Institutional Theatrics: Performing Arts Policy in Post-Wall Berlin by Brandon Woolf (review)

IF 0.8 3区 艺术学 0 THEATER
James R. Ball III
{"title":"Institutional Theatrics: Performing Arts Policy in Post-Wall Berlin by Brandon Woolf (review)","authors":"James R. Ball III","doi":"10.1353/tj.2023.a922233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Institutional Theatrics: Performing Arts Policy in Post-Wall Berlin</em> by Brandon Woolf <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> James R. Ball III </li> </ul> <em>INSTITUTIONAL THEATRICS: PERFORMING ARTS POLICY IN POST-WALL BERLIN</em>. By Brandon Woolf. Performance Works. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2021; pp. 280. <p>Brandon Woolf’s <em>Institutional Theatrics: Performing Arts Policy in Post-Wall Berlin</em> investigates theatre that addresses and would transform the institutions that house it and the infrastructures that support it. In sum, the book proposes “a negative art of institutional dis/avowal [through which] an institution might embrace its own determinate negation [and] reckon with the particulars of its own contradictions” (14–15). Across the book’s chapters, this initial definition (a paraphrase of Theodor Adorno) develops as a subtle tool for theorizing the ways in which performance can directly and substantially participate in the making and executing of policy.</p> <p>Woolf begins to elaborate this idea in his Introduction, arguing “performance functions as a performative art of policy” (20). This novel reversal of the conventional performance studies assertion that public policy is performative offers new coordinates from which to investigate, “performance’s potential to utilize the public institutions of its support to reimagine those very institutions from within” (23). The introduction begins with recent history: the protests, debates, and occupation that followed the announcement that Chris Dercon, then curator at London’s Tate Modern museum, would take over as the new director of the Volksbühne theater in the fall of 2017. Woolf’s account of these events models the methodology employed throughout the book: rigorous and detailed archival investigations combined with strategic and illuminating instances of participant observation and original interviews with key figures.</p> <p>The work is organized into two parts: “State-Stages” and “Free-Scenes.” Each part is composed of two chapters; the first chapter sets the stage for the “particular policy problematic” (21) in question, and the second offers a case study of performance as policy. Chapter 1 begins with the closure of the State-Stage Complex and follows the policy debates that ensued as they moved between parliamentary sessions, backroom negotiations, public press reports, and performances throughout the Complex. For Woolf, this history is “a springboard and strategic counterpoint—a site of dis/avowal—for the chapters that follow” (31). Though rife with moments in which key participants and their performances flirted with modes of infrastructural reimagining, the events of 1993 did not produce the same art of institutional dis/avowal apparent in subsequent cases.</p> <p>Chapter 2 provides the first such counterpoint, Frank Castorf’s 2012 production <em>Lehrstück</em>. “Re-functioning” emerges in the chapter as a critical conceptual refinement of institutional dis/avowal. Building on Bertolt Brecht’s efforts to “refunction the theatre apparatus itself,” the book argues that Castorf in turn refunctioned Brecht, “to imagine, and subsequently enact, a new kind of public—and publicly supported—theatre in post-wall Berlin” (68–69). What emerges is “an art of dis/avowal that leans into systems of support” to undo them (86). As Castorf has put it in interviews, “<em>Especially</em> if you are funded through tax money […] you have the duty to be subversive. You have to be ungrateful” (86). This approach neither acquiesces to the compromises implicit in working within institutions nor refuses participation in institutionalized systems of support. It accepts the institution, warts and all, as a structural element to be played with, to be challenged even as it is embraced.</p> <p>Part Two shifts focus slightly from institutions to the infrastructures of support undergirding them, and especially the infrastructures constituting Berlin’s free-scene of independent artists and ensembles. Chapter 3 introduces these infrastructures via an investigation of “the ways performance and memory animate public institutions” (107), specifically the Palast der Republik, the former seat of the East German Parliament. Drawing on Shannon <strong>[End Page 579]</strong> Jackson and debates between Jacques Derrida and the architect Daniel Libeskind, Woolf asks, “how might a performance institution dis/avow itself by embracing the temporal disjunction of the spectral?” (115). He finds his answer in a group of artists who proposed temporary artistic interventions in the space, the <em>Zwischennutzung</em> initiative, which refused “restorative nostalgia” in favor of a “reflective nostalgia […] that longs for a ‘future that went...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":46247,"journal":{"name":"THEATRE JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEATRE JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tj.2023.a922233","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"THEATER","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

  • Institutional Theatrics: Performing Arts Policy in Post-Wall Berlin by Brandon Woolf
  • James R. Ball III
INSTITUTIONAL THEATRICS: PERFORMING ARTS POLICY IN POST-WALL BERLIN. By Brandon Woolf. Performance Works. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2021; pp. 280.

