Beyond imitation and representation: extended comprehension of mimesis in drama education
Beyond imitation and representation: extended comprehension of mimesis in drama education
复制标题
超越模仿和再现：戏剧教育中模仿的延伸理解
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bjørn Rasmussen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bjørn Rasmussen
为了理解模仿和戏剧表演的复杂性，并承认戏剧艺术和戏剧教育中的各种各样的表演形式和模式，人们可以超越对艺术和社会中模仿的霸权和高度限制的理解。本文将提出不同的模仿模型，提供相应的认识论观点之间的可能联系。本文认为，对模仿的不同理解，体现了我们对主体、客体和象征媒介的不同定位和价值。模仿的第一种模式表明了一种等级权力关系，模仿行为指的是模仿行为本身所表达的意义之外的外部目标。第二种精细表示模型通过复杂的手段保持层次关系，并添加了表示媒介。第三种模式的模仿作为框架强调了一个强大的象征性媒介或美学特性，而作为创造性互动的模式，旨在避免等级关系，并寻求保持主体，客体和媒介之间的开放互动过程。最后一个关于“受虐狂”的思辨模型，说明了主体、客体和媒介之间的关系崩溃的情况，例如在现代晚期的自传体表演中所看到的。通过提出这些模式，意图是为戏剧教育指出一个框架，可以重新安排实践和理论之间的分歧。除了模仿实践的不同模式之外，文章最后断言了模仿实践与没有模仿的实践之间的重要区别。换句话说，所有形式的模仿练习都会产生不同，并对抗所谓的“麻醉冷漠”。
In order to understand the complexity of mimesis and dramatic playing, and to perhaps acknowledge a great variety of play forms and modes in theatre art and drama education, one may look beyond hegemonic and highly restricted understandings of mimesis in arts and society. This article will suggest different models of mimesis that provide possible links between corresponding epistemological views. The article argues that different understandings of mimesis follow the way we position and value the subject, the object and the symbolic medium differently. The first model of imitation indicates a hierarchical power relation, where the mimetic act refers to external objectives other than the meaning expressed in the mimetic act itself. The second model of refined representation maintains the hierarchical relationship by sophisticated means, adding a representational medium. A third model of mimesis as framing underlines a powerful symbolic medium or aesthetic peculiarity, whereas as the model of creative interaction intends to avoid hierarchical relationships and seeks to keep an open process of interaction between subject, object and medium. The last speculative model of ‘masochism’ illustrates the case when the relation between a subject, an object and the medium collapses, as for example seen in late modern autobiographical performances. By presenting these models, the intention has been to indicate a framework for drama education that may rearrange divisions between practice and theory. Apart from the different models of mimetic practices, the article ends by asserting the important difference between practice that is mimetic, and practice where there is no mimesis. In other words, all forms of mimetic practice make a difference, and countering what could be named ‘anaesthetic indifference’.