No matter what medium, people become attached to characters and feel connected to them in some way. Seeing something real as opposed to CGI; something deeper. Unlike the movies, a play is like a snowflake—no two shows are exactly the same. A play turns the stage—the whole theatre—into a magical bubble, putting the audience in the same world as the actors, making it close.
Theatre is one of the most ancient art forms, yet it keeps evolving. It has always adapted with time and stayed connected to current events, which draws the audience in. Perhaps the root of why theatre exists lies in that very simple fact: it gives us a significant dose of the socialization our body requires to function. While we fund new ways to measure how the arts can treat our physical ailments, might it not also be worthwhile to fund new lines of inquiry into what basic physiological need caused theatre to exist in the first place?
Interested in following this conversation in real time? Receive email alerting you to new threads and the continuation of current threads. Thank you for this thought-provoking article. As a researcher, I imagine a number of questions lines of inquiry that may be worth exploring more fully:"Necessary"? For whom? Those who perform?
In the performing arts, what do audience members gain beyond socialization? To what degree, if at all, do they benefit from the performers' performance? From watching mimics? What is the short-term and the long-term benefits? What are the biological v. And, of course, are these benefits essential to a healthy life or superfluous?
If essential, what are the aspects in our daily lives that mirror these effects and keep less-theatre-going individuals healthy? Thanks again. When most people think of theater, they think of a dedicated building-- a stage, lights, scenery and seats for the audience. At the very least, they will think of a workshop. To me this is not theatre itself, it's a delivery method. This primal need of which you write was possibly better served by the earliest form of theatre before the Greeks which was the open-air festivals.
There were no formal scripts, everyone was free to join in and tell stories as they saw fit. And, of course, no admittance fee was charged. It can be a father reading out loud to his daughter or Meryl Streep acting in a film or the fine folks who produce the "Welcome to Night Vale" podcast.
Maybe even someone telling a joke. It's all theater to me. And yes-- it is necessary because we keep doing it. We just find different delivery methods over the years. From the amphitheater to YouTube-- I see no difference. So the primal urge is there-- I see that without the science. But trying to tie this possible discovery to a specific delivery method? That is where it falls apart for me. I don't see revenues of brick and mortar theatres going up simply because some scientists say it's necessary.
Theatre can, contrary to a lot of opinions, be done at any time, in any place, in any form, by anyone. You will always have gossip, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of federal subsidy. The vulnerability of shedding tears in a public space where our sniffles can be heard. The camaraderie of expressing shared unabashed enthusiasm. Way before the existence of movie theatres, live theatre in all its permutations developed in every culture and continues to exist in every corner of the globe.
Communal live performances — whether in a stadium, a comedy club or around a campfire — are ephemeral, inimitable moments. The alchemy of the particular circumstances and the people present are a one-night-only combination. No re-watching.
0コメント