DOI: 10.24308/iass-2014-130

Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Mexico

bcanadamx@yahoo.com

Abstract

Esta investigación nace con la intención de encontrar una manera de estudiar y comprender el teatro en el siglo XXI, con el objetivo de aplicarlo en la formación de actores;el mejor método para enfrentar al reto es con el apoyo de la semiótica, como dice P. Pavis: “la semiología teatral es un método de análisis del texto y/o la representación”, nos basamosen los estudios de Kowsan, donde lo primero que plantea es que,el teatro se puede estudiar en dos grandes áreas: lo que se ve y lo que se escucha, esto nos sitúa,para nuestro estudio, desde la isóptica del espectador, el que percibe o ve la dramaturgia escénica; Boves, aludiendo a Kowzan,refiereque en el libro Teatro y Semiología: la clasificación de todos estos lenguajes o sistemas por “la intercambiabilidad de los signos de diferentes sistemas, su ambigüedad, la posibilidad de la expresión simultánea sobre la escena de algunos signos de diferentes sistemas, frente a la sucesividad que impone el signo verbal; e insiste en los problemas de la percepción e interpretación del signo dramático, por la falta de codificación y por la posibilidad de ofrecer varios significantes para un único significado”; la multiplicidad de lenguajes y signos, la posibilidad polisémica entre cada uno de ellos, permite que veamos a todos ellos como los que conforman el universo al que llamaremos escenosfera, término que acuño y utilizo bajo la idea de Lotman, Semiosfera, como el dominio en el que todo sistema sígnico puede funcionar, el espacio en el que se realizan los procesos comunicativos y se producen nuevas informaciones, este espacio es para nosotros el espacio escénico, donde convergen en todos los niveles todos los sistemas que lo conforman.

En la escenosferasus límites serán los diferentes lenguajes o sistemas escénicos, teatrales, ellos generan el vasto universo material y simbólico que toma vida en el espacio escénico – ficcional, los cuales, a su vez, crearán las fronteras, como señala Kowzan, refiriéndose a los conjuntos de signos que se generan en cada uno de los sistemas escénicos: “Lo que verdaderamente nos interesa son los conjuntos de signos de diferentes orígenes, sus articulaciones internas y externas, sus encadenamientos, el aspecto heterosemiótico (o heterosémico) del fenómeno teatral, de la textura del espectáculo”; así, empezamos a conceptualizar los límites y fronteras de la escenosfera, pero como señala Lotman en su nota anterior (necesita de un entorno exterior “no organizado” y se lo construye en caso de ausencia de éste), nuestro espacio exterior, será el espectador, quien es el motivo de todo el fenómeno teatral y al ser el último receptor, estará encargado del proceso de decodificación y recodificación del mensaje que se transmite y como ya comentamos el punto desde que nos situamos para observar nuestro universo de estudio.

La semiosfera da paso a la escenosfera y ésta estará conformada por la suma de los límites y fronteras que se generan, como son: el edificio teatral, espacio escénico, la escenografía, la utilería, el vestuario, los peinados, el maquillaje, la iluminación, el individuo – actor – personaje, el texto escrito, el texto pronunciado, la música, los efectos sonoros y, como ya comentamos, el público o espectador; dentro de todos estos lenguajes y sistemas existen diferentes niveles de percepción y lectura, el entramado se gesta en diferentes etapas de creación e interrelación para construir la escenosfera.

This research began with the intention of finding a way to study and understand the theater in the XXI century, in order to apply it in the training of actors; the best method to address the challenge is supported by semiotics, as P. Pavis says: “Theatrical semiotics is a method of analysis of text and / or representation” (Pavis, P., 1988, p. 410.), we rely on studies Kowsan, where the first thing that arises is that theater can be studied in two main areas: what you see and what you hear, this puts us, for our study, since isoptic viewer, the perceiver or watch dramaturgy; Bobes, alluding to Kowzan relates in the book theater and Semiotics: the classification of all these languages or systems:

Interchangeability of signs of different systems, its ambiguity, the possibility of the simultaneous expression on the scene some signs of different systems against successivity imposed by the verbal sign; and emphasizes the problems of perception and interpretation of dramatic sign, for the non-coding and the ability to offer several significant for a single meaning. (Bobes Naves, María del Carmen, 2004, p. 505)

The multiplicity of languages and signs the polysemic chance in each, allows us to see them all as those that make up the universe which we call escenosfera, term I coined and use under the idea of Lotman, Semiosphere like domain which every sign system can work, the space in which the communicative processes are performed and produced new information, this space is for us the stage area where converge at all levels all systems that comprise it.

