Download Carol Gillespie (2007)

C L A S S I C A L R E C E P TI O N S I N L A TE T W E N TI E T H C E N T U R Y
D R A MA A N D P O E TR Y I N E N G L I S H
ESSAYS ON DOCUMENTING AND RESEARCHING
MODERN PRODUCTIONS OF GREEK DRAMA: THE SOURCES
ESSAY 7: THEORY AND PRACTICE IN RESEARCHING GREEK DRAMA IN
MODERN CULTURAL CONTEXTS: THE PROBLEM OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC
IMAGE
Carol Gillespie (2007)
The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discussion about the importance of
primary sources in the research and documentation of modern performances of
Greek drama by focussing on the use of still photographic images.. The context is
our work in the Open University research project on the Reception of Classical
Texts in English from the mid-1970s to the present. The first phase of this
research has investigated the processes of performance creation in productions of
Greek drama on the modern stage and this has underpinned our annotated
database of recent examples published on the project website
(www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays). This focus on process is derived
from our view that why, how and for whom the performance is created shapes its
relationship with the ancient text and its performance tradition. Researching
modern productions means that we have to try to seize information that would
otherwise be ephemeral. Our overriding aim in the database is to provide the
cultural historians of the future with detailed evidence about the extraordinary
impact of Greek drama in the last part of the twentieth century.
As this research is carried out in a department of classical studies not one of
theatre studies, we have a particular interest in the relationship between the
ancient text and its modern interpretations. The hermeneutics has to take
account of the nature and dynamics of the modern staging. Whether the
performance is in the original Greek or is a translation, classicists have to accept
that the relationship between ancient and modern can never be purely linguistic.
Even if the modern writer works using a close translation (and increasingly this is
used as a mediating stage between the Greek text and the creation of the new
play text), there is a further process of translation to the stage. This is shaped by
a variety of factors, verbal, non-verbal, cultural and environmental as well as by
the subjectivities of the practitioners. Just as the translation, rewriting or play
text is part of a modern theatrical environment, so was the ancient text a part of
its environment. Through our research, we try to identify and analyse
correspondences, or lack of them in the political, cultural and religious settings,
the theatrical conventions, theatrical space, the provenance of the audiences and
their response.
Visual records are a particular concern. Important research has been done on
the relationship between Greek vase-painting and theatrical performance in the
ancient world.1 Modern images, whether still or moving, may apparently be more
intimately connected with a particular performance than are ancient images on
painted pottery or mosaics, but are just as problematic in themselves as are the
ancient. They present the added difficulty that they involve modern technology as
well as an aesthetic and material context that inevitably shapes what they show,
how they show it and to whom. The rest of our paper will focus on one kind of
visual primary source – the still photograph.
Our project is addressing this issue in two ways. We are compiling a photo-gallery
of stills, which we shall make available on-line to researchers. We hope that this
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
gallery be particularly useful in enabling researchers and students to access
material from the lesser-known productions that are not extensively featured in
the national and international press and are not usually from companies that keep
archives. Such productions are nevertheless very important as sources of data
which is significant for researching trends in theatre, aesthetics and cultural
politics. This essay, seventh in a series of critical essays on the use of primary
sources, represents a first step in the a critical evaluation of the potential and the
drawbacks of using photographs. We regard it as very important for researchers
to make clear what kinds of evidence they are using when they comment on
performance. We also want to develop a critical commentary on this evidence to
go alongside our database of examples as no database is neutral.
In assembling a photo gallery of examples and developing a critical evaluation
of the use of photographs as primary sources, we are also addressing the paradox
that we write about ‘performances’ without actually having the performance in
front of us as a text we can ‘hold’ other than in the memory or the imagination
(concepts which need further examination in the context of theatre research; a
topic for a future essay). We are constantly thinking about what the photograph
can do and what it cannot do in the retrospective construction of performance.
Using photographs
The positive aspect of using still photographs as primary sources are:
i.
They contribute evidence from less well-known productions. However, this
may not be from actual performances (i.e. photographs may be posed or
intended as publicity) NOR can single photographs indicate the changes that take
place as the run progresses, although a dated series of actual production photos
can be helpful in that respect;
ii.
They indicate style, physicality and gesture but cannot represent wider
movement;
iii.
They can capture the emotional and sometimes spatial relationship of one
actor to another, but only at a particular moment, and within a particular
perspective;
iv.
They focus on details, for instance of costume or make-up or mask, but
the viewer cannot know what is on the periphery or the relationship of the parts
to the whole;
v.
With other evidence, the type and style of the photographs suggest what
the company wanted to create as its image and how it wanted the performance to
be represented (for example art photos? Sexy? Grainy? Key scenes selected? Key
actors? Individual? Group?).
It is clear then, that using photographs as evidence of aspects of performance
is likely to be problematical. A contributing factor to the problem is that in
modern industrialised societies we are all involved in the medium of photography
at some stage – if not as a producer then as a subject or viewer, or a combination
of all three – and many institutions are dependent upon it (the fashion and sex
industries, the tabloid press, certain parts of the legal and penal institutions etc.)
Yet, comparatively few academic researchers in the UK, outside the area of Art
History, receive any formal training in visual analysis. Such an omission means
that researchers sometimes treat the performance photograph as the product of a
technical and scientific process, capable of depicting objective truth. However, the
multi-function characteristic of photography (which enables it to, for example, sell
cars, give an insight into the imagination of an artist, identify a ‘criminal’ or
capture a personal memory) should alert researchers to the possibility that there
are specific discourses at work within photography which allows individual
photographs to be ‘read’, and to mean something to someone, within concrete
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
2
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
and delimited conditions of use (that is, meaning can be related to both the
original context, or to a new context within which it is viewed). Therefore, as with
any other form of documentary evidence, the context of the original is crucial,
and yet we often find performance photographs (indeed, most photographs!)
being used or displayed in textbooks, academic journals and archives, with very
little attempt to contextualise them.
The performance photograph then, like any image, is the product of a set of
conventions. Those conventions are based on a set of ideas about what the
photographer thinks he or she is doing, and a set of practices and procedures that
give expression to those ideas. The researcher must therefore remain aware that
the performance photograph is neither a factual nor a neutral recording of a
particular moment during a production but a personal artistic representation or
interpretation by the photographer and/or other agents involved (such as, for
example, marketing). The performance researcher therefore has to be able to
handle both the evaluation of the photograph as documentary evidence and also
the critique of the image as an art form and to form a judgement on the interrelationship between the two spheres.
The researcher has to start by asking some basic questions:
–
Who took the photograph? When? Where? Under what conditions? For
what purpose? Who commissioned it? How was it actually used?
–
What is the place of the image in the photographic context, technical and
artistic and/or commercial tradition? (this is important in order to compare
with the context and tradition of the performance, and with the artistic and
commercial environment external to the performance.)
–
For comparative purposes: can photos help with study of different
productions/adaptations of the same play? (Different character roles/same
actor; different productions of Greek plays by the same
director/designer/costumer etc.)
When applied to the analysis of performance-related photographs from the three
separate productions of modern performances of ancient Greek tragedy that are
discussed below, such basic questions are crucial.
Photographs as records
The performance photograph is seen, correctly, as a reference to a record of
some prior existence of the performance but this takes us to one of the
complexities of using the photographic image as a documentary evidence – the
photograph has power precisely because it appears to provide an ‘experience’ of
the performance, it gives a sense of bringing the performance back to life. But in
retrieving one or more fragmentary glimpses of a past performance the
researcher can still only imagine such aspects as gestures, how the performance
space was used or features of design/costuming. The problem is compounded
because the photograph’s position is often as a secondary line of enquiry–
brought out to support or ‘prove’ what has already been decided through other
types of research. This leads to photographs being selected from an archive
because of some aspect of subject matter contained within the image – an item of
clothing, a gesture, the positioning of the chorus – since photographs appear to
offer ‘evidence’ that can illustrate the point being made. This leads to the real
danger that the viewer of the photographic image comes to identify with the
camera and the institution of photography, to such an extent that ‘all other forms
of telling and remembering’ begin to fade. (Sekula 1999:187)
For example, a researcher might, having already concluded through other areas
of research that Theatre Cryptic produces avant garde, modern productions of the
ancient plays, be tempted to ‘prove’ their conclusion by using an image from a
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
3
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
newspaper preview of Theatre Cryptic’s performance of Electra at the Edinburgh
Fringe Festival in August 1999. The production used a new version of the Electra
story written by Clare Venables and subtitled ‘Queen of Revenge’. The newspaper
photograph (The Scotsman, 19th August, 1999) is a head and (bare) shoulders
shot of Electra (Kate Dickie). Her head is a shaven and the word ‘revenge’ is
clearly seen tattooed across her skull.
Contact with Theatre Cryptic produced another photograph. This time it is a full
length photograph, apparently shot on stage, showing Electra (still Kate Dickie) in
a long flowing dress and – short cropped hair. Interestingly, Theatre Cryptic were
unable to confirm whether or not the full-length image was taken during a live
performance, a rehearsal or for another purpose, though they could confirm, from
memory, that Electra had short hair for the performance run. Indeed, our original
interest in the problem was triggered by the recollection of the researcher who
had attended the performance that we documented for our database (DB no.
1115). But which photograph will we rely on some years hence when there is noone left who can remember the performance?
This illustrates two problems. Firstly, that performance photographs when
uncritically used can be misleading in terms of the performance itself. Secondly,
that visual images seldom remain together with detailed contextual information
and archivists need also to be aware of this responsibility when compiling
collections of images. These two problems demonstrate how crucial our research
questions are: what are the photographs’ original conditions of production and,
what is the place of these particular images in the photographic context,
technique and artistic and/or commercial tradition?
In the case of Theatre Cryptic’s Electra photographs, one possibility is that
they were posed – possibly for promotional purposes. The head and shoulder
shots (which also appeared, though from a different angle, on the front and back
of the theatre programme) are dramatic and eye catching and probably tell us
more about the company’s desire to draw in an audience than about the actual
performance. This is evidence that performance photographs arise not just from
the documentary genre but also from the advertising genre. This brings into
question the photographer’s role – is s/he a free and creative individual or simply
technical labour following orders from two clients (i) the advertising agency who
employs the photographer, and in turn relies on the photographer to be
successful in each session and therefore bring more work to the agency and (ii)
the agency’s client (the theatre company) who have the power to withdraw their
patronage of the agency if they are unhappy with the photographer’s work.
The researcher must therefore also take into account institutional determinants
which might have contributed to the style and content of the photograph.
However, the full length photograph, whilst giving the appearance of being taken
from the actual performance might also have been self-promotional – perhaps
specifically taken for inclusion in Kate Dickie’s portfolio. Some years into the
future such a photograph might become part of another genre – that of
photograph as art – a photograph ‘by’ rather than a photograph ‘of’. This
phenomenon of photograph ‘by’ was noted by Douglas Crimp in the early 1980s
who argued that if “photography was invented in 1839 it was only discovered in
the 1960s and 1970s” (Crimp, 1993:66-83). He cites the example of Julia Van
Haaften’s reorganization of the New York Public library in which she searched
through books on disparate subjects (transport, fashion, portraiture etc) for now
‘famous’ art photographers and placed the books under the single category of
photography. By separating the photograph from its subject a fashion book
containing photographs of Diors’ New Look in 1947 become photographs by Irving
Penn, portraits of Delacroix and Manet become photographs by Nadar and Carjat’.
The separation of the photograph from its original context clearly alters or
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
4
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
represses the photograph’s information function and points the viewer towards
notions of authorship and oeuvre.
The role of the archivist
With the advent of on-line searchable databases, such as our own, it could be
that separation of the photograph from its subject might become, in some ways,
less of an issue because it is the user who decides whether or not to search by
photographer, performance or actress, and thereby creates the grouping whether
it be that of authorship, oeuvre, content etc. But this leaves the onus very much
on the archivist to provide details of the original context to ensure the researcher
is able to read the image critically. Investigation of a performing arts library that
has recently placed its database of images on-line (www.arenapal.com/)
demonstrates that context is still not considered an important issue when
cataloguing and storing photographs. Photographs in the Arena Pal database are
accompanied by only minimal information.
[photo image]
HECUBA - New version by Tony Harrison Albery Theatre - London 04 / 05 Dir:
Laurence Boswell VANESSA REDGRAVE - Hecuba RSC Season Credit: Marilyn Kingwill /
ArenaPAL
Filename
arp1055592.jpg
Uncompressed
size
2960 Kb
File Size
299.09 Kb
Dimensions
(pixels)
1134 x 891
File Type
Image
Last
Modified
4/22/2005
11:35:59 AM
Image
Notes:
Dimensions
9.60 x 7.54 cm / 3.78 x
2.97 inch
Resolution
118.11 ppc / 300.00 ppi
Color space
RGB
Keywords
Information
Object Name:
Category:
Supplemental
Category:
Byline:
Credit:
ArenaPAL
Source:
Copyright String:
Byline Title:
Caption Writer:
Headline:
Special
Instructions
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
5
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
As can be seen from the above screenshot of the entry for a photograph from the
2005 RSC Hecuba production in London (showing Hecuba being held by members
of the Chorus) available information includes: production title, date of production
run, venue, photographer’s name, name of the main character role and actors
name depicted in the photograph, but chorus or other members of the cast
‘around’ the main actors are unnamed. Important categories such as ‘Keywords’,
which aids the search facility on databases, and ‘Information’, which could contain
crucial contextual information are left blank. (This is also a noticeable contrast
with the care taken to give full technical details.)
Arena Pal is a commercial database from which it is possible to purchase
theatre photographs. The lack of contextual information is therefore particularly
dangerous as, when parted from its original context, the meaning in photographs
may be altered by individuals or institutions that purchase them and then have
the power to define and organise the rhetoric of photographs through the way in
which they are displayed, viewed, catalogued. This means that not only are the
photographs literally up for sale but also ‘their meanings are up for grabs. New
owners are invited, new interpretations promised.’ (Sekula 1999:189).
The history of an image and its influence
To explore just what can happen when images are ‘sold-on’ we need first to
briefly examine the critical reaction to two different productions – the 2005 Royal
Shakespeare Company’s Hecuba (translator Tony Harrison) and the 1994/5
National Theatre’s production of The Women of Troy (translator Kenneth McLeish)
– before examining a different set of images used the Hecuba theatre
programme.
Analysis of the RCS’s Hecuba performance text (published by Faber, 2005),
shows that Harrison closely followed Euripides’ text. 2 Yet, as Lorna Hardwick
noted in a paper to the British Classics Conference (2005) many critics persisted
in saying that images in the production ‘looked like photos of Iraq’ (Hardwick
2007).
Certainly there were correspondences in the production to the war in Iraq – for
example one of the Greek Commanders adopted an American accent, and the
phrase ‘coalition forces’, appears in the text a number of times. Such
correspondences with contemporary idioms are hardly unusual in translations
intended for the immediacy of theatre.
One example is the 1994/5 production of Euripides’ The Women of Troy, which
used a new translation by Kenneth McLeish and was performed at the National
Theatre, London. During the 1980s and much of the1990s wars and social
upheaval were occurring in Northern Iraq, Chechnya and the Balkan States.
Reviews of the production referred to the ‘Jet fighters and helicopters roaring
above’ (John Peter, Sunday Times, March 26, 1995), a ‘set with steps of jagged
concrete, wire mesh and corrugated iron suggestive of a prison block’ and ‘a
Greek army all with American accents’ (Benedict Nightingale, The Times, March
18, 1995) ‘a multi-cultural European-Asian-African chorus’ (Michael Billington,
The Guardian, March 18, 1995) ‘which included Iranians and a Yugoslavian’
(Michael Coveney, The Observer, March 19, 1995), ‘whose choral odes sound
Balkan, with the implication that this is Sarajevo’ (Alistair Macauley, Financial
Times, March 18, 1995).
Photographs relating to this production of Women of Troy (1994/5) show that
the costume of the chorus with their purple/blue/gold pattern shawls and head
coverings do indeed resemble a Balkan dress code. The design is also remarkably
similar to the costume design of chorus of the Hecuba of 2005, including the
covering of the head.
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
6
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
Yet, despite all the pointers to current wars and social upheaval referred to in
reviews of Women of Troy the critics, whilst they did not particularly enjoy the
production, did not complain about having a critique of the war in the Balkans
being forced onto them, as they did with the RSC/Harrison production. Indeed
John Peter notes mildly, if ironically, in his review that such correspondences in
the production of Women of Troy are there to ‘tickle agreeably the consciences of
the politically up-to-date’ (Sunday Times, March 26, 1995).
An investigation of a close-up photograph of the Hecuba reveals that the
costume of the chorus, with purples, pinks, blues and patterns of gold running
through the headdress and shawls, resembles more a Slav/Balkan dress code
rather than something that is exclusively Muslim. So what was it that caused the
critics of the Hecuba (2005) production to, in Lorna Hardwick’s phrase, ‘islamicise
the chorus’ (Hardwick, 2007)? Perhaps in part the answer lies with one aspect of
the often-ignored ephemera of theatre research, the theatre programme.
The programme that accompanied the London run of the RSC’s Hecuba did not
contain any written references to the current situation in Iraq. There were two
articles contained in the programme. The first article by Edith Hall (then the
Professor of Greek Cultural History, at the University of Durham) set out a brief
introduction to the cultural and social conditions of 5th century Athens which
informed Euripides’ text; the second article, by Ann Shearer (a Jungian analyst)
was also set in the ancient context and discussed the way in which victims can
become tyrants in their turn.
Nor did the programme contain any photographs relating to the production. It
did, however, contain three half page photographs by Shirin Neshat, an Iranian
born photographer, now living in the US.
One of the photographs shows a group of women in a circular huddle
apparently digging in the centre of the group as there is dust flying around The
second photograph is also a group photo in a similar, possibly the same, location
but with mountains more clearly visible in the background. In both photographs
all the women are dressed in the traditional black Muslim chador.
Only Neshat’s name as photographer, and the title of the series of photographs
‘Passage’, was supplied. Further research found that the photos reproduced in the
program are stills from a moving film, which was shot, not in Iraq or Iran, but in
Morocco – a more liberal Muslim country in terms of dress perhaps. Furthermore,
the film was shot long before the western invasion of Iraq. Neshat herself has
argued that the artist’s responsibility is neither to validate nor to critique social
and political ideas and she sees her own art as a way of constructing a positive
relationship to her own country of birth from the outside. (Ebrahimian, 2002).
Understanding the interfaces of meaning within a photograph is also crucial.
The West tends to view such representations, of women in their chador, as ‘the
other’ the oppressed, the victims of a patriarchal society. Yet, Neshat’s desire is
to get the West to see the positive beyond the chador, to percive the freedom
and power for Muslim women that she believes lies beneath. She argues that she
is an artist not an activist and therefore ‘has no agenda [and is] merely working
to entice a dialogue […] . There’s the stereotype about the women – they’re all
victims and submissive – and they’re not. Slowly I subvert that image by showing
the most subtle and candid way how strong these women are’ (Horsburgh 2004).
However, such images when taken from their original context of a moving film
which tells a story, accompanied by atmospheric music, are rendered
stereotypical, particularly to a western audience. And so the original meaning of
Neshat’s film has indeed been left ‘up for grabs’ and changed when the RSC
decided to attach the photographs to a theatre performance dealing with issues of
‘tyrant and victim, freedom and slavery, justice and expedience’ (Programme
p.4).
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
7
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
The question remains, why were these stills from a film reproduced and used in
the Hecuba theatre programme and how did they affect critical reception of the
production? Did the journalists subconsciously transpose the clothes worn by the
women in the programme onto that of the chorus? Is it possible their memories
were more influenced by a set of photographs they could take home and study,
than what they actually saw represented on the stage? Such questions are also
important for discussion of the wider issue of the reception of contentious
productions (see Hardwick, 2007).
This brief look at images has highlighted three problematic areas that
researchers need to be aware of when using photographic images as evidence:

Images cannot stand alone when used as a primary source of evidence.
They require detailed contextual information which should include the
original conditions of the production of the photograph.

Meaning in photographs is also shaped by the specific context in which
they are displayed or viewed

Different methods of analysis, including semiotics are required when
evaluating images to enable understanding of the different layers of
meaning generated.
This essay has taken particular note of the role of the archivist when setting up
a collection, and we intend to try and ensure that all images in our own database
will be as fully contextualised as possible – or at the very least will give a history
of the research undertaken in the case of each individual image!
Bibliography
Crimp, Douglas. 1993. "The Museum's Old, the Library's New Subject," in On the
Museum's Ruins, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ebrahimian, B. 2002. 'Interview with Shirin Neshat' PAJ: A journal of performance
and Art 24/3: 44-55.
Hardwick, L. 2007. 'Decolonising the Mind? Controversial Productions of Greek
Drama in post-colonial England, Scotland and Ireland' in C. Stray (ed.)
Remaking the Classics, London: Duckworth.
Horsburgh, Susan 2004. An interview with Shirin Neshat New York, Time
Magazine, April, Issue 4: 44-55 [cited 20 September 2005]. Also at
www.eruditiononline.come/04.04/shirin_neshat_interview.htm.
Mottahedeh, N. 2003. ‘After-Images of a Revolution’ Radical History Review 86:
183-92.
Rosenblaum, B. 1978. ‘Style as Social Process’ American Sociological Review, 43:
422-38.
Sekula, A. 1983.. 'Reading an Archive: Photography between labour and capital’
reproduced 1999 (eds J. Evans and S. Hall) Visual Culture, Ch. 12. London:
Sage Publications.
Taplin, O. 1993. Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through
Vase-Paintings, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taplin, O.2007. Pots and Plays: Interactions between Tragedy and Greek Vase
Painting of the Fourth Century BC, LA: J. Paul Getty Museum.
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
8
Essays No. 7, 2005
Carol Gillespie
See most recently Taplin, 2007, for discussion of the sometimes problematic
relationships between myths visual images and plays.
1
The Hecuba production (and related photographs) cited in this paper refers only
to the London production in which the set design was neutral. A new set was
designed for the US tour which included rows of US army tents and which more
clearly corresponded to the Iraqi situation.
2
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
9