Focus about representation, unrepresentable and unrepresented in drama from Argentina.
I propose here to enter several tips to the problem of representation, the unrepresented and unrepresentable in drama. The debate over the value of ideological and political theater implies a broader reflection, which in turn born numerous suggestions. This is a radical critique of how it has devised and practiced representation. The representation in the theater, has been considered in recent years, a filter indiscernible from reality, a mediation ready to dissolve itself, the idea of transparency now opposes the opacity. Until the eighties and with some remnants in the nineties, the theater was a means to set up appearances beyond the continental absurd proposals that took shape in the drama author of the sixties as Pavlovsky or Gambaro, to embody a universe intern; to the idea of functionality now opposes the resistance. Finally the representation, it had been a mechanism allowing the organic illustration of a world at the same time ordered the perception thereof; to the idea of fullness now opposes the dispersal. The idea that the representation is a mirror, and an instrument born of a synthesis conceived as a mere re-presentation: something that is not in a moment (reality) back in another form (the image, the scene). Representation is a moment in which joined absence and presence although however, the relationship between the two is not linear. Here we pause to wonder what draws the act of substitution? What moves forces and what work entails? What legitimacy substitute to replace the absent, on behalf of what principle and for what benefit? To what extent is the replacement, what is lost and what effects it produces? Hence the importance of certain measures such as opacity, resistance, dispersion, as we say that the representation is not the gathering of absence and presence, but the tension between open a substitute and replaced, between a result and a previous working.
The staging then used to replace reality by their representation. Put something on stage is to identify a limit. It is establishing a zone to another. An account of representation and duplication. It serves also to unify all the data into a single design, put them on stage and give the whole order and density. We have therefore a disjunction between reality and its twin, with the suppression of one another and for the elimination of what it does not lend itself to be recognized, coordinated and retained. Hence, the staging, seen from the perspective of this primary function of exclusion understood within and outside the theater area, always acting as a factor of normalization libidinal. It is precisely the need for standardization which is the key factor. Everything that is inside and around the theater reconduce to what is acceptable, so measured, so organic, so well trained. Repeat: the normalization libidinal is the exclusion of everything that can not be reduced at the scene and the body outside the theater scene at the social body. Hence the reformulation of the question that often arise, the problem is not asking what or how to represent, but why and how the exclusion of everything that is judged unrepresentable because it is not recurring.
The need to overcome the concept of representation often translates into a valuation of experiences that are a far cry from the habits of the theater and look for new solutions, style and formulas. Hence a frequent praise to the forefront. A play is not an illustration or a confession. It is primarily an object, the result of a job. In this context the concept of "fourth wall" seems to have anchored in a museum as inventoried time as the institution that prohijar, the Italian theater. It succumb its founding theorists and teachers to such an extent that even unknown until the bridges between the two tradition took place because when you tabula rasa only knows the imperative of what is being done. The result is a theatre that no cree en emotion, which does not want to represent and who aspires to hold in the constitution of his show and of course aspires to do that. All feel that the theater has something to say, but would like Godard, who did not say so clear.
Unties embers for others to collect. The questions are varied and of course insufficient. What consistency are things that appear on stage? What is the value of truth? In itself said the image is just a replacement of reality through his appearance, giving presence to things that actually are not. What is the nature of this presence, appearance and reality as molds our culture? In this sense it is true that good representation is the illusion of space, yet we know the mechanisms of its logic that make it difficult for the illusion fully operational, both theoretical and artistic.