Brandon Woolf’s Institutional Theatrics: Performing Arts Policy in Post-Wall Berlin investigates theatre that addresses and would transform the institutions that house it and the infrastructures that support it. In sum, the book proposes “a negative art of institutional dis/avowal [through which] an institution might embrace its own determinate negation [and] reckon with the particulars of its own contradictions” (14–15). Across the book’s chapters, this initial definition (a paraphrase of Theodor Adorno) develops as a subtle tool for theorizing the ways in which performance can directly and substantially participate in the making and executing of policy.

Woolf begins to elaborate this idea in his Introduction, arguing “performance functions as a performative art of policy” (20). This novel reversal of the conventional performance studies assertion that public policy is performative offers new coordinates from which to investigate, “performance’s potential to utilize the public institutions of its support to reimagine those very institutions from within” (23). The introduction begins with recent history: the protests, debates, and occupation that followed the announcement that Chris Dercon, then curator at London’s Tate Modern museum, would take over as the new director of the Volksbühne theater in the fall of 2017. Woolf’s account of these events models the methodology employed throughout the book: rigorous and detailed archival investigations combined with strategic and illuminating instances of participant observation and original interviews with key figures.

The work is organized into two parts: “State-Stages” and “Free-Scenes.” Each part is composed of two chapters; the first chapter sets the stage for the “particular policy problematic” (21) in question, and the second offers a case study of performance as policy. Chapter 1 begins with the closure of the State-Stage Complex and follows the policy debates that ensued as they moved between parliamentary sessions, backroom negotiations, public press reports, and performances throughout the Complex. For Woolf, this history is “a springboard and strategic counterpoint—a site of dis/avowal—for the chapters that follow” (31). Though rife with moments in which key participants and their performances flirted with modes of infrastructural reimagining, the events of 1993 did not produce the same art of institutional dis/avowal apparent in subsequent cases.

Chapter 2 provides the first such counterpoint, Frank Castorf’s 2012 production Lehrstück. “Re-functioning” emerges in the chapter as a critical conceptual refinement of institutional dis/avowal. Building on Bertolt Brecht’s efforts to “refunction the theatre apparatus itself,” the book argues that Castorf in turn refunctioned Brecht, “to imagine, and subsequently enact, a new kind of public—and publicly supported—theatre in post-wall Berlin” (68–69). What emerges is “an art of dis/avowal that leans into systems of support” to undo them (86). As Castorf has put it in interviews, “Especially if you are funded through tax money […] you have the duty to be subversive. You have to be ungrateful” (86). This approach neither acquiesces to the compromises implicit in working within institutions nor refuses participation in institutionalized systems of support. It accepts the institution, warts and all, as a structural element to be played with, to be challenged even as it is embraced.

Part Two shifts focus slightly from institutions to the infrastructures of support undergirding them, and especially the infrastructures constituting Berlin’s free-scene of independent artists and ensembles. Chapter 3 introduces these infrastructures via an investigation of “the ways performance and memory animate public institutions” (107), specifically the Palast der Republik, the former seat of the East German Parliament. Drawing on Shannon [End Page 579] Jackson and debates between Jacques Derrida and the architect Daniel Libeskind, Woolf asks, “how might a performance institution dis/avow itself by embracing the temporal disjunction of the spectral?” (115). He finds his answer in a group of artists who proposed temporary artistic interventions in the space, the Zwischennutzung initiative, which refused “restorative nostalgia” in favor of a “reflective nostalgia […] that longs for a ‘future that went...

