What do you think?
Rate this book
الأورجانون الصغير
برتولد بريخت (1898-1956) أحد أقطاب المسرح الجديد في القرن العشرين، ويقوم فنه المسرحي على كسر القاعدة الأساسية للمسرح التقليدي. فبريخت لا يطلب من المشاهد التعاطف مع الممثل، بل يريده متيقظاً طوال العرض المسرحي، والترفيه لديه ليس ذلك الترفيه الذي يمكن أن يعود المشاهد بعده إلى ممارسة الحياة العادية. ويستمد بريخت أعماله من الواقع الاجتماعي لمجتمعه. المسرح عنده أداة للتعليم والتعلم، يقوم بالتوعية والمكاشفة، والفن لديه في خدمة المجتمع. وهو في "الأرجانون" يحاول شرح نظريته داخل إطار جمال يعتمد على القيم الاجتماعية. ومن أهم أعماله المسرحية: جاليليو/الأم شجاعة/ دائرة الطباشير القوقازية/ الاستثناء والقاعدة/ أوبرا الثلاث بنسات/ طبول في الليل/ الهوراسيون والكوراسيون. هذا إلى جانب إعادته تقديم الأعمال الكلاسيكية بعد أن أخضعها لمنهجه وأسلوبه الملحمي في المسرح.
75 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
6 people are currently reading
128 people want to read
About the author
Bertolt Brecht
1,605 books1,921 followersEugen Berthold Friedrich Brecht was a German poet, playwright, and theatre director. A seminal theatre practitioner of the twentieth century, Brecht made equally significant contributions to dramaturgy and theatrical production, the latter particularly through the seismic impact of the tours undertaken by the Berliner Ensemble—the post-war theatre company operated by Brecht and his wife and long-time collaborator, the actress Helene Weigel—with its internationally acclaimed productions.
From his late twenties Brecht remained a life-long committed Marxist who, in developing the combined theory and practice of his 'epic theatre', synthesized and extended the experiments of Piscator and Meyerhold to explore the theatre as a forum for political ideas and the creation of a critical aesthetics of dialectical materialism. Brecht's modernist concern with drama-as-a-medium led to his refinement of the 'epic form' of the drama (which constitutes that medium's rendering of 'autonomization' or the 'non-organic work of art'—related in kind to the strategy of divergent chapters in Joyce's novel Ulysses, to Eisenstein's evolution of a constructivist 'montage' in the cinema, and to Picasso's introduction of cubist 'collage' in the visual arts). In contrast to many other avant-garde approaches, however, Brecht had no desire to destroy art as an institution; rather, he hoped to 're-function' the apparatus of theatrical production to a new social use. In this regard he was a vital participant in the aesthetic debates of his era—particularly over the 'high art/popular culture' dichotomy—vying with the likes of Adorno, Lukács, Bloch, and developing a close friendship with Benjamin. Brechtian theatre articulated popular themes and forms with avant-garde formal experimentation to create a modernist realism that stood in sharp contrast both to its psychological and socialist varieties. "Brecht's work is the most important and original in European drama since Ibsen and Strindberg," Raymond Williams argues, while Peter Bürger insists that he is "the most important materialist writer of our time."
As Jameson among others has stressed, "Brecht is also ‘Brecht’"—collective and collaborative working methods were inherent to his approach. This 'Brecht' was a collective subject that "certainly seemed to have a distinctive style (the one we now call 'Brechtian') but was no longer personal in the bourgeois or individualistic sense." During the course of his career, Brecht sustained many long-lasting creative relationships with other writers, composers, scenographers, directors, dramaturgs and actors; the list includes: Elisabeth Hauptmann, Margarete Steffin, Ruth Berlau, Slatan Dudow, Kurt Weill, Hanns Eisler, Paul Dessau, Caspar Neher, Teo Otto, Karl von Appen, Ernst Busch, Lotte Lenya, Peter Lorre, Therese Giehse, Angelika Hurwicz, and Helene Weigel herself. This is "theatre as collective experiment [...] as something radically different from theatre as expression or as experience."
There are few areas of modern theatrical culture that have not felt the impact or influence of Brecht's ideas and practices; dramatists and directors in whom one may trace a clear Brechtian legacy include: Dario Fo, Augusto Boal, Joan Littlewood, Peter Brook, Peter Weiss, Heiner Müller, Pina Bausch, Tony Kushner and Caryl Churchill. In addition to the theatre, Brechtian theories and techniques have exerted considerable sway over certain strands of film theory and cinematic practice; Brecht's influence may be detected in the films of Joseph Losey, Jean-Luc Godard, Lindsay Anderson, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Nagisa Oshima, Ritwik Ghatak, Lars von Trier, Jan Bucquoy and Hal Hartley.
