DENYSE LYNDE
The issue of practical theatre in an academic setting is an important one for many of the reasons Knowles cites but I lament his expression of disillusionment, disempowerment and embitterment. For me, the key to this frustration is found in the sentence where he separates the two sides of the equation with imagery on one hand and sense memories on the other. The answer, as he suggests, is obvious-an integration of the two sides, and an emphasis on process rather than product. For me as for Knowles, the two are inseparable. I think this fusion can be achieved by an active and positive stance, aggressively promoted by an academic fortress all too often inclined to close up its gates and retreat into a state of static defensiveness. Our practitioners must be invited, wooed or bribed inside to become actively engaged in the creation of their arts within the academy. Putting out our hands to them is the first step of a crucial process that hopefully will lead to a reciprocal invitation to step beyond our academic confines. The integration that Knowles cites is not only crucial for the health of our programmes and courses of study but, I believe, will also enhance and benefit our professional communities.
Another area of shared concern raised by Knowles is the apparent separation between the practical and the so-called academic side of our theatre programmes. Once again the answer must be found in integration and process. The oppositions can in practice be reconciled. The practical nature of theatre must have its place within the study of dramatic text and the issues of dramatic texts must be felt within the rehearsal hall. The two spheres are connected by the emphasis on process and the logical questions of "how" and "why."
A happy reconciliation between the two areas can be achieved by an emphasis on process rather than product, an emphasis clearly crucial when approaching practical theatre within the academy. The process of exploring, testing, experimenting, and rehearsing must be foremost. A completed product, an enclosed package, a performance or production must be placed within the fundamental principle of process, for this product, package, performance or production never remains static but continues to shift or evolve. It is from this emphasis on the process that the audience becomes involved; they are no longer the passive consumers but active participants.
However, such an emphasis on process must be carried to all teaching. The issue may become clearer when one considers how one led a class on, for example, King Lear, ten years ago; few of us would find that the same things would be repeated in a classroom in 1995. The state of the "academic" discipline has changed in ways which suggest Knowles's concerns are not perhaps as relevant as they were; a quick perusal of Shakespeare Quarterly appears to confirm this hypothesis. Likewise, comfortable approaches to other plays may now appear trite, dangerous or just plain irrelevant. Just as our perceptions, feelings, instincts shift and evolve, so do our approaches and our explorations. The question remains: should we be teaching the same texts that we were taught twenty or so years ago? Yes, these texts, now informed by more recent works and enriched by our own changing methodology, may remain; there is no intrinsic merit in throwing out the baby with the bath water when challenged to assess, revise and revitalize the curriculum. Finally the student or "theatre worker" cannot be overlooked in this discussion. Here we have the key to the exploration and discovery of tensions. Here is the key to our ability to teach differences. We must engage in a process of discovery with our students, not separate ourselves from them or, heaven forbid, merely perform for them. In fact for some of us, the student or "theatre worker" is central to re-examining the pressing issue of pedagogy in our programmes. Frequently, students will question and explore more freely than we ourselves, with our frequently conservative backgrounds, were encouraged to do.
Knowles sets out a series of binary oppositions that I must confess I personally find alien and, consequently, disturbing. If this 'black or white,' 'them or us,' 'practical or academic' describes the state of our discipline we are in trouble. However, another perspective may prevail where instead of rigidly constructed divisions aggressively marching in opposition you have overlapping circles contracting and expanding. The equation of process and integration must not be in terms of us, the academics, and them, everybody else. From the academic perspective, the 'them' all too often means a further melding of the student and the professional into the 'other' or non-academic. The process must involve the four intersecting circles of the community: the student, the academic, the professional, the audience.
The dialogue that Knowles has begun is an important one but it will only be of real value if it is extended beyond the realm of the academy and into the world of our artists. The role of practical theatre in our institutions must be reassessed, revised and, consequently, revitalized; perhaps rather than dream of utopia, a notorious "noplace," we should strive to do the most we can in an imperfect present.