Hi there, I'm still working on this paper on "Why do we need a Semiotic Methodology of Theatre?" So it is *UNFINISHED*! If you can please have a look and feedback anything which you may not understand, any content, grammar or punctuation suggestions, anything which does not make sense or if I am waffling it would be much appreciated!
"Why do we need a semiotic methodology of Theatre?"
To understand semiotics, one must first understand its beginnings, and its main concepts. Ferdinand De Saussure saw language as a "Sign-System". This sign system was presented in two parts: The signifiers and the signified, or the "sound-image and concept." Between these two elements a meaning is then constructed. Charles S. Peirce then enhanced these original studies by linking semiotics to everyday life. He considered a "trichotemy of signs" in which we are presented with an 'icon' - the object or image, the 'index' - which is connected to, or points out the object/image, and the 'interpreter' or 'symbol' - that the connection above is agreed to have no similarities.
There are signs and signifiers all around us, within film and television, right through to the subliminal advertising within the media. To take this even more simply than the media, one can focus on a global or universal sign system, for example -natural signs: If it is cloudy it is possible it may rain, to the thunderclap signifying a storm. This sign system is understood without a need for cultural knowledge to support it.
To respond to the question, first and foremost, this is about the science of semiotics: an analytical and academic approach - the science does not solely cover theatre, but the specific question of a semiotic methodology of theatre, and the need for it, is answered plainly and simply by the voice of the masses: many are unaware of semiotics, so it seems to be an academic tool used by a sliver of society. As a theatre-goer, previously unknown to the concept of theatre semiotics, I understand the need for signs and signifiers on stage- however simple or complex-it seems that the analytical aspects of a semiotic methodology are not needed. It is a natural, conscious response from the audience witnessing a performance event. Other theatrical analysts and practitioners have regarded semiotics as a constricting and limited form of analysis, particularly with audience subjectivity and also the 'aesthetic sensuality' of a performance. The avant-garde practitioners also find semiotics to be a narrow science, so therefore find new ways to push these boundaries. In looking at the 'opposing' opinion one can gather a more thorough outlook of semiotics applied to theatre.
An avid theatre goer may agree with Jiři Veltruský's quote "All that is on the stage is a sign" . One understands that there are many parts to a performance event that commands our attention, that one draws conclusions from and derives meaning. We may associate that if the lighting is darkened gradually, that night is drawing near. We glean that the only character in a strikingly coloured costume has significance within the play. We can also understand the text itself has significance - drawing us to the overall conclusion of the performance. These examples are an expectation of standard theatre. These signs give us a rigidity of performance, we understand they are there- we unconsciously and consciously accept the signs and signifiers and construct meaning from them.
One may not realise that these intricately placed signs on the stage are part of a theory; a semiotic theory, where one gathers meaning from sign and signifier. This semiotic theory does not stem solely from theatre. Originally, Ferdinand De Saussure realised the potential of language as a 'sign system'. This was then developed to a more universal sign system by Charles S. Peirce - that there is more than one sign system that can be used - yet his original undertakings were the "trichotemy of signs" : the icon, the index and the symbol.
Semiotics as a social science is "the way in which we set about making sense of the world" . We automatically decode signs in everyday life to give meaning. For example we know that in a traffic light system, red means stop, amber means slow and green means go. These signs and signifiers are all around us - including natural signs. This science can be applied within the theatre, as quoted before by Jiři Veltruský, a follower of the Prague School, whom recognised that "Everything which is presented to the spectator within the theatrical frame is a sign" . However, semiotics as a social science to a theatrical methodology is somewhat contrasted: whereas we may intentionally or unintentionally decode a sign in everyday life, and not realise the meaning decoded is true or not, the signs put in place in theatre are predetermined to create meaning. The director and production crew will have a vision to portray to the audience a meaning, a meaning which will be calculated by the signs put in place. For example, watching Frantic Assembly's adaptation of Shakespeare's Othello in the scene in which Emilia is unravelling Iago's evil plot, there is a cleverly placed undertone of sinister music. It is almost inaudible, and is very gradually becoming louder. To me, this felt as though Emilia is building to a crescendo, the music may not be noticed straight away, but I was concentrating on what she was saying and how the other characters were reacting to her input. The music combined with the text put the whole scene in an anticipatory state. I also noted another member of the audiences' reaction-a spectator sat next to me- who did not know the storyline in its entirety. When Emilia began to unravel the story, when the music began, the spectator sat forward in her seat, was gasping to Emilia's unveilings, transfixed to the stage. I would like to think she was having the same reactions as myself, that the music drew us in, and it was weighted to the text-the linguistic grounding-and also the blocking of the scene.
This spectators reaction may have been a typical response to the signs put in place, she was completely engrossed in the performance, which brings forth another idea of total belief in the actor as a sign, an icon of the stage. The audience will partake in an unconscious contract - which the actor is playing a role which the audience will accept as being real. Umberto Eco explains this as the "Liar Paradox." The actor, as Eco explains, is "someone that asserts that all he is telling is lies." The audience will accept this as 'the norm'. There will still be an awareness of an actor/audience relation, but in order to experience the theatrical event in its entirety there will be the unconscious acceptance that the actor is ultimately pretending. To make the performance tangible, the use of set, lighting, blocking, sound and other indications can be applied. This unspoken contract between actor and audience is one of the fundamental signs to create the event that we call theatre. But ultimately, the audience is not aware that all signs, signifiers and unspoken contracts are part of semiotics. A spectator will attend an event and come to their own conclusion, gleaning whatever meaning the signs create, and however the spectator chooses to receive these signs, in whatever order of noticing them. This leaves open the audience subjectivity and also naivety in not being aware of such a tool in decoding a theatrical event.
In "Theatre as a Sign System" Aston and Savona stated that "we view theatre semiotics not as a theoretical position, but as a methodology: as a new way of working, of approaching theatre in order to open up new practices and possibilities of seeing." This brings the option of being able to enjoy a performance, maybe more analytically, but to understand the event more, to take more 'home' with oneself as such. In watching a performance of Oleanna with Guy Masterton's company, I observed some audience reactions after the play itself. One particular theme that was running through the play was the use of a mobile phone, which interrupted some potentially crucial revelations. One audience member quoted that "mobile phones should be banned!" On hearing this, I made an assumption that the audience member did not have an awareness of semiotics. Because in retrospect, whilst watching the play I also felt a frustration towards mobile phones. But on analysing the use of this, coupled with the text, I could see a clear signage- that the mobile's interruptions were critical to the performance. It brought forth many emotions, some of which were- frustration, anger, empathy, and an understanding for both characters. On analysing this sign, using semiotics, one can see that the direction and delivery of the text was angled towards this reaction within the spectator. Again with "Theatre as a Sign System" Aston and Savona illustrate their opinion that "Adopting an approach which invites us to look at the how can only serve to make us more aware of the potential of drama and theatre...and more critical of how that potential is being ignored or abused." One can only wonder if the audience member with the aversion to the mobile phone within Oleanna had known of semiotics, would his statement have been uttered?
The use of semiotics as a theatrical educational tool, as first explored by The Prague School, can show the affinity between text and performance. They "adopted and developed the notion of ostranenie (strange-linguistically) as aktualisace ('foregrounding'). This refers to the way in which an unexpected linguistic usage brings it to conscious concern." Of taking the 'strange' from any piece of literature and understanding it by bringing it to the forefront, to make one aware of any signifiers within a text. Gay McAuley, an honorary professor of Performance Studies at the University of Sydney, also sees the potential for a theatrical semiotic methodology- "it is now being acknowledged that semiotics made possible the shift from text to performance as privileged site of analysis and investigation, countering the undescribability that had hitherto made the necessarily ephemeral performance such a problematic category." She understands that the analysis of theatre is a tool that can be used to open up possibilities, but not for the general theatre-goer, more for the critic, and for the student. But what of the general spectator? One is aware that the student will decipher meaning between the text itself; to analyse and come to an educated conclusion. The general spectator does not necessarily have 'the tools' that one may need to decipher theatre. Willmar Sauter puts this train of thought into perspective -
"Max Herrmann ... points out the difficulties for a visitor to relate to past theatrical events:
'How telling are the words of a lady on leaving such an exhibition. Asked by her husband about her impressions, she replied: `Very nice, indeed, but you know, it's like fish bowls and no fish in them.' (Max Herrmann, Die Entstehung der berufsmassigen Schauspielkunst im Altertum und in der Neuzeit, ed. Ruth Movius (Berlin: Henschel, 1962), p. 7)
While ordinary people are interested in seeing the fish, it seems theatre scholars are destined to study fish bowls! Put another way, the fundamental concern of all theatre researchers is with the very `object' of theatre itself."
