BANCO N.º DE CUENTA

The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an “objective correlative”; in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked (Eliot, [1919] 1975, p.48).

Delsarte, a teacher of acting, music, and classical studies in France in the mid-nineteenth century, wrote in detail about what he saw as direct correlations between emotion and the rhythms of physical gestures. Based on his observations of movement patterns both in everyday life and on the stage, Delsarte mapped out a complex network of semiotics, through which various movements, physical forms and regions of the body were linked with degrees of emotional intensity, intellectual honesty and moral intention. These “laws of correspondence” established a codified system of acting allowing performers to communicate their internal “passions” through physical gesture (Taylor, 1999, p.75). Although many of Delsarte’s ideas and forms would be later judged to be overly mechanical and dated, his basic premise of a correlation between emotion and the movements of the body, and his formalisation of actor training have had a significant impact on modern day acting practices.

Theories connecting rhythm to emotion were also promoted by the emerging fields of experimental psychology and psychophysics. In 1894 two key texts were published simultaneously in America and Europe: Rhythm by the American psychologist Thaddeus Bolton (1894) and the Study of psychology and aesthetics of rhythm by German psychologist Ernst Meumann (1894). These publications marked a watershed in the study of rhythm within the scientific field of psychophysics. Publications such as these and the research that followed them, pointed to strong correlations between rhythm perception, body movements, and the experience of emotion (Wundt, 1897; Ribot, 1897; Miner, 1903; MacDougall, 1903; Ruckmich, 1913; Balz, 1914; Diserens, 1926).

Notable within this growing body of research is the work of Wilhelm Wundt, who proposed a continuum between rhythmic bodily motion and the experience of emotion, putting forward three principles of affect through which this relationship could be

described (Wundt, 1897). Firstly, Wundt proposed that regular rhythmic patterns produced more agreeable feelings than irregular patterns. Secondly, he observed that in the interval between one beat and another, the listener experienced a feeling of tension, which was followed by relaxation on hearing the next beat. Thirdly Wundt noted that faster rhythms generally caused excitement, whereas slower rhythms tended to be more calming and depressing (Schultz and Schultz, 2011, p.73–4).

Based on his research into these principles Wundt asserted an analogous relationship between rhythm and emotion, stating:

The feeling of rhythm is distinguished from an emotion only by the small intensity of its moving effect on the subject, which is what gives “emotion” its name. And even this distinction is by no means fixed, for when the feelings produced by rhythmic impressions become somewhat more intense […] the feeling of rhythm becomes in fact emotions (Wundt, 1897, p.186–7).

Wundt’s work on emotion and rhythm had a strong impact within the field of psychophysical research and was cited by many of the psychologists and philosophers of this era, including William James ([1890] 2007, p.612), Theodule Ribot (1897, p.102) and Ivan Pavlov([1927] 2003, p.3).

In the terms and metaphors used by both scientists and theatre practitioners at this time, there is a sense that rhythm and emotion can be reduced to a direct causal relationship whereby ‘rhythm A’ produces ‘emotion B’ and vice versa. Although in reality such relationships would often prove to be more complex, these mechanistic paradigms implied that the nature of rhythm was deterministic, following precise and codified rules. 2.1.6 Mechanics of Rhythm

As for the machine shop, the boiler works, Antheil has opened the way with his ‘Ballet mécanique’; […] we see the chance for time-spacing the clutter, the grind, the whang-whang, the gnrnrrr, in a machine shop, so that the eight-hour day has its rhythm; so that the men at the machines shall be demechanized, and work not like robots, but like members of an orchestra (Pound, [1927] 1977, p.317) .

At the beginning of the twentieth century, research into the mechanics of rhythm became increasingly valued in the growing industrial cultures of Russia, Europe and the United

States of America. This “Machine-age” was fuelled by an economy based in “…the rhythmisization of affordable work” (Bücher, 1909 cited in Golston, 2008, p.22). Through rhythm, physical labour could be analysed and “automatized”, regulating movement and rest patterns, and the tempo of a factory as a whole. From North America, the “scientific management” theories of Frederick Taylor spread and inspired others like Alexi Gastev in Russia to set up laboratories for researching ways of making movement more efficient and productive. In England, Laban collaborated with management consultant Fredrick Lawrence and developed a new system of “effort analysis”, publishing an instructional booklet on this theme in 1942 titled ‘Laban Lawrence Industrial Rhythm - lilt in labour’ (Laban and Lawrence, 1942).

Rhythm was identified as “…not only a means for lightening work, but also one of the springs for aesthetic pleasure” (Bücher, 1909 cited in Golston, 2008, p.23). The suggestion being that through repetition “[w]hat is difficult becomes habitual, what is habitual becomes easy, what is easy is beautiful” (Stanislavski and Rumyantsev, 1998, p.63). In this way, such principles of repetition and “automatization” were seen as ways of freeing the individual and generating a form of aesthetic beauty. Metaphors of production and capital were also extended into the “economy of attention”, where rhythm was seen as an evolutionary tool which allowed mental acts to become automatic, facilitating the expansion and productivity of perception and memory (Miner, 1903, p.20).

Bringing together the biological and the mechanical, along with the processes of evolution and automation, a new aesthetic philosophy based on the efficiency of rhythm emerged at this time. Inspired by these ideas, artists such as Meyerhold turned to the factory as a model for building new approaches to actor training (Gordon, 2002). In these training practices actors deconstructed movement sequences, looking to improve the efficiency and coordination of their actions, with Meyerhold going as far as calling for the “Taylorization of the Theatre” (Meyerhold, [1922] 1969, p.199). Meyerhold noted:

If we observe a skilled worker in action, we notice the following in his movements: (1) an absence of superfluous, unproductive movements; (2) rhythm; (3) the correct position of the body’s centre of gravity; stability. Movements based on these principles are distinguished by their dance-like qualities (Meyerhold, [1909] 1969, p.98).

Here, rhythmic efficiency and organisation were translated from the economic productivity of the factory into an aesthetic productivity that could be realised by an actor through the organisation of their own “raw material” (their body) (Meyerhold, [1922] 1969, p.198).4 In this way, rhythm took on the role of a tool, a mechanism and an instrument. As a technology, the attributes of rhythm were exploited as a means of accessing, achieving, and actualising aspects of a performer’s work that often evaded direct engagement or manipulation. Metronomes and flashing stage lights were adopted by directors including Stanislavski (2008, pp.368 & 464), Ferdinandov (Leach, 1994, p.111) and Kuleshov (Leach, 1994, p.117), as a means of shaping their actors’ rhythms and “luring” emotions.5 Preferring the less rigid technology of a piano, Meyerhold used the rhythm, tempo and melody of music as a mechanism for developing coordination and precision of movement (Gordon, 2002, p.112) (2.3.4).6