|
|
An introduction to Phenomenology by Michael Moor MA Phenomenology attempts to address issues of the 'real world, or the world as we know and perceive it. The world of friendly or hostile things or signs. The world viewed as comfortable or uncomfortable, with useful or useless objects or good or evil people. Phenomenology argues that this human world is not a world that science can meaningfully describe or interpret. Phenomenology seeks reasons not causes for human activity and is therefore relevant to the performing arts when the performing arts are viewed as 'rational acts'. That is to say when the act of performance is viewed as the act of a 'free being', motivated by reason and understood through imaginative dialogue. (By dialogue I do not simply mean verbal communication. Literature, poetry, art, movement, dance, sound and music may also be seen as imaginative dialogue). In a rational interpretation of the performance dialogue an audience for example is provoked into the search for reasons. It is confronted with two significant questions by the very act of performance. One being, why is this performance taking place and secondly what does it mean?
It is largely these two questions that courses P107 and P312 attempts to address albeit in rather different ways and at different academic levels. The question of why becomes very important if we view human beings as having a 'free will'. If we humans do indeed have free will then interpreting and understanding all our free acts is important for the understanding of humanity and the meaning of human life in general. Big issues indeed. In the consideration of acts of free will it is useful to differentiate between the aims and objectives of an act and the actual effect of an act. This is known as intentionality The question of why has implications not only for the performer but for the audience as well. Why is an audience in attendance at a specific performance and on a particular day? Are they there to be communicated to as free rational beings by a rational language or notion of performance or are they there instinctively? Conforming to some kind of primeval 'herd instinct' or mass ritual? Such a view of an audience would give no insight into the fragmentation of audiences or the appeal of individual works If one decides that performance is a rational act of communication then one must consider what is being communicated. In academic terms you must consider the evidence not your individual opinion. For example in terms of P107 and P312 the very popularity of a show or a performer suggests that a dialogue between a performance work, a performer and an audience is taking place on an objective and identifiable level. If one wanted to measure this popularity it could be measured in economic terms, (box office takings) in terms of audience figures, longevity or global appeal and so on. One could demonstrate the effect of a show or performer in cultural terms by the amount of literature inspired or generated (in terms of reviews, books or articles for example) and so on. One may also argue that political or cultural meanings are being communicated by performance and one may discuss this in terms of a particular ideology or system of beliefs being visibly or demonstrably underpinned by a particular work, body of work or star persona. While phenomenology in its academic context is not concerned with unsubstantiated gossip or unfounded personal opinion. That is not to say that gossip or commonly held beliefs are irrelevant to your studies. This kind of information merely needs to be objectively and academically considered if it is to be used. By the same token your personal opinion or rather your speculation may also be relevant if it is logically arrived at and or based on known facts. Key thinkers in the field of phenomenology. W. Dilthey (1833-1911) Has implications for the performing arts, he speaks of understanding as an act of rational projection. In other words putting oneself in another person's place in order to understand them better. To understand not how they behave but why they behave in the way they do. G.W .F Hegel (1770-1831). Despite his 'system' being seen as flawed by many modern thinkers his ideas remain powerful and highly influential. His work is truly visionary and inspirational. He speaks of the 'Spirit of The Age' and the 'Heroic'. E. Husserl (1859-1938) Considered to be the first important modern phenomenological thinker. He speaks of the understanding of the human world in terms of 'comfortable' and 'uncomfortable', useful and useless and so on. He argues that human classifications (as experienced through human senses such as smell, taste, touch and impression) have no relationship to scientific classifications and as such the enterprise of scientific explanation cannot meaningfully explain human life and concerns. A good example of what he means might be the scientific classification of water as H2O. A human classification might be for example, a clear liquid, or wet...or any other human impressions or memories provoked by the concept or experience of water. Another human classification of water may be that it is a 'good thing' when thirsty or a 'bad thing' when drowning. The explanation of water as H2O tells us nothing about water on a 'human experience' level. It does not tell us if it is a good thing or an bad thing, useful or useless.
|
|
|