Whereas the 'scholars' will be perpetually studying the object itself, the 'ordinary people' will take in the theatrical event as a whole. It is the ordinary people's subjectivity that comes under scrutiny as such. This is where the potential of semiotics tends to break down. Elam quotes that "Every spectator's interpretation of the text is in effect a new construction of it according to the cultural and ideological disposition of the subject." The majority of theatre goers will not attend a performance twice or more for the sake of study. They will attend for their own enjoyment, and will make their own conclusions without having to meticulously analyse the contents of the theatrical event. However having this potential plethora of extra information within the semiotic methodologies of theatre- would the theatre goer gain more from the performance?
From the other side of audience subjectivity comes the idea of the natural human response to a theatrical event. No one spectator will gather the same information at the same time as others; the eye of the spectator is never fixed. They will glean different signs and decode them subconsciously, using their own cultural references and knowledge. If one applies semiotics to this subjective gaze, is one merely taking the freedom of viewpoint away? Patrice Pavis asked this question as well: "Semiology was set up as a means of avoiding an impressionistic discourse on performance. As a simple notation of signs, however, it automatically removed the spectator's subjective gaze - a gaze that is never neutral - focusing on the analyzed object by means of a conceptual and methodological apparatus." The neutral aspect of the spectators gaze is withdrawn and the science is applied. The spectator may not see the performance in its entirety and the original unconscious gatherings may never be attributed to the performance. On looking at the audience subjectivity in this regard, one can see that semiotics is possibly a debatable tool.
Akin to audience subjectivity, is the spectators' desire to see a performance event. What is it that drives us to attend? I do not believe it is to analyse a performance, maybe not even to discover anything. Sigmund Freud may be able to answer this question. One of his philosophies of the mind is the "Pleasure Principle - (which) refers to the way our unconscious, instinctive drives toward pleasure and gratification are that the root of our motivations." We are driven by base desires to slake our unconscious appetites. One may attend the theatre to escape, to forget all worries of the day, or just to enjoy the detachment of watching a performance event without having to question it. With semiotics, one needs to have an understanding of the basic codifiers of the science in order to successfully pick apart the signs to engage more profoundly. But does one already do this when watching a performance, subconsciously? When watching Othello , semiotically, I could glean the music which had become mechanical, brutal but soft, was reflecting the potential thoughts ruminating within Othello's mind when he is beginning to interrogate Emilia for details of Desdemona's potential infidelity. Without the usage of the sign system, it could be seen as something that one would pick up subconsciously - we hear the music playing softly, the style it is and how Othello's body language, vocal tonality and facial expressions are all portraying his ruminating thoughts.
Pavis also touched on the problematic ideology of analysing a performance with semiotics- "However irritating and durable the limitations and unanswered questions of semiotics may be, they reflect the difficulty of adapting analysis to performances that are constantly changing, resisting interpretation and demanding new strategies." So it is not only the audience that comes under scrutiny for using or not using semiotics, but the theatrical event as a whole. That there are difficulties in pigeon-holing performances, as new performances are inventing new ways of seeing, questioning our very base of knowledge and causing us to think for ourselves, not from a pool of information one may have gleaned over the course of time.
