In the most general way, I explore the phenomenon of affect in theater (drama and musical theater). Importantly, in my research I am not talking about feelings and emotions. Rather, I am on the side of the concept articulated by Brian Massumi: affect is an autonomous entity.
In other words, I am in search of a conceptualization of the "autonomous machine" for the production of affect in theater.
However, I have not found any literature that considers affect specifically in the territory of theater.
Deleuze devoted important concepts to affect, but they were related to cinema (the close-up).
Interesting question dear Ruslan Bitcoev !
is this a work in the direction of instinct? the emotion as an external expression could possibly be illuminated here from the perspective of psychiatry (affect) and brought into context. Either In psychology, the emotional reaction associated with an experience or the physical reaction that is learned, psychologically altered or even medically treated.
An affect is a brief and intense emotional sentiment (e.g. joy or anger). It usually occurs as a reaction to an external situation or a mental idea. Affect is often associated with physiological symptoms (facial flushing, sweating, etc.), sweating, trembling, increased muscle tone. Affect is distinguished from Feeling the emotion and the mood.
I am personally more thinking on the feeling in the stomach watching eg. a mountain climbing film....
BEst Wolfgang
Thank you very much for your attention to the question and your answer!
Yes, indeed, in my research I am reflecting on instinct. I agree that affect, unlike emotion or feeling, gives itself away by outward signs - sweating, reddening of the skin, etc.
However, these signs are also the result of "excessive" feeling, excessive body work. If I laugh for an extended period of time, I may end up blushing, or I may get shortness of breath as my body triggers these reactions on its own. So is it fair to define affect only as an intense (short-term) feeling with physiological consequences?
These are feelings for which there are no words in the language, but which can be seen by the eyes and heard by the ears.)
Sorry to be responding so late. As an active academic you probably understand. We are all terribly busy.
I will try to respond to your question: not many people (academics included) have really understood what Brian Massumi and the representatives of the Affect Theory group wanted to say. Massumi used to be my professor at McGill, so I had the privilege to work with one of the most brilliant researchers of the past 30 years. Anyway, you seem to truly understand what he had in mind and your research in theatre in this respect sounds intriguing. I have not come across any articles about affect in the reception theory of theatre yet but I would suggest turning to the studies of charismatic leaders. It is my opinion that to evoke specific responses in theatre audience you need to have this incredible "inner strength" which emanates from the actor in a dialogical exchange of affect and of response to it. In other words, I would concentrate on the psychology of theatre and theory of reception. What are your thoughts about this? Janina
Janina, thank you so much for your comment. Your comment is very accurate and helpful to me.
Yes, indeed, my intuition prompts me to "dig" directly from theater practitioners (Artaud, Alice Kohnen, Tedeusz Kantor, Meyerhold, Maria Knebel, Stanislavsky, Peter Brook). However, their work does not always adhere to the "purity of the term". Sometimes they mean something else by this or that term. As someone with a theater background, I completely understand these authors. Because words (strict terms) can't always be useful in practical work. It's easier to go out and perform (or stage a play).
The other problem is that the concept of affect has had a loop of emotional (!) meaning attached to it for a very long time. so even theater practitioners have fallen into this trap. What I want to find are the mechanisms and ways of producing affect in theater. And I want to find a kind of affect that is not limited to the emotional. That's why I'm close to Brian Massumi.
It seems to me that the most honest way of research is to problematize affect in theater from several perspectives. The first is philosophical (affect is not an emotion). The second is the theatrical (category of play, affect (NOT emotion). And the third is the concepts of affective turn (ultimate experience). Somehow. Yes, I absolutely agree that it is necessary to connect the psychology of perception. Perhaps Lev Vygotsky, in one way or another, pondered the nature of such influences in theater. And, of course, Gilles Deleuze.
I'm finishing my master's program in a few months, and I think my PhD thesis will be devoted to all these puzzles.))
Respectfully,
Ruslan
I fully agree that the problematization of the term affect and a thorough discussion of the conflicting and unclear at Times uses of the term is the way to start your phd thesis. I wish you luck and patience with this project. When you are ready with the draft of your first chapter let me know. I would gladly read your thoughts as theory of affect is my area of interest.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Statistics
- Survey