as well as looking at
Classical Greek painting, its modern reflections and counteractions. I then propose
the aesthetics of Chinese painting as an alternative lens through which to look at
contemporary non-mimetic theatre. Focusing on landscape and literati paintings of
the Sung era I examine how adopting this lens initiates a mode of perception that
differs significantly from the Western. Finally, I explore the validity of Chinese
aesthetics as a critical device with which to look at contemporary non-mimetic
theatre, case-studying selected theatre performances of Tadeusz Kantor and Forced
Entertainment.
3
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 6
List of Figures 8
Preface 11

1. Introduction 12
1-1. Current Frames of Discussion 13
1-2. Looking for an Alternative Frame: Chinese Aesthetics 19
1-3. Structure of the Thesis 21

2. Plato’s Concept of Mimesis: Greek Paintings and Visual Perception 26
2-1. Introduction 26
2-2. Paintings and the Classical Greek Perception of the World 30
2-2-1. Volume 36
2-2-2. Focus on “Man” 45
2-2-3. Narrative 51
2-3. Conclusion 58

3. Chinese Paintings: An Alternative Concept of Representation 60
3-1. Introduction 60
3-2. The Concept of Representation in Chinese Landscape Paintings 63
3-3. Painting and Subjectivity 76
3-4. Painting as a Temporal Art Form 88
3-5. Conclusion 99

4. Poetics and the Foundation of Mimetic Traditions in Western Theatre 102
4-1. Introduction 102
4-2. From Visual to Verbal, Idea to Reason 103
4-3. “Tragedy is a Mimesis of Action”: Selectivity in Aristotle‟s Concept
of Mimesis 118
4-3-1. Polarization in the Classical Greek Mind 119
4
4-3-2. Form Matters: Polarization in Aristotle‟s Theory of Tragic Mimesis 130
4-3-3. Universals versus Truth 135
4-4. Conclusion 146

5. In Search of Alternative Frames: Bergson and Matisse 147
5-1. Introduction 147
5-2. Mimesis and the Condition of Modernity 148
5-3. Henri Bergson and the Concept of Duration 158
5-4. Challenge against Perspective: Henri Matisse 167
5-5. Conclusion 183

6. Tadeusz Kantor: Representation, Re-presentation and the Search for
“Now” in Contemporary Theatre 185
6-1. Introduction: Splitting Perspective 185
6-2. Between Illusion and the Real: Conflict or Reconciliation 192
6-2-1. Limits of Dichotomy 206
6-2-2. Beyond Conflict: Wielopole, Wielopole 212
6-3. Conclusion: Invitation to a Dialogue 230

7. Looking at “Post-modern” Theatre through an Eastern Lens 232
7-1. Introduction: Against Representation or Another Representation 232
7-2. “Post”- Theatres: Simon McBurney and Robert Lepage 243
7-3. Looking at Theatre through an Eastern Lens: Forced Entertainment 257
7-3-1. Fiction or Real? Or Fiction and Real? 258
7-3-2. Word, Image, and the Aesthetics of Erasure: The World in Pictures 264
7-4. Conclusion: Shaping the Void 275

8. Conclusion: Touching the Invisible 278
Theatre as a Site of Shū-tōng (疏通) 280

Bibliography 285
Figures 306
5
Acknowledgements

Working with words for me is always a painful and despairing process. Having
completed the final pages of this thesis, I am faced with yet another phase of great
frustration, for I cannot find the words which will properly express my gratitude towards
my supervi s o r , Professor David Wiles. This work would never have been conceived
had I not met him, and if it were not for his guidance it would have been left incomplete.
His patience and trust in his overly unco n f i d e n t , self-censoring student, and his kind
encourag e m e n t d u r i n g frequent periods of intellectual depression, finally led me to
believe that my work may actually be of any val ue. Thank you.
I would also like to thank Professor David Bradby, who supervised me briefly
during the earlier stages of my research. He tried t o t e a c h m e that judging my work
was not my job; I regret having taken so long to accept his advice, for it is now too late
to show him this work. I am grateful to my advisors Dr. Matthew Cohen and Dr . Enzo
Cozzi, whose insightful comments and suggestions mad e t h i s t h e s i s a much richer work.
I am enormously indebted to Professor Patrice Pavis, who made it possible for me to
study at Royal Holloway. I am in awe of his passion for theatre and endless search
for new ways to talk about the art, which continue t o b e m y m a j o r s o u r c e o f
academic inspiration. B ut I am grateful, most of all, to be his friend.
This research was funded by the British Chevening Scholarships. The
Centre for Performance Research gave me bibliographical support on Tadeusz Kantor,
and the Cricoteka Archives provided me with digital reproductions of his works. The
SOAS library opened my eyes to the world of Chinese art. I am grateful to Cho O-
Hyun, Senior Buddhist Priest of Baekdamsa, and Lee Sang-G u k o f M a n h a e Maeul for
6
providing me with a space of quietude when I needed it most. A big thank you to the
“bosalnim”s for feeding me. Your food did me better than the mountains of Sorak.
My correspondences with Dong I-Hyang and Han Hyunju nurtured the sensitive
side of me as a theatre scholar, and I look forward to very long evenings of ardent
debates with them on theatre and all that. Thanks also to David Maddison for polishing
my English and lending me his wife when I was in desperate need of a frien d, and
Seung Yeojin for never saying no to a pint.
Sohn Hak-Kyu, my father, led me into the field of academia. His life is proof
that scholarship is meaningful only when put into practice. My mother, Yi Yoon-
Young, is nothing less than a blessing. I will never learn the source of my parents‟
almost religious faith in their daughter, but I know that without it I would never have
arrived at this stage. Wonpyung, my little sister, deserves a heartfelt word of thanks for
the birthday presents and, most of all, for being there. I am deeply grateful to my
mother-in-law. Thank you for everything you went through. I know that few mothers-
in-law would have endured what you had to endure.
This thesis is dedicated to Kim Donghyun, m y husband and “yeonwoo”. It was
he who first showed me the beauty of theatre. One day he told me that in ten years time
I‟d be shining. Ten years have passed since; it is now perhaps my turn to prove that he
was right.