This way of thinking is put across quite plainly on watching Oleanna . The text is contrasted by the body language, the interruptions and the assumptions that may be made by the audience. What one saw watching the performance, was the slow unravelling of 'political correctness gone mad.' The audience in the end tended to side with John, after the possible unfounded claims Carole had made, they felt justified in siding with him after he had attacked her. But when on looking at the performance as a whole, one can see that both of the characters are in the wrong- John for epitomizing an egocentric, misogynistic lecturer and Carole for taking feminism a bit too far. On speaking to Guy Masterton after the event, and questioning him on this particular point, he advised that the audience will almost always side with John, even though himself, he knows that his character is as much in the wrong as the other. That he can see the potential for the play to question morality, to question the basis of political correctness that we apply today. Within semiotics, this performance is harder to sift through all the textual signifiers, and at the same time to concentrate on the body language, tonality and set use, without having previous knowledge of the play. Again this can boil down to audience subjectivity, as there may be things lost in the portrayal due to the attention span of the spectator.
Pavis has also taken note of semiotics being constricting in the section of Analyzing Performance "The Experience of Materiality"; to "resist the temptation to immediately translate everything into signifieds", instead of analysing all the signs, to "savour the erotic in the theatre process." Pavis stressed that one should immerse themselves into the performance without having to consider any of the signs being presented. This leaves the human psyche to deduce any conclusion without a tool for analysis. Pavis also refers to 'desublimination': the act of experiencing a theatrical event in its sensual materiality, not try to decode, or construct meaning, much like a child or spectator from a different cultural background. To be able to witness a theatrical event through a child's eyes and just to be impressed may be too difficult for our ever questioning society. Our humanist response is to deduce meaning from the signs we see.
Jean-Francois Lyotard, also in agreement with Pavis, was in support for "a 'generalised dissemiotics' which would see theatre as an energy and event rather than as a signification." Again one can see the implication of using semiotics less and less as it is a science restricted by its rules. It is a closed system, and theatres ever changing aspects may become hindered by its convention. The search for the sign and signified is not a joyous occasion, when one is looking at a theatrical event from an academic point of view one cannot experience the theatre in its entirety. The practitioners point to just 'enjoy the show' per se is all too true. On watching both Oleanna and Othello, I was trying to watch for my own enjoyment, but also to watch for the semiotic aspect, and other aspects to further my learning. It is difficult enough to keep ones focus for any amount of time, regardless of using analytical tools to deconstruct and formulate conclusions-whilst still watching the event.
The avant-garde theatre style is another direction within the Arts in which semiotics is being pushed out, or at the very least, pushed to its limits. Italian theorist Marco De Marinis speculated on the issue of semiotics being applied to the avant-garde- "where analysis gets more problematic, but potentially more interesting and intellectually challenging." For the spectator of the avant-garde, one wonders if they would make use of semiotics to try to decipher meaning. Particularly if one came across playwright and director Carmelo Bene and philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Their project was to "disrupt the imposition of invariation and homogeneity, the domination of the text over theatre...the drama text that dictates the performance, but also the performance text that functions as a systematic set of controls and limitations in the service of clarity and reason." They endeavoured to disrupt the very core of theatre, to create a new signage system, or even theatre with a lack of, or complete barrage of signs. They wanted to break free of the limitations that semiotics and standard theatre denote. Any semiotician or witness applying the science to avant-garde theatre will find themselves hard-pressed to keep within the rules by which semiotics is governed by.
Phenomenology is much in agreement with some of the ideals that avant-garde theatre try to pertain. It also sets out to criticize "the segmentation of performance into signs and thus of its semiological function ... (the) perception of the performance is global, making all semiological segmentation absurd." The idea of deconstructing the theatre event down to signifiers does not apply with phenomenology. It is to experience the theatrical event as a whole and to immerse oneself in the materiality experience of the theatre, much like dissemiotics and desublimination. Theatre is not in need of one strict signage system. As Roland Barthes states "Semioticians speculate that not one singular sign system is used within a performance, but many"
I have not quite finished yet, I have about another 1,500 words to go.
Thanks all!