During the war years, Brecht became a prominent writer of the Exilliteratur. He expressed his opposition to the National Socialist and Fascist movements in his most famous plays.
From his late twenties Brecht remained a life-long committed Marxist who, in developing the combined theory and practice of his 'epic theatre', synthesized and extended the experiments of Piscator and Meyerhold to explore the theatre as a forum for political ideas and the creation of a critical aesthetics of dialectical materialism. Brecht's modernist concern with drama-as-a-medium led to his refinement of the 'epic form' of the drama (which constitutes that medium's rendering of 'autonomization' or the 'non-organic work of art'—related in kind to the strategy of divergent chapters in Joyce's novel Ulysses, to Eisenstein's evolution of a constructivist 'montage' in the cinema, and to Picasso's introduction of cubist 'collage' in the visual arts). In contrast to many other avant-garde approaches, however, Brecht had no desire to destroy art as an institution; rather, he hoped to 're-function' the apparatus of theatrical production to a new social use. In this regard he was a vital participant in the aesthetic debates of his era—particularly over the 'high art/popular culture' dichotomy—vying with the likes of Adorno, Lukács, Bloch, and developing a close friendship with Benjamin. Brechtian theatre articulated popular themes and forms with avant-garde formal experimentation to create a modernist realism that stood in sharp contrast both to its psychological and socialist varieties. "Brecht's work is the most important and original in European drama since Ibsen and Strindberg," Raymond Williams argues, while Peter Bürger insists that he is "the most important materialist writer of our time."
As Jameson among others has stressed, "Brecht is also ‘Brecht’"—collective and collaborative working methods were inherent to his approach. This 'Brecht' was a collective subject that "certainly seemed to have a distinctive style (the one we now call 'Brechtian') but was no longer personal in the bourgeois or individualistic sense." During the course of his career, Brecht sustained many long-lasting creative relationships with other writers, composers, scenographers, directors, dramaturgs and actors; the list includes: Elisabeth Hauptmann, Margarete Steffin, Ruth Berlau, Slatan Dudow, Kurt Weill, Hanns Eisler, Paul Dessau, Caspar Neher, Teo Otto, Karl von Appen, Ernst Busch, Lotte Lenya, Peter Lorre, Therese Giehse, Angelika Hurwicz, and Helene Weigel herself. This is "theatre as collective experiment [...] as something radically different from theatre as expression or as experience."
There are few areas of modern theatrical culture that have not felt the impact or influence of Brecht's ideas and practices; dramatists and directors in whom one may trace a clear Brechtian legacy include: Dario Fo, Augusto Boal, Joan Littlewood, Peter Brook, Peter Weiss, Heiner Müller, Pina Bausch, Tony Kushner and Caryl Churchill. In addition to the theatre, Brechtian theories and techniques have exerted considerable sway over certain strands of film theory and cinematic practice; Brecht's influence may be detected in the films of Joseph Losey, Jean-Luc Godard, Lindsay Anderson, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Nagisa Oshima, Ritwik Ghatak, Lars von Trier, Jan Bucquoy and Hal Hartley.
During the war years, Brecht became a prominent writer of the Exilliteratur. He expressed his opposition to the National Socialist and Fascist movements in his most famous plays.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 2, 2024
In this dense essay, Brecht lays out his vision for a Marxist theater of dialectical materialism. As is obliquely telegraphed by the title, it is intended as a critique of the Aristotelian theory of dramaturgy in Poetics, which argues that that theater essentially functions by the audience's identification with the characters, such that we participate in their emotional lives. As an alternative, Brecht argues on behalf of the role of alienation (Verfremdung), by which the audience is made consciously aware of the artifice of the proceedings, so that they may have a rational-critical relationship to the events depicted. In that way, theatrical productions in all senses take on the character of a laboratory experiment. Instead of being carried along by the force of the narrative, audience members are prompted to analyze and criticize it. Instead of putting on performances in the stodgy old ways, actors, set designers, choreographers, composers, et cetera are to consciously undertake practices so that they can see many different sides of each character, many possibilities for their meaning and representation, and so forth.
In this sense, Brecht argues that theater should be scientific, as befits the 'children of the current scientific age.' Ah, I remember a time even in my own life when intellectuals could reasonably take it for granted that we are in fact living in a 'scientific age,' not in a time where every single measurement can and often is politicized.
But I digress. When Brecht says 'scientific,' he is often referring to the analysis of history offered by dialectical materialism. To my ears, referring to such an approach as 'scientific' is risible - is there any cleric of any church more dogmatic than a mid-twentieth century Marxist? And indeed, Brecht takes the conclusions of Marx's writings on political economy and ideology as if they deserve the same status as Newton's laws of motion.
Generally speaking, high German culture of the last 150 years has been divided into two tendencies. The inward-facing existential-phenomenological tradition exemplified by figures such as Rilke and Heidegger is ultimately concerned with problems of meaning and value. The outward-facing social-critical tradition exemplified by the Frankfurt School is ultimately concerned with moral and social justice. Brecht, in his critique of the inwardness of Aristotle, seeks to appropriate theater entirely into the latter sphere. Theater is to be entertaining, yes - he insists on this - but also pedagogic and pro-social, ultimately serving the cause of emancipation.
In many respects, this argument would almost seem to justify theater as a form of propaganda to be administered by the party apparatus for the education of the masses, and he does come dangerously close to this way of thinking. Such theater, of course, is the exact opposite of art. Brecht saves his vision from this sorry fate by insisting on the dynamic, progressive, open-ended character of dialectics. It is not that 'we' possess the truth and our job is to disseminate it. Rather, it is the task of theater to create a vital, entertaining context for the company and the audience alike to to cooperatively ask many questions in the spirit of an open-ended exploration, to challenge ourselves and each other to view the facts from many sides.
This is, I think, one of the most laudable aspects of Brecht's theory. At times, his description of how theater is to be produced starts to approach something like the para-theatrical experiments of Grotowski, who used the devices and techniques of theater for exploration. The difference, of course, is that Brecht's exploration is ultimately to be social-critical.
In my view, there is something ineradicably tedious about the vision of a social pedagogic theater, even one that is open-ended. The solemn insistence that the function of entertainment is to educate in pre-determined terms is stultifying, and there is something borderline coercive about appropriating art forms and depriving them of any claim to dwell in interiority or private experience, as if that would be socially irresponsible. Instead, we should use theater as a chance to study injustice. Such a view is extremely reductive.
In my opinion, it is also ultimately formed on a spurious philosophical assumption. As far as I follow Brecht, he views theatrical performance as a kind of microcosm of social life, and he regards identification with the action of the play as an analog of what Georg Lukacs called reification, in which we assume that reality as it seems is somehow necessary, and not the result of historically-mediated processes. Brecht argues that audience members who identify with theater in the Aristotelian mode are in a kind of trance, one which is parallel to the trance that the masses are in when they take the political and economic status quo for granted.
This parallel is assumed rather than demonstrated, and I think it's quite false. I take, for example, a film like Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory," and I pose the simple question: if I watch and enjoy that film in a conventional way, identifying with the characters and asking no critical questions about the historical age in which it is set, does that necessarily reinforce my accession to reification, to the social illusions that govern the inequitable distribution of power and wealth?
I think the answer is clearly "Of course not." The fact that I have a period of immersion neither means that I'm more susceptible to political propaganda, much less that "Paths of Glory" cannot be critical of the political status quo. The opposite is, in fact, obviously true.
You cannot simply say 'because of reification, immersion=bad, critical awareness=good'. Critical reason can be deployed to ignominious ends, and immersion can be used enroll people in the service of the highest human values.
There is a deeper problem with Brecht's theory, which is that I don't think he ultimately understands how his own drama functions - at least not the way it functions for me. The paradigmatic example he gives for his theater of estrangement is his own Mutter Courage, which I have both read and seen, and in fact, have seen a recording of a performance that Brecht himself directed with the Berliner Ensemble.
According to Brecht's theory, I am supposed to be startled by the fact that Mutter Courage is simultaneously a 'victim' of the Thirty Years' War and someone who makes her living by it; this is the kind of 'contradiction' that is supposed to generate critical self-consciousness, and provoke me to meditate on the contradictions inherent in that historical moment.
But I do not perceive that as a 'contradiction' in anything but the most trivial sense. Of course a person can be opposed to a war and also benefit from it. One can wish it would end, but also make do with the realities of the historical situation in which one finds oneself.
This is only a 'contradiction' if one adopts an extremely reductive view of life. If Brecht does indeed harbor such a reductive view - that one, for example, should be either 'for' the French Revolution, say, or 'against' it, and that anything else is a 'contradiction'- then he is lucky he has stumbled upon a theoretical device that obliges him to violate the simplicity of characterization that such a worldview warrants.
