Sam,
Just a quick thought: Your twistings and turnings around the idea of transparent conventions remind me of a seminar I took hundreds of years ago when I was in grad school from Bernard Beckerman about his ideas of performance theory. He labeled performances "transparent" when the meanings were clear--which I take to mean they were, in your terms (I think), "inert". Situated comfortably within their conventions, and so the form, or at least the theatrical convention, could be safely ignored (fish unaware of "liquid"?). He labeled performances "opaque" when the spectator had difficulty seeing beyond the surface/convention/form, or perhaps when the piece was about the surface/convention/form. About the liquid, I guess (I'm sure I'm getting Beckerman all wrong). Anyway, obviously I'm drawn toward the opaque. Which is what you keep drawings us toward in these conversations, right?
Graham
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment