Search results

1

Recenzja książki Wojciecha Klimczyka, Wirus mobilizacji. Taniec a kształtowanie się nowoczesności (1455–1795), (Kraków 2015, Universitas)

100%

Kondrasiuk G.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2018

|

issue 1-2(265-266)

225-229

EN

In his two-volume work, Wirus mobilizacji, Wojciech Klimczyk confronts a subject matter spanning a sizeable period of time (from the Late Middle Ages to the French Revolution) and a large geographical area (Italy, France, and England) and covering a wide array of topics (i.a. aesthetics, philosophy, history of ideas and political thought). The story is told from a particular point of view: it is a history of Western Europe interpreted through the changing dancing practices, or to use Klimczyk’s own vocabulary, an owerview of subsequent social choreographies. The author has chosen a path matching that of Anglo-Saxon dance theory, most notably the work by Susan Leigh Foster, Mark Franko, and André Lepecki. Proceeding in chronological order, he analyses a number of dance treatises that (with the exception of Noverre’s work) have not been translated into Polish. The treatises and handbooks on dancing by Domenico da Piacenza, Antonio Cornezano, Guglielmo Ebreo (Italian Renaissance); Thomas Elyot, John Weaver, John Playford (Tudor England); Rinaldo Corso, Nicolas de Saint-Hubert, Thoinot Arbeau, Fabritio Caroso, Pierre Rameau, Jean Noverre (France in the times of absolutism) are discussed in detail and with numerous quotes and, taken together, provide a comprehensive vista of the European thought on choreography and its evolution. In fact, the two sizeable volumes contain several books on related topics: a history of choreography including a history of dances; a social and political history of dancing; a history of aesthetic positions with respect to dance; kinetic analyses of paintings and dramas (i.a. Botticelli, Poussin, Molière); an overview of philosophical reflexion (i.a. by Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Diderot, Rousseau, and de Sade) with an eye to how human body is defined. Klimczyk openly refers to the scholars who have supplied him with the theoretical framework for his endeavour; his most important operative concepts come from Michel Foucault, Jacques Rancière, and Pierre Bourdieu. Klimczyk’s curious idea of historicity is based on Foucault’s concept of épistème; following Pierre Bourdieu, he describes the mechanisms of distinction that produce social hierarchies through dance; whereas Rancière has inspired him with the atemporal concept of the perceivable, which Klimczyk uses as an analogy for his own concept of “the movable.” All of it enables him to arrive at a more general, higher-level category of kinesis whose changeable form permeates history and manifests itself not only in artistic dance, but most of all in many other cultural spectacles (balls, ceremonies, military parades, revolutionary rallies, revolts, executions, etc.). By investigating the transformations of kinesis and by reconstructing a somatic history of Europe, Klimczyk attempts to pinpoint the birth of modernity and detects the beginnings of the process as early as in the Renaissance. In order to construct such a method of interpreting historical processes, Klimczyk has postulated strong links between some phenomena. Following Peter Sloterdijk, he associates the beginnings of modernity with a rise in human activity. As a reader of Hannah Arendt’s work, he also presents the history of dance and of defining human corporeality (parallel to political and social history) as a process leading to emancipation and autonomy of human agents. Klimczyk also admits to Hegelian inspiration, believing in the existence of a logic that governs the historical process of emancipation. And it is the history of European individualism as reflected by the category of kinesis that binds the whole book together. Wirus mobilizacji is dense, perhaps even overloaded with analyses and references, pulling all factual material into a whirlwind of dazzling discourse. At times the author seems to do it at the cost of some omissions or analogies that seem stretched. But if we take Wirus mobilizacji to be a peculiar kind of a writing proposition (in line with some suggestions of postmodern philosophy, which at times takes itself to be a kind of literature), these peculiarities will cease to be irritating.

2

W sprawie partytury teatralnej

100%

Żurawski M.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2018

|

issue 1-2(265-266)

99-112

EN

The paper addresses some methodological and technical issues involving the process of reconstructing a theatrical production based on its surviving documentation and other archival materials as well as the working out of the so-called documented and critical score. With that in mind, the author confronts the premises and assumptions of the Schillerean theatrology (Zbigniew Raszewski, Jerzy Timoszewicz) and Bédierean text-editing (Konrad Górski, Zbigniew Goliński) with solutions proposed by performative studies (Tomasz Kubikowski, Diana Poskuta-Włodek) and contemporary scholarly editing (Maria Prussak, Krzysztof Mrowcewicz). The paper is a part of a theoretical supplement to Mateusz Żurawski’s doctoral dissertation, Edycja krytyczna scenariuszy autorskich Jerzego Grzegorzewskiego (‘A critical edition of authorial scenarios by Jerzy Grzegorzewski’) written under the supervision of Dr. Habil. Tomasz Kubikowski and Dr. Habil. Krzysztof Mrowcewicz at the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences (2017).

3

Goll et Witkacy : entre l’expressionnisme et le surréalisme

72%

Kaczmarek T., Łódzki U.

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Romanica

|

2014

|

vol. 009

PL

Studiując dzieła, a nade wszystko teksty teoretyczne Yvana Golla i Stanisława Ignacego Witkiewicza, trudno nie zwrócić uwagi na wiele punktów wspólnych pomiędzy tymi wielkimi twórcami teatru. O ile Polak znał ponad wszelką wątpliwość surrealizm i wiele innych izmów panujących w Europie pierwszych dziesięcioleci XX wieku, o tyle Alzatczyk pochodzenia żydowskiego z pewnością nie miał możliwości zapoznania się z dokonaniami propagatora Czystej Formy. Niemniej, obaj stworzyli podobne, choć nieco różniące się między sobą, dwie estetyki teatralne, które wpisują się w Wielką Reformę Teatralną, i czynili to w tym samym czasie. Choć te dwie silne osobowości artystyczne nie znały się, to jednak wypracowały analogiczną nowatorską formułę ekspresji, zrodzoną w tyglu wielokulturowości, jakim była w owych czasach awangardowa Europa.

EN

Studying works, especially theoretical texts of Yvan Goll and Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz it is difficult not to pay attention to many common points between these two great creators of the theatre. Supposing the Pole knew beyond a reasonable doubt surrealism and many other “isms” prevailing in Europe in the first decades of the twentieth century, it is quite sure that the Alsatian with Jewish origins did not have the opportunity to get acquainted with the achievements of the initiator of the Pure Form. Nevertheless, they both created the two similar, but slightly different from each other, theatrical aesthetics, which constitute a part of the Great Theatre Reform and they did it at the same time. Although these two strong artistic personalities did not know each other, they have developed an analogous innovative formula of expression, created in the crucible of multiculturalism, which at that time was the avant-garde Europe.

Refine search results

2 Pamiętnik Teatralny

1 Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Romanica

1 Kaczmarek T.

1 Kondrasiuk G.

1 Łódzki U.

1 Żurawski M.

2 2018

1 2014

Recenzja książki Wojciecha Klimczyka, Wirus mobilizacji. Taniec a kształtowanie się nowoczesności (1455–1795), (Kraków 2015, Universitas)

W sprawie partytury teatralnej

Goll et Witkacy : entre l’expressionnisme et le surréalisme