What appeals to me about Brecht is his capacity to write complex characters and moving drama, not that he alerts me to the inability of 17th-century states in Europe to overcome the very conditions that produced the destructive war. To me, the latter is trivial, and the former is profound.
What appeals to me about Brecht's theory is his insistence on its dynamism and that we take every opportunity to examine our perceptions and beliefs from many different angles. What I dislike about it is that his doctrinaire reliance on Marxist theory is reductive, and in many ways represents the very opposite impulse.
Few ideas have been more harmful to German philosophy in the last two hundred years than the idea that it should be 'scientific.' As a matter of practice, those who believe this the most are generally the least scientific in their actual thinking, for science is the opposite of dogma, and holds no traffic with certainty. Science is an open-ended and ongoing process of exploration, not the formulaic application of certain hypothetical laws. Where Brecht's theory is in accord with actual science, I find if of use. But where Brecht, like Hegel and Marx, views science dogmatically, I think he has lost his way.
In this sense, Brecht argues that theater should be scientific, as befits the 'children of the current scientific age.' Ah, I remember a time even in my own life when intellectuals could reasonably take it for granted that we are in fact living in a 'scientific age,' not in a time where every single measurement can and often is politicized.
But I digress. When Brecht says 'scientific,' he is often referring to the analysis of history offered by dialectical materialism. To my ears, referring to such an approach as 'scientific' is risible - is there any cleric of any church more dogmatic than a mid-twentieth century Marxist? And indeed, Brecht takes the conclusions of Marx's writings on political economy and ideology as if they deserve the same status as Newton's laws of motion.
Generally speaking, high German culture of the last 150 years has been divided into two tendencies. The inward-facing existential-phenomenological tradition exemplified by figures such as Rilke and Heidegger is ultimately concerned with problems of meaning and value. The outward-facing social-critical tradition exemplified by the Frankfurt School is ultimately concerned with moral and social justice. Brecht, in his critique of the inwardness of Aristotle, seeks to appropriate theater entirely into the latter sphere. Theater is to be entertaining, yes - he insists on this - but also pedagogic and pro-social, ultimately serving the cause of emancipation.
In many respects, this argument would almost seem to justify theater as a form of propaganda to be administered by the party apparatus for the education of the masses, and he does come dangerously close to this way of thinking. Such theater, of course, is the exact opposite of art. Brecht saves his vision from this sorry fate by insisting on the dynamic, progressive, open-ended character of dialectics. It is not that 'we' possess the truth and our job is to disseminate it. Rather, it is the task of theater to create a vital, entertaining context for the company and the audience alike to to cooperatively ask many questions in the spirit of an open-ended exploration, to challenge ourselves and each other to view the facts from many sides.
This is, I think, one of the most laudable aspects of Brecht's theory. At times, his description of how theater is to be produced starts to approach something like the para-theatrical experiments of Grotowski, who used the devices and techniques of theater for exploration. The difference, of course, is that Brecht's exploration is ultimately to be social-critical.
In my view, there is something ineradicably tedious about the vision of a social pedagogic theater, even one that is open-ended. The solemn insistence that the function of entertainment is to educate in pre-determined terms is stultifying, and there is something borderline coercive about appropriating art forms and depriving them of any claim to dwell in interiority or private experience, as if that would be socially irresponsible. Instead, we should use theater as a chance to study injustice. Such a view is extremely reductive.
In my opinion, it is also ultimately formed on a spurious philosophical assumption. As far as I follow Brecht, he views theatrical performance as a kind of microcosm of social life, and he regards identification with the action of the play as an analog of what Georg Lukacs called reification, in which we assume that reality as it seems is somehow necessary, and not the result of historically-mediated processes. Brecht argues that audience members who identify with theater in the Aristotelian mode are in a kind of trance, one which is parallel to the trance that the masses are in when they take the political and economic status quo for granted.
This parallel is assumed rather than demonstrated, and I think it's quite false. I take, for example, a film like Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory," and I pose the simple question: if I watch and enjoy that film in a conventional way, identifying with the characters and asking no critical questions about the historical age in which it is set, does that necessarily reinforce my accession to reification, to the social illusions that govern the inequitable distribution of power and wealth?
I think the answer is clearly "Of course not." The fact that I have a period of immersion neither means that I'm more susceptible to political propaganda, much less that "Paths of Glory" cannot be critical of the political status quo. The opposite is, in fact, obviously true.
