Not-So-Subtle Biases
Subject: Not-So-Subtle Biases
I find The Theatrical Imagination to be a surprisingly interesting textbook as of yet, using examples I can relate to (ie Rocky Horror Picture Show, Robin Williams, Sid Vicious, etc), however I find it to be very biased. Obviously given that it is a theatre book, it would naturally be bias towards the theatre arts, however I find it borderline ignorant. One line in particular stood out to me:
“Writers must be practiced in word usage including the rules of grammar, syntax, composition, rhythm, and rhyme, and possess significant communication skills and a large vocabulary.” (Pg. 25)
Though true that many writers must understand general rules behind all of these things, it is not necessary that an accomplished writer have significant communication skills and a large lexicon. It is helpful, but not necessarily obligatory. Just as in theatre, it is important to have a basic understanding of acting and history, but to some acting is a natural occurrence. Natural talent is constant in everyone, some more theatrically inclined than others. I don’t believe its fair to generalize all writers and then to claim that theatre is, in the perception that I believe is given, so much more difficult than becoming published.
I know that I am bias myself being a writer, but as an actress as well I feel I have some authority to claim that this textbook must be taken with a grain of salt, wouldn’t you agree?
- Ani McCurnin
posted by Anonymous @ 9:48 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
I would agree that the textbook should be "taken with a grain of salt." But I'm not certain that the passage you've cited provides an illustration of any particular bias. That paragraph enumerates several examples of artistry in terms of the skills and CRAFT that such artists require in order to function: painters (motor skills and visual expertise); musicians (a trained ear and knowledge of theory); writers; opera singers. The skills mentioned in your quote are listed as examples of those tools in the writer's toolbox.
When the authors note, "When a work of art is skillfully rendered, the public perception of it is in the effortless form of a direct bond with the creative imagination," they're taking a pot shot at the public, not the artist. I read this section as illustrating how artists - ALL artists - are making choices and exercising skills that are not always discernible in the work itself.
For the most part, this chapter concerns itself with artistry as a whole, in all its diverse forms. Since theatre is defined - by the authors - as a subcategory of this larger concept ("art") - I don't read any of these comparisons as value judgments. They're just noting how these various arts are different.
But perhaps I've missed something? You certainly have the authority - as an active READER of this artwork, the textbook - to make claims regarding the text; perhaps there is more evidence that would clarify your argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home