当前位置: X-MOL 学术Theatre Journal › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Visual Experiences in Cinquecento Theatrical Spaces by Javier Berzal de Dios (review)
Theatre Journal Pub Date : 2021-04-01
Robert Henke

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

Reviewed by:

  • Visual Experiences in Cinquecento Theatrical Spaces by Javier Berzal de Dios
  • Robert Henke
VISUAL EXPERIENCES IN CINQUECENTO THEATRICAL SPACES. By Javier Berzal de Dios. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2019; pp. 216.

Javier Berzal de Dios’s excellent Visual Experiences in Cinquecento Theatrical Spaces persuasively rebuts received narratives regarding Italian Renaissance theatre architecture and design, offering a more complex, nuanced picture that includes the heterogeneous, sometimes messy experiences of actual spectators.

The standard view (only slightly exaggerated): Italian Renaissance theatre designers and scenographers, such as Baldassare Peruzzi in his decisive 1514 design for a production of La Calandria, rationalized their designs with the new art of linear perspective, which created the illusion of an ideal representation whose unity aligned with neo-Aristotelian notions of the dramaturgical unities. This single, unified picture was passively received by spectators functioning as a homogenous unit, except insofar as they were aesthetically and politically subordinate to the sovereign, who was positioned at the ideal perspectival point in the audience. This new, Renaissance view of seeing in the theatre decisively broke with medieval habits and shaped a linear progression of these tendencies running the course of the sixteenth century, from Peruzzi to Serlio in the mid-sixteenth century to the Teatro Olimpico and Teatro all’antica at Sabbioneta. The old humanist paradox obtains in this narrative as elsewhere: what seemed new was really a return to classical ideas.

Berzal de Dios’s short but incisive book demolishes these received notions. In his account, theories of spatial unity were not in concert but actually clashed with humanist experimentation, the desire for non-orderly aesthetic effects such as wonder and the heterogeneous experiences of actual spectators conceived more as participants in civic dialogue than as cheerfully obedient ducal subjects. Neo-classical restraint, order, and symmetry were contradicted by impulses towards excess, surplus, and saturation. The ideal of a unified visual picture, governed by the cool laws of perspective, is belied by the displacements, truncations, and distortions revealed in the surviving stage representations of Rome, Pisa, Siena, Florence, and other Italian cities. The author invites us to see Peruzzi’s iconic stage design for La Calandria, touted in traditional theatre histories as the epitome of the unified scenographic vision, as downright weird. The linear perspective located in the downstage part of the drawing tells only half the story, as Berzal de Dios examines the incongruities of what is illustrated on the backdrop, or flattened space in the background. There, the Colosseum is shrunk, and the Pantheon is sandwiched in front of the Castel Sant’Angelo. Linear perspective emerges not as the be-all and end-all, but merely “one of many tools, all of which were at the service of the artistic process” (15).

Peruzzi’s Rome, too, is one of ruins and overgrown vegetation, hardly the ideal city abstracted from some versions of art history. To see such scenographers’ impulses to elicit wonder, surprise, and even religious awe is to contest the narrative that may have begun with artist and historian Giorgio Vasari, who in touting Peruzzi and others celebrated what he perceived as a rupture between Renaissance and medieval ways of thinking about the the stage. Berzal de Dios’s challenge to Vasari’s historiography helps us make more sense of Brunelleschi’s period-defying role in Italian theatre: the master of Renaissance perspective and engineering who designed wonder-inducing machinery for fifteenth-century religious plays (sacre rappresentazioni).

Chapter 2, “The Artificial City on Stage,” examines designs by Beccafumi, Salviati, and others to show how designs for Pisa, Siena, Florence, and other Italian cities were characterized by “spatial dissonances, visual tensions, inquietudes, and internal inconsistencies that demonstrate the prevalence of a taste for playfulness” (37). These were [End Page 111] the work of experimental artists who played with classical ideas—not theorists and mathematicians bound by the idée fixe of consistency. Cinquecento spectators did not see through a two-dimensional window as passive viewers to a three-dimensional perspettiva but were embroiled in what the author calls the “apparato”: the entire complex of the stage, the scenography, the auditorium, and the “spectators’ act of viewing as made possible and conditioned by the space” (5...