You cannot simply say 'because of reification, immersion=bad, critical awareness=good'. Critical reason can be deployed to ignominious ends, and immersion can be used enroll people in the service of the highest human values.
There is a deeper problem with Brecht's theory, which is that I don't think he ultimately understands how his own drama functions - at least not the way it functions for me. The paradigmatic example he gives for his theater of estrangement is his own Mutter Courage, which I have both read and seen, and in fact, have seen a recording of a performance that Brecht himself directed with the Berliner Ensemble.
According to Brecht's theory, I am supposed to be startled by the fact that Mutter Courage is simultaneously a 'victim' of the Thirty Years' War and someone who makes her living by it; this is the kind of 'contradiction' that is supposed to generate critical self-consciousness, and provoke me to meditate on the contradictions inherent in that historical moment.
But I do not perceive that as a 'contradiction' in anything but the most trivial sense. Of course a person can be opposed to a war and also benefit from it. One can wish it would end, but also make do with the realities of the historical situation in which one finds oneself.
This is only a 'contradiction' if one adopts an extremely reductive view of life. If Brecht does indeed harbor such a reductive view - that one, for example, should be either 'for' the French Revolution, say, or 'against' it, and that anything else is a 'contradiction'- then he is lucky he has stumbled upon a theoretical device that obliges him to violate the simplicity of characterization that such a worldview warrants.
What appeals to me about Brecht is his capacity to write complex characters and moving drama, not that he alerts me to the inability of 17th-century states in Europe to overcome the very conditions that produced the destructive war. To me, the latter is trivial, and the former is profound.
What appeals to me about Brecht's theory is his insistence on its dynamism and that we take every opportunity to examine our perceptions and beliefs from many different angles. What I dislike about it is that his doctrinaire reliance on Marxist theory is reductive, and in many ways represents the very opposite impulse.
Few ideas have been more harmful to German philosophy in the last two hundred years than the idea that it should be 'scientific.' As a matter of practice, those who believe this the most are generally the least scientific in their actual thinking, for science is the opposite of dogma, and holds no traffic with certainty. Science is an open-ended and ongoing process of exploration, not the formulaic application of certain hypothetical laws. Where Brecht's theory is in accord with actual science, I find if of use. But where Brecht, like Hegel and Marx, views science dogmatically, I think he has lost his way.
October 27, 2013
Si le mot "organon" annonce l'ambition immense de ce "petit" livre, l'adjectif rappelle qu'il ne s'agit que d'un abrégé des idées de Bertolt Brecht sur le théâtre.
Je vais passer rapidement sur ce qui est le mieux connu : au théâtre bourgeois tel qu'il sévit au début du vingtième siècle, et qu'il considère comme une "branche du trafic bourgeois de la drogue", Brecht oppose le théâtre qu'il pratique lui-même, qualifié de "théâtre épique" en raison de la prise de position de ses artisans envers les situations qu'ils représentent.
Le théâtre bourgeois, pour Brecht, est essentiellement tragique (quand bien même il serait très drôle) parce qu'il donne l'impression d'une fatalité des actions : cela ne pouvait pas se passer autrement. Au contraire, le théâtre épique veut donner à voir, à chaque instant, le choix fait par le personnage, et le faire apparaître comme un choix, une possibilité dramatique parmi d'autres, de sorte que le public envisage in petto les autres possibilités.
Pour cela il est important de rompre la fascination qui naît, dans le meilleur théâtre bourgeois, de l'identification de l'acteur à son rôle, qui entraîne celle du spectateur au personnage ainsi représenté. Cette fascination doit être cassée par diverses formes de distanciation, dont la plus essentielle vient du jeu de l'acteur même (résultat, je classerai ce livre dans mon rayon "théorie et critique du théâtre" et non dans "théorie et critique littéraire").
Tout ceci est bien connu. Je voudrais insister sur deux points qui, encore aujourd'hui, peuvent être utiles pour briser deux idées fausses sur le théâtre de Brecht.
1. Vous aurez beau proposer un tableau social et historique exact, vous n'avez rien fait, selon Brecht, si vous ne montrez pas les contradictions à l'oeuvre dans les actions des personnages. Chaque action dramatique est ainsi prise dans un questionnement dialectique. Ceci pour répondre au cliché selon lequel le théâtre de Brecht se limite à un prêchi-prêcha communiste, à de l'agit-prop' de bas étage.
