KLPTEATRO.IT
Novo Critico 2010. Riflessioni su un rapporto in divenire
Non è facile fare un punto della situazione. Abbiamo seguito Novo Critico 2010 e su queste pagine ne avete avuto testimonianza. Dall'incontro conclusivo, ma non solo da quello, è emerso come certe correnti mosse da questo ricco evento abbiano raggiunto la foce in modo netto, senza disperdersi, arrivando a regalare una consapevolezza chiara a quanti ne abbiano preso parte as entertainment or mere observers.
For two whole months, ten companies and artists have had as many critics / scholars: a representative sample to determine the policies of a report yet to be fully understood. The final match saw some of the participants back on stage to list a sense of wonder in relation to how alive this generation of artists and critics. In addition to Elvira Frosini and Daniele Timpano , creators and hosts of the event, returned Graziano Graziani, Antonio Audino, Claudia Cannella, Katie Ippaso , Massimo Marino and Andrea Porcheddu : all critics of a generation ahead of us, talking about how much should intervene to have the young, to what we desire to experiment. On the side of so-called "critical" we are talking about a new way of writing, a new way of communicating, new motivations, new technologies, new target. And that is fine. Yet it is perhaps a risk
see anywhere new. Or at least look for it. This is learned on the field, visiting rooms and foyer, where the new is not always coincide with the good, the reflections in which the winning (and winning means that progress, evolving really, who do not die on the door of the theater) are daughters enterprise, communicability, ma non per forza del “mai visto prima”. Forse sarebbe utile accettare il cambiamento (di contenuti, di mezzi, di pratiche) non come qualcosa di straordinario ma di naturale. Stupirsi e compiacersi di una critica che usa altri mezzi, che “milita” in un modo nuovo sarebbe come stupirsi di un fuoco che si accende girando una manopola senza bisogno della pietra focaia.
Ecco perché scrivo qui di un rapporto “ancora tutto da comprendere”. Perché, come spesso accade, ancora prima della teoria, compare una questione di terminologia e di vissuto. Una questione di drammaturgia, se vogliamo. A mio parere, se una definizione univoca che inquadri la critica contemporanea non è semplice da formulare, non is not desirable. We could really stand up for months to discuss what roles, such as tasks, such as materials, such as methods. Inevitably stumble into that terminology, years ago, decided that the critical word were to refer to someone who acted as censor.
that the critic (we call it for convenience and synthesis) has stopped doing the good and the bad weather we know it's been a while ', perhaps the point is to understand if the critic is in a position to offer an umbrella or a beach chair themselves in opposition at that time. If that is, once you understand that we can start a fire with the knob, we still have to cook something edible. And here enters the game experience: the reality of critics and audiences, the theater watching it, is multiple, as is that of the theater who does. The daughter of a territorial nature which must be defended, trying to escape a definition, called a rare model of shared autonomy.
Imagine the best of all possible worlds, in which artists and public personalities are experiencing. If the language of those who make theater is renewed constantly, trying to always put to the test, tell of their time weaving artistic synthesis is not necessarily new, but rather personal, so it is fascinating to imagine a public as dynamic, a "point of view. " Then it would be wonderful to think of creativity that continue to seek its own center, avoiding a clear definition and going to present this same research as a dynamic fact, such a conflict, against whom the point of view to act as agent to react, as a starting point, like a hook. If that was so, even the critics would have a role, a role once more dynamic, alive indefinitely but only because it is always ready to debate, standing on the piece. So mobile.
But this is the best of all possible worlds. We are imagining. Yet if you talk with the artists as happened during Critical Novo, in the midst of the most just complaints about a policy (and practice) non-existent cultural, slips a sort of claim: when you try to define something we come to the rubber wall of the "research". And rightly so, especially where we see a path where the instance appears, where the passion has to prove himself. And then try to claim the same right. Critical
Novo was born and raised with the intention of creating the connections, not necessarily of the agreements. It was a control tower in a position to clarify the routes of many crossings. Krapp has been witness to these moments of encounter and dialogue. He recorded the issues raised as the waves of a seismograph. The result is that the debate on the role of the critic is still alive, now more than ever. The interventions of the names above ( leggi la lettera aperta di Katia Ippaso ) si parla di teatro come “pensiero in movimento”, di scrivere come “conoscere”, della volontà di confrontarsi ancora tra artisti, critica e pubblico. Addirittura, all’interno della critica, di arrivare a un vero e proprio confronto generazionale.
Come accade in ogni momento figlio di una crisi totale, radicale, materiale, ora certe possibilità si stanno facendo concrete. Sono le possibilità non tanto della critica, ma del pensiero critico, qualcosa che appartiene a tutti i lati di un vivere vigile. E se qualcosa si sta muovendo è grazie sì all’impegno di “giovani critici” e di “meno young critics, "but much more due to the fact that things evolve. Especially in emergency situations overall, policy, ethics (which others have analyzed properly). Because the energies are mixed, they return to vibrate.
Sometimes it seems that the criticism is more important than art, or that the critics dictate the rules of the game, by turning on the lights in the room. But if the lights are on someone should not be - we believe - on criticism in the strict sense. And often someone, even if it in good faith, seems to forget it.
Treat energy as something extraordinary is not always the best attitude, if you want that energy to produce something. Think of content, form, building on synergies. The big change in recent months "is being", the English say, in contact, the intersection, in the comparison. "We should not be necessarily agree with the ideas, but at least gather around the ideas that are such."
Our job was to record those beats and discussion of meaning, through appropriate means for amplifying can reach even those who did not attend the meetings to Kataklisma, or to Tor Vergata Kollatino Underground. So here is our way. We're telling. Keeping the passion but observing a proper distance, that of perspective, for better understanding and above all without giving never assume any role.
That criticism is a substance that changes, that changes. What concerns us is the research and the difference we can make a path of knowledge, depth, presence. So evolution. This is culture.
Sergio Lo Gatto
December 11, 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment