CAPÍTULO 3. APLICACIÓN DEL PROCEDIMIENTO PARA LA PLANIFICACIÓN
3.4 Conclusiones del tercer capítulo
6. Intermedial pedagogy: a work in progress
The mediating qualities of theatre, as they have been expressed so far, potentially pre-‐empt any debate on the subject of intermedial pedagogy. By its very nature, before the inclusion of any digital technology such as film, theatre has been envisaged, at least by some, as an intermedial and hypermedial domain. Perhaps then, as educators within universities, we have already had to evolve an intermedial pedagogy consciously or otherwise in order to accommodate the forms that inhabit a theatrical space. However, whilst this may be an approximate articulation of the historical, even perhaps the current situation and hence worth bearing in mind when considering future methodologies, it is not enough in my view to merely note the organic development of pedagogy or indeed assume there has been significant development.
My contention is that university practice that seeks to deterritorialise subject or disciplinary boundaries in the arts has been restricted for many years by essentialist desires to circumscribe fields of practice due to artistic but also educationally pragmatic rationales. Christopher Balme, writing about the 20th century preoccupation with media specificity, reflects that:
Most of us were raised and trained in the paradigm of media specificity. (…) Attempts to define art forms in terms of specific, incontestable medial characteristics is symptomatic of high modernist aesthetics and is rooted in its fundamental
move towards form at the expense of content, or towards the medium, not the message. (2008: 82)
As noted earlier, practitioners such as Brook and Grotowski sought to resist the infiltration of technology into theatre in a pursuit of the essential, constituent parts of performance which Grotowski believed could be reduced down to the binary of actor and audience. (1986: 15) Ironically, when the first UK drama department began at Bristol University in 1947, its founder Glynne Wickham determinedly resisted the siloing of the subject. Roy Connolly writes that: ‘One of the most striking things when reading Wickham on these terms is his absolute rejection of commodifying drama and his commitment to establishing a forum for the exploration of disciplinary boundaries and the problems in subject knowledge.’ (2013: 233) However, arguably for the valid reason of fighting for subject distinctiveness in the face of academic scepticism, drama and theatre studies became, and still remain to an extent, delineated and detached from potentially profitable interrelationships with other fields of practice. Christopher Balme writes that resistance, specifically to technological developments in performance, comprises ‘remarkably large sections of mainstream theatre and – I would argue – theatre studies as well.’ (2008: 80)
The intermedial journey of theatre into a digitally immersed future, encompassing posthuman (Hayles 1999) and postdramatic (Lehmann 2006) domains demands, however, a conscious appraisal of how pedagogy should or could respond. This chapter seeks to document current reflection on the subject and identify educational paradigms that may be of productive value. The first half of the chapter therefore focuses on the most recent literature specifically written on the subject of
intermedial pedagogy whilst the latter half considers the wider pedagogical and philosophical frames of reference that will be applied to the case study analysis.
To begin with I do not think it is contentious to argue that at this point in time there is a limited coherent discourse on the pedagogy of intermediality. There is, I will identify, a heterogeneous set of forays into pedagogical reflection in this arena that are not concerted or connected in any form that could be considered as a robust field of enquiry. This tentative state can be evidenced in the findings of a Palatine conference held at Sheffield University in 2007 entitled Intermediality: Performance and Pedagogy. The stated theme of the event was ‘…the emergent field of Intermediality and its relationship to performance practice, pedagogy and research in an increasingly digital world.’ (Nelson 2007) The most resonant comments from my perspective came from Professor Robin Nelson himself who reflected that:
… to develop a bounded field, I think we need further to clarify what 'intermediality' might embrace. The range of pedagogies involved is likely to remain varied but, in order for some issues and challenges to be dialogically negotiated, I think we need more tightly to define the field. (ibid)
However, the disparate range of research findings do seem to highlight the recurring themes of perceptual immersion contrasted with critical distance and so it is worth considering the contrasts and correlations between these within and without positions wherever possible, both in this chapter and the analyses that follow. It is
also important to identify certain fundamental issues that are presently absent from the debate.
An apt point of departure, for a critique of intermedial pedagogy embracing live and digital practices in performance, may be arrived at by revisiting Walter Benjamin’s challenge to ‘auratic art’ (1936) and the identification of democratised means of art production as considered in the Prologue. This re-‐conception of the art object and concurrent anxieties over the implications of such auratic deconstruction can be seen as a pre-‐curser for many of the drama educational debates throughout the 20th century and into the early years of this century. Certain drama educational theorists have sought to embrace the potentiality of technology whilst others have raised concerns over its de-‐personalisation of an artistic medium in which the uniqueness is arguably, as Peggy Phelan would suggest, to be found in the inter-‐personal, live environment.
The relationship between drama and technology, distinct from its intermedial relationship, has been reflected upon at length by educational theorists. Particularly significant in this field have been the writings of John Carroll, Michael Anderson and David Cameron. In real players? drama, technology and education (2006) they consider the impetus for drama teachers at all levels to embrace technology within the classroom as ‘students are less familiar with traditional theatre as they are immersed in mediatised drama forms.’ (44) They reference the work of certain intermedial companies such as Blast Theory but the text overall is more focused on the utilisation of technology as a tool within drama or the remediation of drama into other media such as film rather than a consideration of the intermedial potential.
This is also the case for their 2009 publication Drama Education with Digital Technology although their chapter on the relationship between drama and film and the differing teaching challenges this presents offers some constructive insight into the implications for intermedial teaching and hence will be referenced in later chapters. Within both texts and in many online forums (for example dramatechspace.com) significant attention is paid to the posthuman trajectories of drama into virtual realms such as gaming and Second Life. Whilst the potentiality of this is of importance it is arguably mono-‐medial in its focus and does not represent a clear foray into intermedial territory.
In recent years, and more directly related to intermediality, such writers as Amy Petersen Jensen have advocated emancipatory pedagogies built upon ‘multimodal literacies’ that have ‘emerged from our collective reliance on and devotion to new communication technologies.’ (2008: 19) She has suggested that:
…theater (sic) educators should ask themselves how they might use theater tools and methods to increase students' critical awareness of the media that surrounds them. Theater teachers can plan for overt instruction that focuses the student learner's attention on the pervasive media in ways that allow for the meta-‐awareness of and reflection on patterns and relationships among the students' bodies, contemporary modes of entertainment, and mediums that convey those modes. (2008: 24)
Jensen identifies the key theme of ‘meta-‐awareness’ that is repeated in various guises throughout recent discourses32 in terms of technology’s capacity (in
conjunction and juxtaposition with other media) to create a critical distance upon the mediated culture that surrounds us. In one of the few overt references to a distinct intermedial pedagogy this potential is addressed by Asunción López-‐Varela Azcárate and Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek in their 2008 article Towards Intermediality in Contemporary Cultural Practices and Education in which they envisage the study of intermediality as a mirror both on to media themselves but also wider socio-‐ political concerns. They write:
We would like to emphasize the potential of intermediality to serve as a model that not only increases our understanding of the mechanisms of media convergence, but also applies to parallel phenomena in intercultural and educational contexts. We propose that the basis for a constructive conceptualisation of social change is mediated through technology and that the application and practice of intermediality as a vehicle for socio-‐ cultural needs to be further explored, both theoretical and practically, in its aspects of production, distribution, and usability. (2008: 77)
Whilst such a breadth of study and argument is to be acknowledged it also has to be noted that there is no specific reference to theatrical performance in their work as
32 For example, see GEE, J.P. (2000) New people in new worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and
schools. In: COPE, B. and KALANTZIS, M. (eds.) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. pp. 43–68.
they define intermediality in the widest possible terms as ‘the ability to read and write critically across varied symbol systems and across various disciplines and scholarly as well as general discursive practices.’ (2008: 66-‐67) With a focus on linguistic strategies and the internet it does not specifically identify, for theatre or intermedial pedagogues, a usable framework for future analyses.
Similar themes to Azcárate and de Zepetnek however are to be found in the notion of spectacle pedagogy as outlined in the work of Charles R. Garoian and Yvonne M. Gaudelius (2008) which is constructed upon artistic and performative paradigms. Although there is no direct reference to intermediality their pedagogy undoubtedly embraces mixed media practice as it seeks to ‘make a case for the broadening of art and visual culture education to include critiques and art making related to the mass-‐ mediated spectacle of visual culture.’ (Beudert 2008: 1) They envisage their pedagogy as ‘a democratic form of practice that enables a critical examination of visual cultural codes and ideologies to resist social injustice.’ (Garoian and Gaudelius 2008: 24) On reading their conceptualisation further, certain resonances can be found with the intermedial theorisations of Kattenbelt, Rajewsky and others. In considering the cross medial potential of pedagogy they address the interstices that intermediality (as a research domain) has reflected upon in recent years. It is interesting to note the use of ‘in between spaces’ as a reference in their rationale, which echoes the writings of Chapple and Kattenbelt in the same period. They write: ‘The potential of collage, montage, assemblage, installation, and performance art as critical pedagogy for visual culture in art education lies in their dissonant spaces, at the contested borders that exist between their dissociative remnants.’ (2008: 37)
Referring to the work of media educator Elizabeth Ellsworth, they contest that these dissonant spaces, or ‘in-‐between spaces’ are ‘conceptually and emotionally charged’ so they become sites where ‘meaning is continually negotiated and teaching as a position of absolute authority is rendered impossible.’ (ibid)
However, such enthusiasm for modern digital media within the educational theatre space is countered by writers such as Juliana Saxton who, whilst noting the significant influence of modern media, expresses doubts over technology’s ability to replace or replicate interpersonal communication and empathy.
I do not think that that face-‐to face experience can be replicated in a virtual world. But I do think that it is possible that our fascination with the new media will change how our brains are wired and that, with those changes, our mirror neurons will be reconfigured through the exposure to second-‐order experience in ways that will dull our empathic responses. That, of course, may indeed be the art of technology, preparing us already for a future in which empathy will be a luxury we cannot afford as we fight each other for breath, space and life itself. (2010: 231-‐232)
As already identified, specific reference to an intermedial pedagogy has only been made by a select number of writers and even fewer have considered theatrical intermediality in educational terms. The most notable contribution is arguably to be found In Mapping Intermediality in Performance (2010) in which there is a chapter
entitled Portal: Pedagogic Praxis which the editors suggest ‘gives access to fresh thinking about modes of study and fresh approaches to acting where new circumstances require new technology.’ (Bay Cheng et al. 2010: 11) In the first of two sections in this portal Liesebeth Groot Nibbelink and Sigrid Merx consider ‘Presence and Perception’. Their analyses is significant as it echoes the themes of critical reflection and meta-‐awareness as considered by Jensen and others whilst offering equal consideration to the embodied experience of the performer and the immersive experience of the audience. They identify the ‘resensibilisation of the senses’ (2010: 218) as a fundamental process in the experience and perception of intermedial work. In considering the viewers perspective they suggest that:
… intermedial performance often plays with or even explicitly deconstructs perceptual expectations and produces sensations ranging from subtle experiences of surprise or confusion, to more uncanny experiences of dislocation, displacement or alienation. The clash between digitally influenced perceptions and embodied presence manifests itself particularly as a disturbance of the senses and results in a blurring of realities. (219)
They perceive the experience of such work as an embodied process (citing Merleau-‐ Ponty’s notion that to perceive is to make oneself present: 1945, 2002) and that such a process requires constant ‘negotiating and shifting between different and conflicting medial realities, moving in and out of perceptual worlds, relating different
impressions and signs, looking for a point of connection that might integrate the confusing and disturbing sensations in a meaningful whole, however unstable and ephemeral this whole may be.’ (220) The effect and affect upon the body are central to their conceptualisation as they point to the highly mediatised nature of both the intermedial performer (as in the ‘mediaphoric body’ envisaged by Pluta 2010) and the audience. The performer may be connected with overt technical media such as projection screens or computer generated sound but also infused with transmedial references invoked through specific spatio – temporal or semiotic modalities as they may, for example, perform ‘cinematically’ within a theatrical space. Likewise the audience may find themselves literally embodying intermediality as they are ‘armed with I-‐pods, mobile phones or video goggles.’ (221)