2. Brecht dénie au théâtre toute fonction essentielle autre que le divertissement. Oui, oui, vous avez bien lu. Il constate, le fait est historique, qu'il dérive de pratiques cultuelles, mais remarque qu'il devient théâtre au moment même où il se sépare de ces pratiques et n'en conserve que l'aspect plaisant pour le public. Le théâtre épique ne peut donc s'opposer au divertissement, au contraire il est de son devoir de divertir le public. Mais, et c'est là que se niche l'optimisme fondamental de Brecht, le public de notre époque scientifique trouvera son plus haut divertissement dans un spectacle critique. Voilà la grande idée du "Petit organon" et ce qui le rend infiniment fécond : penser réjouit. Les témoignages d'époque, les articles de Barthes par exemple, témoignent d'ailleurs de la splendeur esthétique des spectacles de Brecht, où tout était réjouissant pour l'esprit et les sens, jusqu'aux tissus des costumes.
Suivent des "Additifs" où Brecht tempère ce que l'exposé du "Petit organon" peut avoir de dogmatique : mais c'est pour ne rien céder sur le fond, sur la mission du théâtre, sur sa nature dialectique : au contraire il intègre cette dialectique au processus même de création du spectacle, afin d'amener au théâtre tel qu'il l'espère le meilleur des découvertes esthétiques du théâtre traditionnel.
Je vais passer rapidement sur ce qui est le mieux connu : au théâtre bourgeois tel qu'il sévit au début du vingtième siècle, et qu'il considère comme une "branche du trafic bourgeois de la drogue", Brecht oppose le théâtre qu'il pratique lui-même, qualifié de "théâtre épique" en raison de la prise de position de ses artisans envers les situations qu'ils représentent.
Le théâtre bourgeois, pour Brecht, est essentiellement tragique (quand bien même il serait très drôle) parce qu'il donne l'impression d'une fatalité des actions : cela ne pouvait pas se passer autrement. Au contraire, le théâtre épique veut donner à voir, à chaque instant, le choix fait par le personnage, et le faire apparaître comme un choix, une possibilité dramatique parmi d'autres, de sorte que le public envisage in petto les autres possibilités.
Pour cela il est important de rompre la fascination qui naît, dans le meilleur théâtre bourgeois, de l'identification de l'acteur à son rôle, qui entraîne celle du spectateur au personnage ainsi représenté. Cette fascination doit être cassée par diverses formes de distanciation, dont la plus essentielle vient du jeu de l'acteur même (résultat, je classerai ce livre dans mon rayon "théorie et critique du théâtre" et non dans "théorie et critique littéraire").
Tout ceci est bien connu. Je voudrais insister sur deux points qui, encore aujourd'hui, peuvent être utiles pour briser deux idées fausses sur le théâtre de Brecht.
1. Vous aurez beau proposer un tableau social et historique exact, vous n'avez rien fait, selon Brecht, si vous ne montrez pas les contradictions à l'oeuvre dans les actions des personnages. Chaque action dramatique est ainsi prise dans un questionnement dialectique. Ceci pour répondre au cliché selon lequel le théâtre de Brecht se limite à un prêchi-prêcha communiste, à de l'agit-prop' de bas étage.
2. Brecht dénie au théâtre toute fonction essentielle autre que le divertissement. Oui, oui, vous avez bien lu. Il constate, le fait est historique, qu'il dérive de pratiques cultuelles, mais remarque qu'il devient théâtre au moment même où il se sépare de ces pratiques et n'en conserve que l'aspect plaisant pour le public. Le théâtre épique ne peut donc s'opposer au divertissement, au contraire il est de son devoir de divertir le public. Mais, et c'est là que se niche l'optimisme fondamental de Brecht, le public de notre époque scientifique trouvera son plus haut divertissement dans un spectacle critique. Voilà la grande idée du "Petit organon" et ce qui le rend infiniment fécond : penser réjouit. Les témoignages d'époque, les articles de Barthes par exemple, témoignent d'ailleurs de la splendeur esthétique des spectacles de Brecht, où tout était réjouissant pour l'esprit et les sens, jusqu'aux tissus des costumes.
Suivent des "Additifs" où Brecht tempère ce que l'exposé du "Petit organon" peut avoir de dogmatique : mais c'est pour ne rien céder sur le fond, sur la mission du théâtre, sur sa nature dialectique : au contraire il intègre cette dialectique au processus même de création du spectacle, afin d'amener au théâtre tel qu'il l'espère le meilleur des découvertes esthétiques du théâtre traditionnel.
