Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Formy, farsze i prawa syntezy, czyli „chemia związków jakości teatralnych” według Witkacego

100%
Stacewicz-Podlipska J.
Pamiętnik Teatralny
|
2016
|
vol. 65
|
issue 4(260)
71-90
EN
The reception of Witkacy’s work can be reduced to acts of cutting pieces of closely related contents that happen to fit one’s purpose out of a whole that contains many other qualities and ingredients. It was so before the war, when Witkiewicz, hardly recognising his own dramas on stage, complained that there must be “some limits of identity of a work with itself.” The same was true for the second half of the 20th century, when he joined the avant-garde classics in supplying his creations as raw material for artistic experimentation, the practice which he had, by the way, hated. He also became an “honorary patron” of a heterogeneous artistic phenomenon known under the unfortunate name of “visual theatre,” which, as Konstanty Puzyna once remarked, reacted only “to a small portion of what Witkiewicz’s plays contain: to his visual imagination.” Misconstructions of the concept of Form which, fused with its other historical definitions and uses, generated more and more misunderstandings was what added most to the confusion. Had the concept been analysed in all of its complexity that Witkiewicz intended, and particularly, within the larger conceptual framework of his thought, there would have been no room for ambiguity. The closest terminological associates of Witkiewicz’s “Form” belong to the family of words referring to unity, namely: “alloy,” “amalgam,” or “synthesis.” Form was meant to contain all that, having been “processed,” i.e. having undergone amalgamation, constituted the primordial matter of Art. Therefore, what Witkacy wanted for the theatre was not profusion of visual qualities, not to “make theatre ‘painterly’”, as he put it—not to eliminate content in favour of form. Instead, he wanted the theatrical work to be composed mysteriously, in the process of chemical, or alchemical, Formation, in a magical act of giving shape. This was the level at which the issues that interested him the most really resided, including the fundamental question of unity in plurality. It is precisely this mystery of Form, with all its perplexing and embarrassing metaphysics that has been persistently and pointedly ignored by Witkiewicz’s self- or otherwise appointed inheritors. And representatives of various types of “the theatre of visual narration”, to use a more adequate term coined by Zbigniew Taranienko, from the pre-war Cricot Theatre to the group that Puzyna dubbed “Witkacoplastic theatre” (Witkacoplastyka), did err in this respect as well. Just as long, however, as the theatre of visual narration was preoccupied with resolving the problems stemming from aporias of Modernism, references to Witkacy were more or less warranted. But postmodernism that loves the fragmentary, makes values relative and annihilates all stable points of reference misses the point completely, and the Theory of Pure Form transmogrifies into the practice of “open form” that leaves Witkiewicz’s major postulates further and further behind.
2
Content available remote

OPERA WITH SCHILLER'S 'BRAND' ON IT. TERESA ROSZKOWSKA'S AND ALEKSANDER BARDINI'S MEETINGS ON 'THE SCORE LEVEL' (Opera ze 'znakiem fabrycznym' Schillera - Teresy Roszkowskiej i Aleksandra Bardiniego spotkania 'na planie partytury')

100%
Stacewicz-Podlipska J.
Pamiętnik Teatralny
|
2010
|
vol. 59
|
issue 3-4(235-236)
368-296
EN
Teresa Roszkowska and Aleksander Bardini worked together on three opera productions: Boris Godunov by Modest Mussorgsky, Don Pasquale by Gaetano Donizetti, and Straszny dwór (The Haunted Manor) by Stanislaw Moniuszko. They made a good artistic duo, and their coherent theatrical vision introduced a new and valuable quality into Polish music theatre. Both of them were predisposed for opera, as their innate music talents were supplemented with great musical culture acquired at their family homes, and topped up with a thorough, many-level education. Their talents had already become evident while they had been studying at Directors Department of the National Theatre Arts Institute where they had been spotted and watched closely by Leon Schiller. They quickly became two of his favourite students, and he hoped they would carry on his theatre work. Indeed, the three collaborative meetings of the Bardini and Roszkowska duo at successive opera productions proved Leon Schiller's hopes to have been well founded.
3
Content available remote

„Nic do patrzenia”? Odys i inni

100%
Stacewicz-Podlipska J.
Pamiętnik Teatralny
|
2015
|
vol. 64
|
issue 3-4(255-256)
220-257
EN
The term “visual theatre” is one of the most problematic words in the vocabulary of Polish stage actions. Before the Second World War, it was clearly set in opposition to the traditional 19th-century bourgeois theatre of the literary and psychological kind. Even right after the War, the term was still restricted to a small group of high-quality, and often hermetic, artistic projects, and it did not raise too many objections. Yet with time, as stage experiments stemming from the ground prepared by the pre-war avant-garde masters were gaining new aspects and the term was used in reference to an increasing number of sometimes very varied artistic projects, the definition of the phenomenon became fuzzy. The post-war generation were fighting on a whole new front; the objectives and arms of the offensive changed; the former pioneers became classics, and audacious attacks on the status quo became part of the canon. Stage designing had emancipated itself in the course of the Great Theatre Reform, and individual contributions made by visual artists to the productions they worked on with directors no longer raised any eyebrows. Struggle for an autonomous space of artistic expression was no longer fought by artistic movements, but by individuals whose artistic visions, inextricably bound with their experience of war, led to a whole new formula for creating on-stage worlds. The imprecise and confusing name, indicating profusion of the visual aspect of the theatre production as the genre qualifier for certain artistic actions, led to an increasing opposition against the term. Associations with an excessive emphasis on the visual side of the performance and qualitative results of such practices as well as false assumptions that suggested a programmatic demand that the visual aspect of the spectacle be emancipated generated increasing opposition and irritation. In time, even some artists whose art, like the work by Kantor and Grzegorzewski, could be classified almost mechanically as “visual theatre” started objecting to the label. The term in question came under careful scrutiny of theatre theoreticians and scholars who undertook numerous attempts to confront it with the reality on stage. Today it may seem that the problems caused by its usage and doubts as to how justified it is to apply the popular term in reference to numerous on-stage worlds are just consequences of several terminological conflations. In principle, the underlying fact is that the same name has been used in reference to practices of different origins, emerging in different contexts, channelling different creative forces, and, finally, representing varied artistic qualities. One needs to discriminate, however, between the critique of the term, its accuracy, semantic capaciousness and justifiability of its usage on the one hand and an obvious statement that some artists have at their disposal some visual tools that make their work stand out in this respect. Wyspiański, who must be deemed a champion of “visually sensitive” works of Polish theatre, wrote that there are individuals who “see things differently” in contrast to those with “untrained eyesight.” In the case of Kantor, Grzegorzewski and other “directors-and-painters” the role that this exceptional eyesight played in the process of composing the activity onstage was undeniably substantial. This unique, because reserved for trained visual artists, sensitivity to non-verbal, multisensory modes of communication made the building material of their on-stage worlds absorb more non-textual layers of meaning than was usually the case. This sensitivity became especially pronounced in the respective productions of Powrót Odysa (The Return of Odysseus) prepared by Kantor and Grzegorzewski; the productions based on Wyspiański’s text became idiomatic for the artistic languages of these theatre artists.
4
Content available remote

„Carissimo Kurek”, czyli o braterstwach awangardy

100%
Stacewicz-Podlipska J.
Pamiętnik Teatralny
|
2018
|
issue 3(267)
205-212
EN
The exhibition “Enrico Prampolini. Futuryzm, scenotechnika i teatr polskiej awangardy” (“Enrico Prampolini. Futurism, Stage Design and the Polish Avant-gard Theatre”), open at the Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź between 9 June and 10 October 2017, was one of the most intense encounters with the Avant-garde last year, which was a jubilee year. The exhibition offered an erudite journey that followed the interests of the curator Przemysław Strożek, a researcher specialising in Italian Futurism and its reception in Poland. Despite a clearly defined goal of setting side by side the creations of Prampolini and the achievements of Polish Avant-garde theatre, it was not a classical “thesis exhibition,” which can be regarded as the curator’s fault or as his credit, and the judgment on this point depended mostly on how well versed in Avant-garde movements the viewer was. A complex, multi-threaded narrative that the exhibits amassed in a rich and representative selection were telling proved not accessible enough for some of the public, while other visitors found it exquisitely enlightening. The connexions between avant-gardists of different countries were displayed in a subtle way, and the space in which the visitors could explore them afforded a chance to investigate the exhibition freely and at one’s own pace. The endevour was all the more appealing due to the fact that the setting made a clear linear narrative virtually impossible, favouring a meandering and dialogical tale instead. The outcome was a fascinating maze of compelling, and sometimes difficult to discern, feedback relations between the Polish and Italian avant-gardes of the 1920s and 1930s.
5

YOU NEVER KNOW IN FILM... - TERESA ROSZKOWSKA'S BATTLE FOR A FILM FRAME (W filmie to nigdy nie wiadomo... Teresy Roszkowskiej bitwy o kadr)

100%
Stacewicz-Podlipska J.
Kwartalnik Filmowy
|
2011
|
issue 74
166-185
EN
Teresa Roszkowska (1904-1992), was a talented painter and a first Polish woman to be a stage and set designer. Her adventure with film begun in 1938, when she debuted as a costume designer in Józef Lejtes' production Kosciuszko at Raclawice. Because of her specific predilections and clearly defined preferences she quickly found her niche on the market, specializing in the art design for costume films and musical comedies. In film, as in the theatre, she was very careful in choosing her repertoire and collaborators, engaging in only those projects, which fully met her tastes and expectations. The deciding factor was a deep, artistic understanding with the director. Roszkowska was able to reach this kind of understanding only with Józef Lejtes, Aleksander Ford and Jerzy Zarzycki. Their sensitivity to the visual aspect of the film and a certain 'picturesqueness' of the frame and their knowledge of the history of art led to the creation of three creative tandems.
6

THE HAPPY FILMMAKER, OR 'EDISON' FROM SOMEWHERE ON THE VISTULA (Szczesliwy filmowiec, czyli 'Edison'znad Wisly)

100%
Stacewicz-Podlipska J.
Kwartalnik Filmowy
|
2010
|
issue 71-72
291-305
EN
In the summer of 1926, during the outdoor summer sessions of Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts held in Kazimierz Dolny, an event, unprecedented in the history of Polish cinematography, took place. Tadeusz Pruszkowski, a charismatic professor from the legendary Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts, together with his students, made a film entitled The Happy Hanged Man, or California in Poland. The film crew had no previous experience in film making, and the camera and film were provided by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Education. Pruszkowski was the operator, and his students played the lead characters, while the residents of Kazimierz helped as extras. While only a modest plot was planned, a feature length film was made. It was shown in 1926 at the 'Splendid' cinema in Warsaw. The plot deals with a grotesque love story of young painters. Although the film was destroyed during the war, one can reconstruct the forgotten film from various reviews, memories and other dispersed information.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.