OPTM Call for Papers

spacer
World ~ Picture ~ Theatre
Perspectives of the 21st century
Congress Amsterdam 23 - 26 October 2008
9th international congress Gesellschaft für Theaterwissenschaft


call for papers spacer
introduction of the theme spacer
thematic sections spacer
submision modalities spacer
call for group proposals spacer
program and accomodationspacer

Concept and co-ordination: Prof. Dr. Kati Röttger
Theatre Studies Department, University of Amsterdam
Nieuwe Doelenstraat 16, 1012 CP Amsterdam, Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)20-5254098; Email:
Call for papers

abstract submission date extended to July 1. 2008

spacer
The conference will focus on the relationship between theatre and world picture across different historical epochs and cultures. The well-known topoi of Orbis Pictus on the one hand, and Theatrum Mundi on the other form the conceptual frame for questioning this relation. The conference thus invites reflections on ways and spaces of representing the world, knowledge of the world as well as views of the world. The conference is thus thematically divided into four sections: Paradigm Shifts, Methods, Aesthetics and Politics.

spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacer
Introduction of the theme
spacer
When Johannes Comenius died in 1670 in Amsterdam, he left behind a comprehensive, revolutionary humanistic work, with which he sought to champion for world peace through education. His text Orbis sensualium pictus: The visible world (1658) is the first European school text book, a teaching tool replete with pictures and texts, which aimed at employing sensual, pictorial observation to arrive at an understanding concepts and thus to an extensive system of knowledge.#01spacer At the end of the Thirty Years' War, Comenius sought to counter the old theological moral systems with a new order of universal world knowledge laid down his Didactica Magna. (1657) #02spacer One century later his didactical ideas can be found in a proposal of Georg Crhistoph Lichtenberg for an "Orbis pictus for German dramatists, novelists and actors" (1780). #03spacer At roughly the same time, the figure of Theatrum Mundi began to acquire an enormous heuristic energy as a metaphor for viewing the world, for the world as stage, for the art of viewing. It was a metaphor that underlined the endeavour of that period to conceive the world (Schramm 1996). #04spacer The bracketing of the modern topoi of Orbis Pictus and that of Theatrum Mundi informs the thematic scope of the conference by way of offering a historical perspective on the interrelation between world, picture and theatre under the present conditions of globalisation. This invites debating the question of the relevance of these two concepts in describing a culture of knowledge that places picture and text in a new mutual relationship, particularly against the backdrop of the global effects of digitised mass media. Of particular significance here is an analysis of the function and the aesthetics of theatre as signs of global knowledge cultures between the past and the future. How does theatre picture the world? How did it do so in the past? What does theatre have to offer in terms of a picture critique? And what is the relationship between theatre and world vision or worldview? Do metaphors of world theatre also encompass world pictures? Does globalisation put us in the process of shifting from the representation of the world)to the creation of world? (Nancy 2003) #05spacer These questions become all the more pertinent, if globalisation is not only understood as a product of the neo-liberal world economy, but as a process that pervades and fundamentally alters all areas of human coexistence. The pervasive course of "world interlinking" calls for a renewed look at the "world arena" under its changing conditions (Sloterdijk 2005 #06spacer , 1999 #07spacer ). Research in theatricality has important tools to offer in the analysis of this area (Schramm, Münz, Fischer-Lichte, Kotte). These studies have shown the extent to which the metaphor of theatre operates on the margins between describing the world (an aesthetic venture) and finding insights into the world (an epistemological project). In this sense the concept of theatricality has gained the rank of an interdisciplinary discursive element that has far-reaching implications for other arts, social fields and disciplines. The reference to the old concept of Theatrum Mundi in the conference title therefore not only invites a discussion and foregrounding of the relationship between world theatre and world knowledge in the past and in the present (Zimmermann 2001) #08spacer . Moreover, a third dimension is introduced into this structure of ambivalence, namely: the picture. The recent developments in pictorial research only serve to highlight the relevance of pictures. Despite our knowledge culture being strongly determined by the order of the written word since the beginning of the Modern era, pictures are increasingly gaining a new value as a category of knowledge, particularly reinforced by the technical possibilities of dissemination offered by digital media (Bredekamp 2006 #09spacer ; 2004) #10spacer . Simultaneously, the power of images is often experienced as threatening. Pictures are often denigrated as mere substitutes for reality (copies, reproductions or simulacra) or they are believed to be living beings (Mitchell 2005) #11spacer . In this context, the conference seeks to critically question and assess the cultural pessimism stemming from the fear of images. One of the key aims of this gathering of scholars is to discuss the possibilities of an 'enlightened' engagement and relationship to pictures. All in all, "the knowledge of globalisation" along with "the globalisation of knowledge" (Appadurai 2001) #12spacer constitutes a hitherto unresolved challenge. The conference sets out to question how contemporary theatre responds to this challenge. Contributions offering historical, systematic or cultural analyses of this complex of themes are invited.
spacer
THEMATIC SECTIONS
spacer
Section 1: Paradigm Shifts spacer
Since the notion of the 'paradigm shift' was introduced by Thomas Kuhn in 1964 #13spacer to indicate shifts, even "revolutions" in "the image of the sciences", and thus in order to revolutionise historiography, the humanities are increasingly confronted with proclamations of different 'turns'. The linguistic turn brought with it considerable scholarly text production. Yet subsequent 'turns' have occasionally led to symptoms of academic fatigue, perhaps because they were reminiscent of marketing strategies (Böhm, Iconic Turn. Ein Brief, 2007, 28) #14spacer . The first section of the conference therefore invites critical and alert engagement with forms of scholarly questioning, particularly with notions such as the pictorial turn. Like Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault also critiqued the idea of the continuity of thinking and thus the notion of a progressive, causal and global historiography and history of sciences. With his draft for an "Archaeology of Knowledge Foucault introduced concepts that help in understanding precisely the discontinuities in the history of thinking: concepts like rupture, difference, transformation or threshold. #15spacer He pleaded for a probing of epistemes in the practice of analysis. With this he implied the entirety of relations that underlie our presumptions, norms, judgments, and conclusions in scientific practice in different times and spaces. Referring to the epistemes in individual scholarly disciplines, Foucault spoke of tropes, i.e. formulae of knowledge. Such a broad understanding of paradigms, which includes the analysis of epistemes, throws up several questions that the conference seeks to debate upon. First of all, the section aims to rethink theatrical tropes such as "performativity" (or the performative turn, Fischer-Lichte (2003 #16spacer ; 2001 #17spacer , 2005 [[18]] ) or "theatricality" as indicators of epistemological shifts or different "styles of thinking" (Schramm 2003 a #19spacer , b #20spacer ) in post-modern or globalised contexts of scholarship. This further implies a reflection of the close relationship between the form of the stage and forms of spectatorship as depictions and configurations of ways of thinking. A further focal area of this section is the concept of world picture. Heidegger asked if every age has its own "world picture". His definition of the concept indicates the Modern Age as the age of representation by way of "picturing the world". For Heidegger, the central gesture of modernity in fact lay in the conquering of the world as picture. This does not literally refer to a specific picture of the world, but to the world in its entirety (that is nature and history) conceived and grasped as picture (Heidegger 1938) #21spacer . Following this definition by Heidegger, the conference section questions the extent to which the so-called crisis of representation today leads to a crisis of the "world picture"? Possible answers to this question are to be found in the existence of a plurality of world pictures, of conflicting world pictures, or in the search for world pictures that stem from "other" viewpoints. What is the heuristic value of the old notion of Theatrum Mundi in this context? Or has the notion itself been transformed by paradigmatic shifts or revolutions of world pictures? This leads to the question of the changes in our conceptions of theatre and theatricality in the course of paradigm shifts. Have we arrived at the age of the liberation of the delusions that change the Theatrum Philosophicum into what Foucault termed a pure event (1970)? #22spacer An event that obeys a "logic of the senses" (Deleuze 1969) #23spacer , and produces an Artaudian theatre of simultaneous stages and dancing bodies? Formulated differently: Does theatre in an age of the end of representation become festivity, as Rousseau once imagined? What is the impact of theatricality as a style of thinking on the possibility of shifting borders or transgressing fixed world pictures? In how far can theatre studies and theatre practices contribute to these shifts? If we assume that theatre and performance are capable of imagining regions and worlds, we want to ask in how far theatre contributes to engaging with others' perceptions of the world. What does the world look like from other locations?
Keywords of the section Paradigm Shifts:
spacer
  • Paradigm shifts and rifts in the picture of theatre studies
  • Shifts and rifts in the picture of the theatre
  • Linguistic turn vs. Pictorial turn
  • Questions of Theatre historiography
  • Theatricality and performativity as tropes
  • Relation between world picture and world as stage
  • Dynamics of world pictures and theatricality in the age of the global
  • Picture theory and theatre (studies)
Section 2: Methods spacer
As the scope of theatre and performance studies has expanded in the past two decades to encompass a vast range of aesthetic, cultural and political practices, there is a need to reflect on and question the potentials and limitations of the tools of research and analysis. Further, the changes in the discipline call for a heightened sensitivity to the question of methodology itself. In particular the transformations in visual representation in the theatre press for a revision of the interrelation between texts, pictures, bodies and media. Such a rethinking cannot ignore the methodological connections between thinking about and thinking through pictures. One starting point for this venture is the field of critical iconology. This is for instance characterised by Gottfried Böhm's call to epistemologically interrelate language and pictorial critique (1994) #24spacer , by Hans Beltings idea of an anthropological picture studies (2001, #25spacer , 2005) #26spacer , or by W.J.T. Mitchell's critique of the disciplinary separation between the subjects of arts and media studies (1994) #27spacer , which seeks to place the image, the body and the medium in a dynamic relationship with each other. The challenge for theatre studies is thus to methodologically contend with the heterogeneity of the field, beyond the celebration of intermedial approaches. The 'pictorial turn' should neither be misinterpreted as the mere invocation of the threatening potential of images, nor be mistaken as a plea for the sole importance of images. Rather it is a call for an engagement with images as categories of knowledge and research, as a form of communication whose history and consequences demand critical inquiry. It calls for an understanding of images in their close relationship to embodiment, sound or space. The reference to the pictorial turn can be read as a call to develop a critical instrument to analyse and appraise pictorial cultures, regardless of whether they are from scholarly or popular domains, of whether they are symptoms of the present Global Age or as a subject of historical analysis. This section invites papers and working groups that reflect on research work in progress, with a specific focus on the methods used and highlighting their underlying methodologies. The spectrum of possible themes is therefore very broad. Firstly, how are researchers addressing issues such as the inadequacy of textual readings and semiotic approaches for analysing intermediality in performance today? The word-image distinction may have been overcome in art and particularly in performance practice, and this is certainly evident in the explosion of available material on visual culture, yet it is strongly present in research methodologies. In what way do experiments with visuality and narrativity on stage influence or determine modes of looking, reading, interpreting, making sense of the world? To what extent can images be accommodated into a system of signs? What alternatives do picture theory, art and media theory have on offer in honing theatre methodologies? (Jackob/Röttger 2003) #28spacer Do we require new modes of theatre analysis and instruments of theatre historiography in order to analyse new "stages of vision"? (Balme 2002)? #29spacer Further, what contributions can research in scenography and stage design make to the field of pictorial studies? And in what ways is performance research unknowingly blind to those aspects of performance that are not visual/visible (Bharucha, Theatre and the World, 1990)? #30spacer What is the methodological implication of the interplay between visuality and (in)visibility? Such questions invariably lead to the engagement with concepts and definitions. What are pictures in the theatre? Considering the heterogenous and diverse nature of imagery and conceptions of the image, is it possible to even speak of a single systematic definition of images in the theatre (Kolesch 2005)? #31spacer Do approaches based on critical iconology help in the appraisal of theatre as a dynamic field of relations between images, bodies and media? Do concepts such as intertextuality and intermediality necessarily give rise to what might be termed "inter-iconicity"? How can the notion of theatricality be methodologically linked to visibility and visuality in the theatre? What consequences does the iconic turn have for methods and concepts of theatre historiography? These questions relate to the growing field of theatre iconography. Pictorial artefacts, documentations of performance and the world of the theatre are increasingly being viewed not only as illustrations, which must be supplemented by text, but rather as source materials of special significance to theatre historiography. Studying these artefacts and images involves openness to non-textual sources and cultural expressions, as well as a critical stance towards analysing such material as historical truth (Balme et al., European Theatre Icongraphy, 2002). #32spacer Further, what does the changing position of images in the history of the humanities imply for the study of spectatorship as a field of performance studies? Finally, this section of the conference invites reflection on practice-based methodologies in performance research, a field receiving increasing attention in many university contexts. Can practice-based or artistic research be a methodological step forward in recognising the obsolete distinction between understanding or picturing the world and shaping the world? On the one hand, this raises questions related to methods of dramaturgy. Do we need a new dramaturgy of the image, and what shape might such a dramaturgical approach possibly take? On the other hand, it also questions standards of scholarship. Do models of artistic research imply that the borders between art and scholarship are in fact being re-drawn? Is there a potential scope for debate on reform of university study programmes by re-thinking the action/research divide? Keywords: - Critical iconology and performance studies - Visuality and/as method - Pictorial turn and research in theatre historiography - Pictorial and text-based methods, theatre (studies) beyond textuality - Documentation of performance and stage events - Theatre iconography - Spectatorship research - Practice as research/ artistic research - Visual dramaturgy/ dramaturgy of the image
Keywords of the section Methods
spacer
  • Critical iconology and performance studies
  • Visuality and/as method
  • Pictorial turn and research in theatre historiography
  • Pictorial and text-based methods, theatre (studies) beyond textuality
  • Documentation of performance and stage events
  • Theatre iconography - Spectatorship research
  • Practice as research/ artistic research - Visual dramaturgy/ dramaturgy of the image
Section 3: Aesthetics spacer
The question of the interplay between theatre and world picture cannot be seen independently of its medial components, through which this interplay is made possible. Yet paradigm changes in the arts are also always determined by aesthetic innovations, which are often related to a change of medium or to the introduction of new technologies. This section invites contributions that deal with the aesthetics and the media of the theatre, of theatrical events or performances in different historical periods. This includes a spectrum of questions, ranging from the functions and implications of paradigmatic theatrical aesthetics such as the Baroque world theatre, the notion of a Gesamtkunstwerk, or total theatre on the one hand, to the elements of aesthetic composition or medial transformation in theatre, dance, musical theatre and other performing arts, on the other. The recurrent theme in all these areas is that of the boundary shifts between reality and fiction, of the role of theatricality in the creation of different worlds, extending to fields as diverse as the fine arts or natural or computational sciences. The following focal areas are of particular interest to this conference section:

1. Image in theatre: How can we best approach the aesthetics of the image? Does the theatre generate images, and if so, what kind of images are being referred to? What are the developments in the relationship between image and text or image and sound in theatre? What are the special functions and effects of image-generating media in the theatre? How exactly do image, language and sound relate to each other intermedially? Apart from the more performance analytical aspects, the question here is of theatre historiography, of writing the history of image aesthetics in the theatre. Günther Heeg (2000) #33spacer , for instance, has critically engaged with this subject in his study of the relationship between image, body and language in 18th century European theatre. Of central importance to the dynamics of seeing and being seen in theatre is the notion of the gaze (Hass 2005). #34spacer

2. Space, time and body in relation to global perceptions, experiences and processes of mondialisation (Derrida). #35spacer Contributions that interrogate the dimensions of space and time in relation to categories of mobility, virtuality or simultaneity in the Global Age are invited in this sub-section. Further, presentations that link aspects of space and time to image and text, or movement and rhythm to intermediality, and the configurations of body and image in theatre history (see Brandstetter 1995) #36spacer are also welcome in this section of the conference.

3. The influence of new technologies (such as mobile telephony, photography) on theatre aesthetics and modes of perception in different epochs. We invite contributions reflecting on the relationship between theatre and image-generating media such as film, video, digital arts. Which cultural mechanisms lead to transformations in the "image of the sciences", especially in the theatre?

4. Pictures of theatre: To what extent does theatre architecture reflect on or reproduce modes of aesthetic perception? How are spectators placed and image-ined in theatre architecture? What is the image/picture of theatre in other visual arts and fields?