7
List of Figures

1. “The Rape of Persephone” 350-325 B.C. Wall painting. 3.5 x 1.01 m.
Vergina, Greece. Photographic reproduction found in Osborne, Robin.
Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998. Fig.
122.
2. “The Hunting Scene.” 4th century B.C. Reconstructed wall painting from
Vergina, Greece. Reproduction in Papazois, Triandafyllos. “The Royal Tomb
II at Vergina Reveals Alexander the Great.” www.tpapazois.gr (26.09.2010)
3. “Achilles at Skyros.” Fresco in the House of the Dioscuri, Pompeii, 1st
century A.D. Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples.
4. François Vase, mid 6th century B.C. Museo Archeologico, Florence.
5. Krater depicting Hephaistos returning to Olympos, c. 550-540 B.C.
Metropolitan Museum, New York.
6. “The Destruction of Troy.” Red-figure hydria, ca. 480 B.C.Museo
Archeologico Nazionale, Naples.
7. “Perseus with the head of Medusa.” Terra-cotta metope from the temple at
Thermos. Late 7th century B.C. National Museum, Athens.
8. Liang K‟ai. The Poet Li Po. Early 13th century. Ink on paper. 81.1 x 30.5 cm.
Tokyo National Museum.
9. Anonymous, attributed to Li Ch‟eng. Tall Pines in a Level View. 11th century.
Hanging scroll; ink on silk. 205 x 126.1 cm. Chōkaidō Bunko, Yokkaichi,
Japan.
10. Probably Li T‟ang. A Myriad Trees on Strange Peaks. Early 12th century.
Album leaf; ink and light colours on silk. 9.75 x 10.25 cm. National Palace
8
Museum, Taipei.
11. Kuo Hsi. Early Spring. Dated 1072. Hanging scroll; ink and light colours on
silk. 158.3 x 108.1 cm. National Palace Museum, Taipei.
12. Wang Meng. Dwelling in the Qingbian Mountains. Dated 1366. Hanging
scroll; ink on paper. 141 x 42.2 cm. Shanghai Museum, Shanghai.
13. Liang K‟ai (fl. c. 1201-1204). Strolling on a Marshy Bank. Round fan
mounted as an album leaf; ink on silk. 22.9 x 24.3 cm. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York.
14. Su Shih. Bamboo in the Moonlight. Dated 1075. Ink-sketch on paper.
46.35 x 40 cm. Private collection.
15. Anonymous. “Alexander Mosaic.” ca. 100 B.C. 582 x 313 cm. Museo
Archeologico Nazionale, Naples.
16. South Wall, Room of Masks, House of Augustus. ca. 30 B.C.
http://www.skenographia.cch.kcl.ac.uk/aug_rm_5/masscn01.jpg (10.04.2009)
17. Perspectival analysis of fig. 16 by Martin Blazeby.
http://www.skenographia.cch.kcl.ac.uk/aug_rm_5/mas_rs_pers.jpg
(10.04.2009)
18. A painting in the Villa of Oplontis. Original image in Beacham, Richard C.
The Roman Theatre and Its Audience. London: Routledge, 1991. Fig. 20.
19. Henri Matisse. The Dinner Table (La Desserte). 1896-1897. Oil on canvas.
100 x 131 cm. Private Collection.
20. Henri Matisse. Harmony in Red (La Desserte). 1908. Oil on canvas.
180 x 220 cm. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.
21. Henri Matisse. Interior with Aubergines. 1911. Distemper on canvas.
212 x 246 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts, Grenoble.
9
22. Tadeusz Kantor. I Have Had Enough! I am Stepping Out of the Painting.
From the cycle Nothing Else Beyond, XI. 1987. Acrylic, canvas, metal
construction, objects. 191 x 121 cm (230 x 121 cm with the metal
construction). Private collection, USA. Copyrights by Maria Stangret-
Kantor and Dorota Krakowska.
23. Nicolas Poussin. Self-Portrait. 1650. Oil on canvas. 78 x 94 cm. Musée du
Louvre, Paris.
24. Marcel Duchamp. Fountain. 1917 (Original lost). Porcelain. 36 x 48 x 61 cm.
Replica in Tate Modern, London.
25. Diego Velázquez. Las Meninas. 1656. Oil on canvas. 318 x 276 cm. Museo
del Prado, Madrid.
26. Raphael. The Marriage of the Virgin. 1504. Oil on roundheaded panel.
170 x 118 cm. Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan.
27. Tadeusz Kantor. I Am Carrying the Picture in which I Am Shown Carrying a
Picture. 1987. Acrylic, canvas glued onto plywood, metal construction,
objects. 140 x 181 cm (225 x 181 cm with the metal construction). Private
Collection, Poland. Copyrights by Maria Stangret-Kantor and Dorota
Krakowska.
28. Julião Sarmento. Forget Me. 2005. Mixed media on canvas. 185.5 x 189.8
cm. Tate Collection, London.
10