February 5, 2023
3/5 stars
A thorough overview of Brecht's conception of theatre (which I personally find more pertinent than Artaud's)
Still a bit difficult to understand and fully grasp (maybe because his way of being both anti-capitalist and pro-productivity seems quite contradictory for a modern reader?)
A thorough overview of Brecht's conception of theatre (which I personally find more pertinent than Artaud's)
Still a bit difficult to understand and fully grasp (maybe because his way of being both anti-capitalist and pro-productivity seems quite contradictory for a modern reader?)
November 29, 2021
yes brecht come thru king
August 6, 2024
Essai sur le théâtre très intéressant
October 23, 2024
"le regard neuf porté sur la nature ne s'est pas aussi porté sur la société"
December 18, 2024
‘Klein organon voor het Theater’. Vertaling C. De Wijs, L. Zonneveld, F. Vogelaar en W. Notenboom. (Amsterdam: Sternheim & De Nieuwe Toneelbibliotheek, 2019)
Read
November 16, 2025‘Thus for art to be ’unpolitical’ means only to ally itself with the ’ruling’ group.’ ✊✊
February 27, 2018
لم أجد طبعة عربية متوفرة على الموقع لهذا الكتاب المهم، رغم وجود أكثر من ترجمة له، إحداهما صادرة عن دار "هلا" وأخرى صادرة عن مؤسسة الشارقة تقريبًا، وغيرها. هذا كتاب "الأورجانون الصغير" الذي يضم نظرية المسرحي الألماني برتولد بريخت حول المسرح، وهي نظرية نابعة من انتمائه للماركسية، وبالتالي إدراكه للطابع الاجتماعي والطبقي للأدب، بناءً على النظرية القائلة بأن البنية الفوقية - أي الأيدولوجيا الدين الفكر الفن- هي انعكاس للنبية التحتية، أي التكوين الطبقي وعلاقات الإنتاج.
ينطلق بريخت في نظريته من نقد نظرية أرسطو، هذه النظرية السائدة منذ عصور، ليوضح كيف أن هذه النظرية التي كانت لقرون نظرية مقدسة تؤطر المسرح ككل، أقول: كيف كانت نتاجًا للظروف الاجتماعية، والانتماء الطبقي لصاحبها، ليحلل بريخت الموقف الطبقي والاجتماعي لأرسطو في نظريته الشهيرة التي تجعل من البطل التراجيدي نبيلًا ينتمي للطبقات السائدة، وتجعل من سقطته الدرامية خروجًا على هذه القواعد، وبالتالي فإن النهاية المفجعة هي عقاب له على الثورة على هذه الأفكار السائدة للطبقة المهيمنة، وما فكرة التطهير إلى إقحام المتفرج في الحدث الذي يدور أمامه، ليتوحد عاطفيًا مع البطل النبيل، بغرض تطهيره من أية رغبة في الثورة على هذه الأنماط الاجتماعية. هكذا يرى بريخت باختصار، وأنا أتفق معه.
في مقابل ذلك، لا يلجأ بريخت إلى مسرح دعائي خطابي مباشر، بل يدرك بشكل كبير أن مهمة المسرح في الأساس هي الترفيه، ولكنه يرى أن هذا الترفيه يجب أن يكون مبنيًا بناءً على عصرنا - عصره بالطبع وقتها- وبناء على - كما يقول بريخت - نقل الثورة العلمية من العلوم الطبيعية إلى العلوم الاجتماعية، إلى المجتمع، وهو ما لا تريده البورجوازية.
لا يريد بريخت لمتفرجه أن ينغمس في الحدث، لا يريده أن يتوحد شعوريًا مع البطل، بل يريد أن يبقيه حرًا خارج العمل لا داخله، ينظر له نظرة فكرية ناقدة ومحللة لا نظرة شعورية متفاعلة، هذا النقد القلق والواعي والمتحفز هو الذي يقدم منه خلاله بريخت رؤيته الاجتماعية عبر ما يعرف باسم التغريب في مسرحه الملحمي، فلا ينبغي للمثل أن يتقمص الدور تقمصًا كاملًا، بل يجب أن يكون واعيًا أنه يمثل، وأن يقرأ الشخصية كشخصية متحركة لها جوانب عدة، وأن يقرأها في علاقتها بغيرها من الشخصيات، وأن يبقى المشاهد واعيًا بكل ذلك، قادرًا على النقد الواعي لا الانغماس العاطفي غير الواعي.