The hypermedial nature of theatre is recognised by the two authors as a fundamental state on which a pedagogical frame may be constructed as it is able to represent all other media within its compass whilst creating a creative ‘dislocation’ between these media: ‘Media therefore become visible as media, as means of communication, each with their own materialities, medialities and conventions of perception.’ (225) In the light of this visibility and the critical discourse it enables, they propose that intermediality has a radical, educative potential. Resonating with Azcárate and de Zepetnek as well as Garoian and Gaudelius they contest that intermediality offers a reappraisal of power relations (citing Rancière’s The Politics of Aesthetics 2004):
The fact that our reality is constantly mediated has become invisible. Producing colliding sensual impressions in
performance can mobilize a process of knowing by making these acts of mediation once again perceptible. Intermediality invites a new perception and realignment of the body; one perceives what was not seen before, or one remembers what was forgotten or had been taken for granted. This is a politics of perception that can be qualified as radical, implying a thorough commitment to, and involvement in, the world we inhabit. (227)
In the final part of their section the authors consider the subject of intimacy, referencing Blast Theory’s Rider Spoke 2007, and in doing so offer a strong counter argument to concerns over technology’s dehumanising qualities. Although performers and audience are separated during the event there is still an identifiable sensation of shared virtual space. ‘To share secrets with one another, in spite of not being present in the same room and not sharing the same timeframe, is an experience of intimacy.’ (227) For me, intimacy and sensuality are not exclusively live, inter – corporeal experiences and should be seen as fundamental qualities of intermediality.
The final section of the portal, written by Henk Havens, is an apt place to conclude this initial reflection on intermedial pedagogy as it concentrates on the university sector’s response to intermedial practice and its current status within drama and performing arts departments. Within his case study on the Maastricht Theatre Academy (MTA) in The Netherlands he pertinently identifies how societal and media
changes are pushing curricula transitions and embedding new technologies in the programmes. (232-‐233) I would note at this point that such curricula transitions are to be observed in university drama and performing arts programmes across the United Kingdom as well as mainland Europe, the USA and Australia. As well as recently established intermedial research centres such as The Centre for Intermediality in Performance at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama (led by Professor Robin Nelson); undergraduate degrees are also exploring this field. Besides the Performing Arts degree at DMU (on which I teach) with its intermedial foci, there are many examples across the world from the Film and Video in Performance Module at the University of Glasgow led by Greg Giesekam to the Electronic Arts: Visual Theatre program at the University of South Australia, overseen by Russell Fewster. Such practice is becoming evermore prevalent as student demand, technological advancement and developing theorisation are enabling both learners and teachers. This development has been reflected in selective journal publications including the recent special issue of IJPADM33 focusing
on pedagogy and mixed-‐media performance. It is worthy of note however that in the UK neither Palatine, nor its more recent incarnation within the Higher Education Authority (Dance, Drama and Music), have produced any concerted body of material on intermediality or the impact of technology within performance pedagogy. There are certain articles published by these organisations related to using technology to enhance learning, for example the integration of motion capture to aid assessment
33 IJPADM: International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media. Vol. 8 No. 2 – Special Issue:
Pedagogy and Mixed-‐Media Performance. The issue included articles by Rosemary Klich, Mary Oliver and myself.
and actor reflection (Tunstall 2012) and an exploration of teaching postdramatic theatre (Wilson and Manchester 2012) yet intermediality is noticeably absent.
Henk Havens recognises that progress towards an interdisciplinary or intermedial future creates tensions for established university departments that have traditions built upon literary cultures and canonical work. This observation, I would suggest, is