One of the hallmarks of the semiosfera is the delimiter character, leading to the concept of boundary or limit. Semiosfera borders of different levels, limits of different languages, occupy the entire space. In turn, each of these sub-semiospheres has its own (his own “I” semiotic) semiotic identity is constructed in relation to the others. On the other hand, semiosfera as organized space “needs an external environment” unorganized “and build it in the absence of it” (Lotman, 1984, p. 8).

In escenosfera limits are the different languages or scenic, theater systems, they generate the symbolic universe vast material and comes alive in the venue – fiction, which, in turn, create borders, as Kowzan says, referring to signs sets generated in each of the stage systems: “What really interests us are the sets of signs of different origins, its internal and external joints, their linkages, heterosemiótico aspect (or heterosémico) the theatrical phenomenon, texture show” (Kowzan, Tadeusz, 1997, P. 260); so we began to conceptualize the limits and frontiers of escenosfera, but as Lotman points out in his previous note (needs an external environment “not organized” and build it in the absence of it), our outdoor space, will the viewer who is the reason for all the theatrical phenomenon and being the ultimate recipient, will be in charge of the process of decoding, recoding and re significance of the message that is transmitted and as we discussed, the point from which we stand to observe our universe of study.

The scenario makes an offer of meaning through uncoded signs, and the viewer is the need to interpret without knowing the code. So begins a dialogue: expectations are created in the public, which is then fulfilled or not, but in any case, the viewer is not going to hear dialog innocent way, as it has before seen how the living-stage relationship and Secondly sees the theatrical space that will host the story. Two semic coordinates will frame the perception of dialogue and the story from the outset: field scenic, scenic space. (Bobes Naves, María del Carmen, 2004, P. 508)

That is, the semiosfera leads to the escenosfera and this will consist of the sum of the systems comprising the theater at the time of the dramaturgy, creating these, their own limits and boundaries, such as: the theater building, stage space , scenery, props, costumes, hairstyles, makeup, lighting, the individual – Actor – character, written text, spoken text, music, sound effects and, as already discussed, the audience or spectator.

In each of these languages and systems, different levels of perception and reading, decoding and encoding, search of signs and meanings that are developing at different stages of development and interaction to build escenosfera; with the above, we have some clarity of land on which we place our research, this dissertation will discuss how the body interacts with different boundaries and frontiers of the escenosfera, for which we must first define what they consider as a body; Royal Spanish Academy dictionary:

Body.

(From Lat. Corpus).

1. m. That which has limited extension perceptible by the senses.

2. m. Set of organic systems that constitute a living being.

3. m. In liquids, thickness or density.

4. m. Each of the parties, which may be independent when they are considered together with another principal.

From what we can highlight body is: something perceptible by the senses, which has its own limits and which in turn can contain internal systems that constitute it, so we can say, referring to some of the systems that make up the Escenosfera: body building, body seats, light body, the body of the actor, the body of the scenery, the body of costumes, makeup, hairstyles, body sound, in short, everything we surrounding is or may be considered as a body, being limited and being able to perceive with our senses; to focus better on our “body” of the study, we will rely on the methodology given by José Enrique Finol, in his lecture last February (2014, as a historical reference) at the VII International Congress of Semiotics the American Federation of Semiotics (FELS) and the VII International Congress of the Mexican Association for the Study of Visual Semiotics and Space in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, where he spoke about: a Contribution to the Corposfera: Space, limits and boundaries of the body.

Finol citing Merleau – Ponty says, “The outline of my body is a border that ordinary relations of space does not exceed” Ponty develops the notion of corporal spatiality, a concept that derives from the body identity, limits itself and borders of the body but also the appropriation of the world through our body: “The body is our general medium for having a world” and, therefore, “the experience of the body teaches us to root space in existence (...) and our body is not in space: the space he lives”.

Our body is not in space: the space he lives; our space is the stage area, where life takes the re-presentation of the creative process that goes from the dramatic text to dramaturgy and ends in the fleeting moment of receipt by the viewer, ephemeral, being unique and unrepeatable each function the show is born, lives and dies, or we say, re-born, re-lives and dies, night by night.

Fernando del Toro, where semiotics of theater book (Fernando del Toro, 2008, P. 161,162) allows us to reflect on the double meaning in the process of reception, where each of the boundaries and frontiers of sign systems of staging mean that they are, as object, as clothing, as light, but also for what they mean in fiction, we know that is never a wardrobe that time, it's like ... and in the process of receiving, recoding by our viewers, have value as its referents; those created by the director to generate the dramaturgy and like it, give value to their signs, each of the elements of the escenosfera, according to their own referents and social context or meaning intended addressed.

At the time of creating the dramaturgy and integration of all systems, bodies represented by harmonizing the interplay of different borders and boundaries of the proposed signs, we can consider the different categories that presents Kowsan in his book The Sign and the Theatre (Kowzan Tadeusz, 1997), in, clearly, analyze the full range of signs, may be these: natural, artificial, motivated, arbitrary, mimetic, iconic symbols or metaphors; correct use will generate us unity in the process of reception by the viewer, knowing that may be present all, some or mixed at different levels or systems comprising the fact scenic.

How to define the limits and boundaries of bodies at the scene, for this, we will continue referring to the statement made by Finol: a limit is a separation that creates at least two spaces be they physical, psychological or cultural, but also a limit is a contact paraphrase Finol limit generates separation and contact between these is given a transitional space, despite the rigidity of the physical boundaries, borders are, however, in varying degrees, porous, permeable. Thus the limits tend to favor the separation while the borders tend to favor the contact and exchange, the limit is conventional, for example, separates countries and the border is the one on both sides, which runs along the boundary; presents at least four types of limits of the body:

1. It is observed when marking start and end, end and beginning of own components of a body, not only physiological but spatially, meaning.

2. After skin the second type is the physical environment where the body semiotiza and, in turn, semiotiza the world, i.e., gives meaning to the physical world and is provided, also, of meaning.

3. It is marked by the existence of other bodies, those who occupy a common, real or virtual space, but whose existence delimits semiotiza and brand our own body.

4. Is Semiosphere, within which the Corposfera establishes relationships of reciprocity and complementarity, articulation and contradiction, resistance and balance; so that one and the other are fed and fed back into a universe of languages. It is only in the context of these relationships Semiosphere and Corposfera it is possible to understand the many languages that bind and leave the body itself, such as, for example, in the case of clothing (for us would be the costumes), a system dynamic and changing meaning, which is provided, at its origin to the corporeality and at the same time, becomes an autonomous system of signification.

Finol Corposfera has defined as the set of languages that originate, updated and made thanks to the body, understood as a complex semiotic numerous possibilities that require a phenomenological vision for your understanding; the Corposfera would be this part of the Semiosphere proposed by Lotman and cover all the signs, codes and processes of meaning in which, in many ways, the body is present, acts, means; Escenosfera for us is that part of the Semiosphere which encompassed all systems involved in the act of performing in the theater, it can mean as bodies that are limited in the process of creation and exchange boundaries when polysemy given in; director and as such, suffer from other decoding processes to be seen, read, senses – Scenic, meaning and re signifying his own essence, under the direction of the dramatic text, under the leaders of creative drama first by the performer and, finally, by the viewer, this being heterogeneous and, therefore, the leaders of individuality in the social collective that form, will autonomously the meaning of the staging and assessment of each of the systems involved.

All bodies present in the Escenosfera have a role and importance in her process of signification, can dispense with any of them, except the actor, as already noted Grotowsky, for him, having a space where the action is developed, lighting allow perceive, whether natural or artificial and actor to implement the activities, was enough to create the scenic fiction; Wladimir Krysinski notes that Grotowsky (as in Tadeusz Kantor and Eugenio Barba), “the body is symbolic to the point in the scene is transformed into a production machine signs that invokes the collective, cosmogony and universal human themes“ (Fernando del Toro, 2008. P. 141).

What we can conclude that the ultimate function of the speech of the actor is to show their creative ability in the scene, not only overrides their ability in using the vocal apparatus when communicating the address given in the dramatic text, but: gestures, proxemics and kinetics come to play a key role; is really the actor's body as a whole which serves as an instrument between discourse and mimesis, between discourse and the public; in turn, their physical presence is essential in the operation theater: The actor is all theater. We can do without any representation, except the actor (Ubersfeld, 1981. P. 164).

All elements of the staging have a clear reason to exist and also mean each clearly demarcate its limits and being juxtaposed borders coexist in a harmonic way, aesthetics, on behalf of all; make a journey from the most important and difficult body to study, actor, being the only living element that passes over and all systems, using them and re-signifying to tell the fable: the physical constitution of the actor itself and gives us a lot of sígnica information age, complexion, skills and demonstrated to move around the stage skills, if we add the technique of performance, internal and external characterization of the character and, executing their actions give us more details about the job, socioeconomic status, timing, location and regionalism; everything will be boosted with the costumes, makeup, hairstyles, props to manipulate the scenery through which transit and use; with lighting will be generated atmospheres, other spaces, and even specific effects that compete with television and film, areas where escenosfera there too, but for reasons of time does not develop on this occasion, as it is: the zoom and segmentation in planes and levels, created according to the placement of the luminaire and the hardness of the light allows different ways of perceiving action, let's add color, cold to warm, which increases us the sign value, supporting or creating them mood states, all this changed or re-mean according to the scenario where the representation.

With this little exercise clarify the complexity of the body of study and the importance of developing it, as if from the formation of actors, we offer this methodological tool for study and analysis, they, in their creative processes will be more aware in search and selection of their actions and those of all other systems, be more careful and observers at the time of search and creation, and use may signify more accurately; already mentioned the high polysemic value of each, to mean: so are, for the use given to them, and their integration into the mise en scene.

We must not forget our ultimate limit, the viewer, enclosed space for the stalls and the “fourth wall” having a very porous borders, we could say that even invasive, first by the interaction itself given among viewers, this, will condition the process of receiving and, vuayer situation, looker, making it able to follow the speech in full or in installments, following, depending on your interest, or systems that most appeal to you; the viewer selects to do, the reasons why attend representation, how is modified before the third call and the sensitive and emotional impact suffered at the reception and its own referents, condition the way we generate and decode new meanings what happened in our escenosfera, with this unique and unrepeatable as the same mise en scene process.

Bibliography

APPIA, Adolphe. 2000. La música y la puesta en escena, La obra de arte viviente. Serie: Teoría y práctica del teatro nº 16. España. Publicaciones de la Asociación de Directores de Escena de España.

BARTHES, Roland. 2013. Lo obvio y lo obtuso. Imágenes, gestos y voces. España. Paidós.

BAUDRILLARD, Jean. 1978. Cultura y Simulacro. Barcelona. Editorial Kairós. 

BOBES NAVES, María del Carmen. 2004. Teatro y Semiología. Arbor CLXXVII, 699–700 (Marzo-Abril 2004), 497–508 pp.

CAÑADA RANGEL, Benito. 2009. Bases para la caracterización del personaje. En: Diálogos Transdisciplinarios. Arte y sociedad. Schara, Julio César, Compilador. México, D. F. Edit. Fontamara. pp. 19 – 44.

DEL TORO, Fernando. 2008. Semiótica del Teatro. Del texto a la puesta en escena. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Galerna.

DEL TORO, Fernando. 1990. Semiótica y teatro Latinoamericano. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Galerna/IITCTL (Instituto Internacional de Teoría y Crítica de Teatro Latinoamericano).

DE MARINIS, Marco. 2005. En busca del actor y el espectador. Comprender el teatro II. Buenos Aires. Galerna.

FINOL, José Enrique. (2014). Contribution to Corposfera: Space, limits and boundaries of the body, VII International Congress of Semiotics of the American Federation of Semiotics (FELS) and the VII International Congress of the Mexican Association for the Study of Semiotics visual and Space. San Luis Potosi, Mexico, from 17–22 February.

FISCHER-LICHTE, Erika. 2011. Estética de lo Performativo. Madrid. Abada Editores.

GUY, Debord. 1967. La Sociedad del Espectáculo. España. Champ Libre – Catellote Editor.

KOWZAN, Tadeusz. 1997. El signo y el teatro. Madrid. Arco / Libros, S.L.

KRYSINSKI, Wladimir. 1981: 158. Semiotics Modalites of the body in Modern Theatre. Poetics Today, II, 3 (Spring): 141 – 161.

LOTMAN, Yuri M. 1996. La semiosfera I. Semiótica de la cultura y del texto. Selección y traducción del ruso por Desiderio Navarro con un capítulo final de Manuel Cáceres. Madrid. Cátedra-Universitat de Valencia (Colección Frónesis).

MATOSO, Elina. 1992. El cuerpo territorio escénico. Buenos Aires, Barcelona, México. Paidós.

MERLEAU-PONTY, Maurice. 1994. Fenomenología de la Percepción. España. Planeta – Agostini.

MOSQUERA, E. Finol, & I. GARCÍA (Edits.), Semióticas del cuerpo (1ª ed., Vol. 8, págs. 151 – 169). Maracaibo, Venezuela: Universidad de Zulia – Asociación Venezolana de Semiótica.

PAVIS, Patrice. 1998. Diccionario del Teatro. Barcelona, España: Paidós.

TOUCHARD, Pierre-Aimé. 1961. Apología del Teatro, Teoría y Práctica del Teatro. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Compañía General Febril Editora.

UBERSFELD, Anne. 1989. Semiótica teatral. Traducción y adaptación de Francisco Torres Monreal. Madrid. Cátedra.

UBERSFELD, Anne. 1981. L´ecole du spectateur: Lire le théâtre 2. Paris: Éditions Sociales.