5. New forms of narration: How does the visual focus of the new media influence or affect forms of narration in the theatre? How do dramatic elements such as plot, dialogue and character relate to the imagination and depiction of others' lives? Are new horizons and spaces opening up for drama texts in the light of an apparently endless mondialisation?
Keywords of the section Aesthetics
spacer
  • Pictures in theatre
  • Relationship between image, text, sound, movement and body in the performing arts
  • New technologies and intermedial aspects of aesthetics and perception
  • History and function of the gaze
  • Experiences of space and time
  • Topographies of the performing arts
  • Theatre architecture and the steering of perception
  • Changing forms of narration in the light of changing media aesthetics
Section 4: Politics spacer
This section grapples with the question of the relationship between theatre and politics in three ways: The first concern is the nexus of theatre and the political formations of communities. Whether we think about the function of theatre for the Greek polis or the close link between theatre and the nation states since the 18th century: the theatrical imagination of communities forms a vital part of its political realisation and creation. Benedict Anderson's study Imagined Communities (1986) #37spacer has served to explicate how this actually happened in European history. The question must be reformulated today, addressing how theatre practices deal with the political ambivalence of emerging nation-states on the one hand and their ongoing deterritorialization on the other. To what extent has this enabled new and different forms of imagination of social life in the theatre? In his study Modernity at Large (1996) Arjun Appadurai claims that the concepts of the image, the imaginary and the imagined direct us to something critical and new in global cultural processes. He thus calls for imagination as a social practice (1996, 35). #38spacer The lives of the globalised populations of the world, he claims, are located in different imagined worlds, which need to be communicated, critiqued and at times subverted. This conference section asks how theatre and performance practices respond to this plea. This leads to the second concern of this section: is it possible to define a new kind of political theatre that contributes to the social practice of imagination? In other words: Can theatre be described as an appropriate medium for image critique? To what extent does the theatre critically intervene in global, social practices of imagination? What are the emerging forms of image critique and how far is theatre adequately equipped to offer a critique of the image? Have theatre practices been able to develop a more refined, critical and persuasive imagery, to counter the tired repertoire of global image production and reproduction? (Latour 2002) #39spacer This set of questions calls for a renewed engagement with Guy Debord's idea of the 'spectacle' (1967), #40spacer which he used to argue that humans have become distant and silent spectators whose agency is restricted to mere consumption, where images become commodities. What kind of political theatre can acknowledge and question the central position of images as phenomena of global cultural communication? To what extent do theatre practitioners and scholars confront Debord's notion of the spectacular with images and conceptions of an "emancipated spectator"? In what way does the politics of images in contemporary theatre serve to in fact make perception and spectatorship themselves into political questions? In what way is the 'politics of perception' (Lehmann, 1999) #41spacer or the 'politics of the image' (Rancière, 2003) #42spacer able to mobilise and question the position of the spectators and their responsibility for what they see? The third part of this conference section deals with the theatricality of politics. The age-old art of rhetoric, long viewed as indispensable to political debate and communication, is now being increasingly replaced by the art of "telegenic appeal". Herfried Münkler argues that this shift has led to a drastic theatricalisation of politics. #43spacer In what way do contemporary political strategies of theatricalisation differ from absolutist or revolutionary strategies from past eras? What are the consequences of this theatricalisation for representative democracy? How does this affect power relations, and where does the spectator fit into this scheme? Finally, this is connected to the role of theatre and performance art in the past and present. Can theatre and performance become sites of resistance against the encroaching theatricalisation of social life? ('resistant performance', Auslander 1992 #44spacer ; Carlson 1996 #45spacer ).
Keywords of the section Politics
spacer
  • Theatrical imagination as a social practice
  • Imagination of communities in the context of globalisation: hybridity and deterritorialisation
  • The concept of the spectacle - Spectatorship and politics of perception
  • Theatre, performance and cultural diversity.
  • Politics of images and pictorial critique in the theatre
  • Conflicting images

PRACTICAL INFORMATION
Submission Modalities
spacer
We invite submissions of abstracts until 16 June 2008. The Abstract should be focused on one of the four sections the conference foresees (paradigm shifts, methods, aesthetics, politics). The focus should be clearly indicated. Abstracts in either English or German must not exceed 400 words, and should provide a concise outline of the planned conference presentation (maximum 20 minutes). Panels will be organized according to theme as well as language of presentation.

Abstracts can be submitted via the on-line form at: www.theatrummundi.com or via e-mail to:
gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.