中文翻译:

哈维尔·贝扎尔·德迪奥斯(Cavique Berzal de Dios)在Cinquecento剧院空间中的视觉体验(评论)

代替摘要,这里是内容的简要摘录:

审核人:

  • 哈维尔·贝扎尔·迪迪奥斯(Javier Berzal de Dios)五渔村剧院空间中视觉体验
  • 罗伯特·汉克
五角剧院空间的视觉体验。哈维尔·贝扎尔·德迪奥斯(Javier Berzal de Dios)多伦多:多伦多大学出版社,2019年; 第216页。

哈维尔·贝扎尔·德迪奥斯(Javier Berzal de Dios)在Cinquecento剧院空间中出色的视觉体验,有说服力地反驳了关于意大利文艺复兴时期剧院建筑和设计的叙述,提供了更为复杂,细微的画面,其中包括实际观众的异类,有时是凌乱的体验。

标准视图(仅稍为夸张):意大利文艺复兴时期的剧院设计师和场景设计师,例如Baldassare Peruzzi在他的决定性的1514年设计作品中,用于制作La Calandria,运用线性透视图的新艺术使他们的设计合理化,从而创造了一种理想表现形式的幻觉,这种理想表现形式的统一性与新亚里士多德戏剧性统一性的观念相吻合。单一的,统一的画面被作为同质单元的观众被动地接收,除非它们在美学和政治上服从于处于观众理想视点的君主。这种新颖的文艺复兴时期的观景风格决定性地打破了中世纪的习惯,并在16世纪中叶的Peruzzi到Serlio以及Olimpico剧院和all'antica剧院中形成了线性发展趋势。在萨比奥内塔(Sabbioneta)。古老的人文主义悖论在其他地方获得了这种叙述:

贝扎尔·德迪奥斯(Berzal de Dios)的简短但敏锐的书摧毁了这些已被接受的观念。在他的解释中,空间统一的理论不是一致的,而是与人文主义的实验相冲突的。人们对非秩序美学效果(如奇迹)的渴望和实际观众的异质体验更多地被认为是公民对话的参与者,而不是乐于服从的教育主体。 。新古典主义的束缚,秩序和对称性与对过剩,过剩和饱和的冲动相矛盾。罗马,比萨,锡耶纳,佛罗伦萨和其他意大利城市的幸存舞台表现出的位移,截断和扭曲掩盖了统一的视觉图片的理想,该观点受凉爽的透视法则支配。作者邀请我们观看Peruzzi的标志性舞台设计La Calandria在传统戏剧历史中被吹捧为统一场景视觉的缩影,简直是不可思议。当Berzal de Dios检查背景图所示的不一致之处或背景中的平坦空间时,位于图纸下半部分的线性透视图只能说明一半的故事。在那里,罗马竞技场缩小了,万神殿被夹在圣天使城堡(Castel Sant'Angelo)的前面。线性透视并不是全部出现,而是“许多工具之一,所有这些工具都为艺术过程服务”(15)。

佩鲁奇(Peruzzi)的罗马也是废墟和茂密的植被之一,几乎不是从某些艺术史版本中抽象出来的理想城市。看到这样的场景设计者激发奇迹,惊奇甚至宗教敬畏的冲动,是要与艺术家和历史学家乔治·瓦萨里(Giorgio Vasari)的叙事进行抗衡,后者在吹捧佩鲁齐和其他人时赞扬了他认为文艺复兴与中世纪方式之间的断裂。关于舞台的思考。贝扎尔·迪奥(Berzal de Dios)对瓦萨里(Vasari)史学的挑战,使我们更能理解布鲁内莱斯基(Brunelleschi)在意大利剧院中扮演时期的角色:文艺复兴时期的视角和工程学大师设计了奇迹-为15世纪宗教戏剧诱导机器(sacre rappresentazioni)。

第2章“舞台​​上的人造城市”研究了Beccafumi,Salviati和其他人的设计,以显示比萨,锡耶纳,佛罗伦萨和其他意大利城市的设计如何以“空间不协调,视觉张力,奇妙之处和内部不一致之处为特征”证明了一种趣味性盛行”(37)。这些都是[尾页111]实验的艺术家谁的工作起到与传统的想法,不是理论家和数学家被束缚衣蝶还是传统的一致性。观众16世纪意大利未通过二维窗口为被动的观众看到一个三维perspettiva但在什么作者所说的“被卷入apparato”:舞台,场景设计,礼堂和“观众的观看行为”的整个复合体,并使其受到空间的限制”(5 ...

更新日期:2021-04-01
down
wechat
bug