机构戏剧:柏林墙后的表演艺术政策》,布兰登-伍尔夫著(评论)
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:审查人: 机构戏剧:布兰登-伍尔夫(Brandon Woolf)著 James R. Ball III INSTITUTIONAL THEATRICS:柏林墙后的表演艺术政策》。作者:布兰登-伍尔夫。表演作品。伊利诺伊州埃文斯顿:西北大学出版社,2021 年;第 280 页。布兰登-伍尔夫的《体制戏剧》:后柏林墙时期的表演艺术政策》一书研究的戏剧涉及并将改变容纳戏剧的机构以及支持戏剧的基础设施。总之,该书提出了 "机构否定/否认的消极艺术,[通过这种艺术]机构可以接受自身确定的否定,[并]重新审视自身矛盾的特殊性"(14-15)。在本书的各个章节中,这个最初的定义(转述自西奥多-阿多诺)逐渐发展成为一种微妙的工具,用于理论化表演如何直接、实质性地参与政策的制定和执行。伍尔夫在 "导言 "中开始阐述这一观点,认为 "表演具有政策表演艺术的功能"(20)。这种新颖的观点颠覆了传统表演研究关于公共政策是表演性的论断,为研究 "表演利用其所支持的公共机构从内部重新想象这些机构的潜力"(23)提供了新的坐标。导言从最近的历史开始:2017 年秋天,时任伦敦泰特现代美术馆馆长的克里斯-德康(Chris Dercon)宣布将接任沃尔克斯布恩剧院的新院长,随之而来的是抗议、辩论和占领。伍尔夫对这些事件的叙述体现了全书所采用的方法论:严谨细致的档案调查与战略性的、启发性的参与观察和对关键人物的原创访谈相结合。作品分为两个部分:"状态阶段 "和 "自由场景"。每个部分由两章组成;第一章为相关的 "特定政策问题"(21)做铺垫,第二章提供了一个关于作为政策的绩效的案例研究。第一章以国家舞台综合体的关闭为开端,讲述了随之而来的政策辩论,这些辩论在议会会议、幕后谈判、公开媒体报道和综合体内的演出之间穿梭。对伍尔夫而言,这段历史是 "后续章节的跳板和战略反驳点--一个不承认/否认的场所"(31)。尽管 1993 年的事件中充斥着关键参与者及其表演对基础设施重新想象的调侃,但在随后的案例中,并没有产生与之相同的体制性否定/否认艺术。第 2 章提供了第一个这样的对立面,即弗兰克-卡斯托夫(Frank Castorf)2012 年的作品《Lehrstück》。在本章中,"重新运作 "作为对制度性否定/否认的一种关键性概念提炼而出现。在贝托尔特-布莱希特(Bertolt Brecht)努力 "重新运作戏剧机构本身 "的基础上,该书认为,卡斯多夫反过来重新运作了布莱希特,"在后围墙时代的柏林,想象并随后创造了一种新型的公共戏剧--公共支持的戏剧"(68-69)。由此产生的是 "一种不承认/否认的艺术,它依赖于支持系统 "来消除它们(86)。正如卡斯多夫在采访中所说:"特别是如果你的资金来自税款[......],你就有责任进行颠覆。你必须忘恩负义"(86)。这种方法既不默许在机构内工作所隐含的妥协,也不拒绝参与机构化的支持系统。它接受机构,将其作为一个可以玩弄的结构元素,在接受的同时也接受挑战。第二部分稍稍将重点从机构转移到支持机构的基础设施,尤其是构成柏林独立艺术家和乐团自由场景的基础设施。第 3 章通过对 "表演和记忆赋予公共机构活力的方式"(107),特别是对东德议会旧址共和国宫(Palast der Republik)的研究,介绍了这些基础设施。伍尔夫借鉴香农-杰克逊(Shannon [End Page 579] Jackson)以及雅克-德里达(Jacques Derrida)与建筑师丹尼尔-利伯斯金(Daniel Libeskind)之间的辩论,提出了 "表演机构如何通过拥抱幽灵的时间错位来否定/否认自身?(115).他在一群艺术家的作品中找到了答案,这些艺术家提出了在该空间进行临时艺术干预的建议,即 "Zwischennutzung 计划",该计划拒绝 "恢复性怀旧",而倾向于 "反思性怀旧[......],憧憬'逝去的未来......
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
THEATRE JOURNAL
THEATRE JOURNAL THEATER-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
40.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: For over five decades, Theatre Journal"s broad array of scholarly articles and reviews has earned it an international reputation as one of the most authoritative and useful publications of theatre studies available today. Drawing contributions from noted practitioners and scholars, Theatre Journal features social and historical studies, production reviews, and theoretical inquiries that analyze dramatic texts and production.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信