A one-day symposium exploring an interdisciplinary concept
This one-day symposium seeks to explore the intellectual histories and contemporary explorations of the concept and idea of the 'scene'. What does it mean to 'cause a scene', or to 'stage a scene'? How does this originally theatrical metaphor inform how we analyse the framing of everyday interaction, or political speech acts? How do ‘scenes’ question our distinctions between how we perform reality on a daily basis and how reality is performed on stages?
Professor Peter W. Marx (Institute for Theatre and MediaCulture, University of Cologne)
Professor Scott Head (Visiting Professor, Anthropology, UCL/Brazil)
Dr George Oppitz-Trautmann (English Faculty, Cambridge)
Jaspreet Singh Boparai (Classics, Cambridge)
Clare Foster (Classics, Cambridge)
Dr Flora Willson (Music, Cambridge)
Jonas Tinius (Social Anthropology, Cambridge)
Part of the Cambridge Performance Interdisciplinary Performance Network (CIPN) series
The concrete spatial reference of the concept ‘scena’ establishes a relation to the distinction or ‘border’ between fiction and reality. In other words, the concept ‘scena’ marks it as a space of potentiality. With Blumenberg and Jonas, this could be read as a conditio humana. Similarly, the concept ‘scena’ also has a culturally and historically contingent dimension, which refers to different scenae. On the basis of some examples, the form and appearance of such spaces could be discussed.
Dr George Oppitz-Trautmann (British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, English Faculty, Cambridge; Research Associate, St. John’s College)
Discussions of 'a scene' or 'the scene' habitually tend to work on the assumption that, because the 'scene' is used as a unit of production by theatrical practitioners, it can be used as a unit of interpretation by critics. Working against this assumption, which has been bolstered in particular by psycho-analytical notions of the basic, constitutive, formative, or primal scene, as well as by structuralist and poststructuralist formations of the self-dramatizing subject, this paper suggests that theatre must ultimately remain historically and socially incomprehensible when understood in this way. Material and physical accidents of a particular performance cannot be reconciled to any concept of scene qua scene. Theatre, especially professional theatre, has particular qualities derived from the possibilities afforded to it by particular societies at particular times, and by the traditions on which it calls. These qualities are misrecognized by any act of interpretation that subsumes practice in the theatre under a concept of 'universal' or 'basic' theatricality. Moreover, this paper will explore how failures or prospective failures of tone, technique, voice and property - that is, accidents of a given scene that threaten the coherence or 'success' of the scene as a unit of narrative - are in fact integral to theatre's importance as a medium, lending it the power to intervene against projects of philosophical aesthetics that rely on 'scene' in the abstract. The case for theatre will be made using a wide array of historical examples.
Jaspreet Singh Boparai (Classics, Cambridge)
The 'French scene': misunderstanding Aristotle and blindly following tradition
A 'scene' in the modern English theatre is generally understood as a dramaturgical unit (in the text of a play as well a performance) conventionally marked by a change of lighting and/or scenery; conventions will have been influenced no less by other media (particularly film and television) than by developing technological capabilities and practical considerations (the use of lighting, for example, rather than the raising and lowering of a curtain). In traditional English drama from the Renaissance onwards scenes in the texts of plays are marked by the entrance or exit of all characters; this permits shifts of time or setting from scene to scene. The so-called 'French scene' on the other hand (as seen in 'classical' plays by Racine and Molière) is marked be every entrance or exit of a new character. Plays within this tradition as a rule maintain the so-called Aristotelian unities of time, place and action -- scene changes involve no change of scenery. How did this develop, and what are the implications of this conception of a 'scene'?
Chair: Clare Foster (Classics, Anthropology, Cambridge)
Professor Scott Head (Social Anthropology, UCL/Santa Catarina)
Interrupting the 'scene' of the street: Intersections - and collisions - between street performance and street photography
What happens when one figures the street as a ‘scene’? Vincent Crapanzano (2005) elaborated the ‘scene’ as an experientially immanent yet objectively ungraspable counterpart to empirical reality; yet his conception took form largely ‘indoors’, distanced from milieu in question. A comment in one recently-published ‘manual’ of street photography - that good street-photographers should generally avoid taking pictures of “homeless people or street performers” - serves as my initial focus-point for framing divergent conceptions of the ‘scene’ of the street as implicated in ‘street photography’ and ‘street performance’. I then turn to some examples of how the intersection between these practices could be framed differently: here, I address the potential of photography and performance as practices of interruption capable of highlighting, disrupting and refiguring the real and imaginary dimensions of the ‘street’ as a singularly charged experiential realm or ‘scene’.
Chair: Dr Flora Willson (Music, Cambridge)
Jonas Tinius (Anthropology, Cambridge)
Behind the scenes: rehearsing posture and attitude (Haltung)
Summing up discussion (with all participants)
Discussants: Jonas Tinius and Peter W. Marx