ينطلق بريخت في نظريته من نقد نظرية أرسطو، هذه النظرية السائدة منذ عصور، ليوضح كيف أن هذه النظرية التي كانت لقرون نظرية مقدسة تؤطر المسرح ككل، أقول: كيف كانت نتاجًا للظروف الاجتماعية، والانتماء الطبقي لصاحبها، ليحلل بريخت الموقف الطبقي والاجتماعي لأرسطو في نظريته الشهيرة التي تجعل من البطل التراجيدي نبيلًا ينتمي للطبقات السائدة، وتجعل من سقطته الدرامية خروجًا على هذه القواعد، وبالتالي فإن النهاية المفجعة هي عقاب له على الثورة على هذه الأفكار السائدة للطبقة المهيمنة، وما فكرة التطهير إلى إقحام المتفرج في الحدث الذي يدور أمامه، ليتوحد عاطفيًا مع البطل النبيل، بغرض تطهيره من أية رغبة في الثورة على هذه الأنماط الاجتماعية. هكذا يرى بريخت باختصار، وأنا أتفق معه.
في مقابل ذلك، لا يلجأ بريخت إلى مسرح دعائي خطابي مباشر، بل يدرك بشكل كبير أن مهمة المسرح في الأساس هي الترفيه، ولكنه يرى أن هذا الترفيه يجب أن يكون مبنيًا بناءً على عصرنا - عصره بالطبع وقتها- وبناء على - كما يقول بريخت - نقل الثورة العلمية من العلوم الطبيعية إلى العلوم الاجتماعية، إلى المجتمع، وهو ما لا تريده البورجوازية.
لا يريد بريخت لمتفرجه أن ينغمس في الحدث، لا يريده أن يتوحد شعوريًا مع البطل، بل يريد أن يبقيه حرًا خارج العمل لا داخله، ينظر له نظرة فكرية ناقدة ومحللة لا نظرة شعورية متفاعلة، هذا النقد القلق والواعي والمتحفز هو الذي يقدم منه خلاله بريخت رؤيته الاجتماعية عبر ما يعرف باسم التغريب في مسرحه الملحمي، فلا ينبغي للمثل أن يتقمص الدور تقمصًا كاملًا، بل يجب أن يكون واعيًا أنه يمثل، وأن يقرأ الشخصية كشخصية متحركة لها جوانب عدة، وأن يقرأها في علاقتها بغيرها من الشخصيات، وأن يبقى المشاهد واعيًا بكل ذلك، قادرًا على النقد الواعي لا الانغماس العاطفي غير الواعي.
March 29, 2018
Eu li uma tradução para o português.
É um excelente texto para entender o drama não-aristotélico do Brecht.
Fica mais clara a ideia de distanciamento que é tão necessária no drama moderno e que é fundamental nas peças escritas pelo alemão.
É incrível perceber a ligação entre o drama, a poesia e a narrativa na época em que Brecht escrevia.
Peter Szondi, mais tarde, falou sobre a "crise do drama" e como Brecht se livrou da tal crise.
Mallarmé morreu no ano em que Brecht nasceu, e o poeta francês também viu o verso em crise, as saídas são parecidas, vêm com o efeito de distanciamento (no caso do drama) e com a abertura dos sentidos (no verso). Da mesma forma que Joyce, o irlandês, escrevia trazendo suas epifanias a público.
São relações que eu quero estudar mais a fundo, mas a princípio é esta a impressão que tenho.
É um excelente texto para entender o drama não-aristotélico do Brecht.
Fica mais clara a ideia de distanciamento que é tão necessária no drama moderno e que é fundamental nas peças escritas pelo alemão.
É incrível perceber a ligação entre o drama, a poesia e a narrativa na época em que Brecht escrevia.
Peter Szondi, mais tarde, falou sobre a "crise do drama" e como Brecht se livrou da tal crise.
Mallarmé morreu no ano em que Brecht nasceu, e o poeta francês também viu o verso em crise, as saídas são parecidas, vêm com o efeito de distanciamento (no caso do drama) e com a abertura dos sentidos (no verso). Da mesma forma que Joyce, o irlandês, escrevia trazendo suas epifanias a público.
São relações que eu quero estudar mais a fundo, mas a princípio é esta a impressão que tenho.
May 10, 2015
In der Theorie alles schön und gut, aber wie offen für Fragen waren Brechts Stücke (und Brecht selber)?
Read
May 30, 2018Interesting. Shook up a lot of preconceived ideas I didn't even know I had.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews