8. Back to Classroom:Bottom-up embodied learning with apparatus transforming the materiality of the space – Part 2 (14 Feb 2024); plus reflection on learning play alongside with supplementary readings

In another lesson, we experimented combining text with audio devices to see how text, reading (performer), apparatuses and space form a system with ensemble effects. As we discovered in previous learning, the apparatuses bring dual effects—besides their mediatizing effects (like transformation of voices in quality, intensity and directionality), their presence as material objects/setup in the space have also experiential impacts. The space is transformed by the presence of both performer and apparatuses and by the mediatized audio effects.

One important discovery that called for further reflection was that the performers/doers were not aware of what they read and the meanings of what they read during the improvisation. This phenomenon contradicts Brecht’s expectation that participants can understand what they said (and what they did) better with the embodied experience in action. This is fundamental to learning plays.

From one of our reading materials, Mueller attempted to demonstrate that, to Brecht’s intention, in his learning plays, “[t]he participants are called upon to copy the text and the style of acting until criticism has changed it” because “Brecht saw reciprocal influences between emotional, intellectual and physical states” (115). To support this, she quoted Brecht’s words, “The Lehrstück rests on the expectation that the actors may be socially influenced by executing certain attitudes and repeating certain speech patterns.” (115) Finally, Mueller concludes, "[r]ealising that content can change but that it can also be corrupted by old forms, Brecht knew that nothing was really to be gained until new contents had taken shape in everyday attitudes. To this end, Brecht sought to reconstruct the formation of behaviour, gestures and attitudes in the learning process through imitation. By beginning at the point at which certain persistent patterns were formed, Brecht thought it was possible to unravel the patterns originally learned and replace them with new ones, this time consciously chosen." (116)

If so, does this mean that the phenomenon we observed in class was just because our reading was not sufficiently embodied or physicalized so that there was not many effects or experience regarding both the content and form of the text? Even if we had more physicalization, does it mean that there would be naturally more understanding and higher critical awareness?

I am not convinced. From my experience as a mime practitioner who has been teaching mime and mask work for more than a decade, I did not see my students or colleagues necessarily gain more critical and sociological awareness to what they imitate. Similarly, in the ancient theatre trainings of many oriental traditions, apprentices copy conventional routines year after year but mostly did not reach any socio-political criticism to change it, as Brecht expected. Furthermore, from my clinical experience as a drama therapist, I also saw that, although embodiment is considered an important means to facilitate change in drama therapy, changes mostly would not happen just by embodying certain habitualized or dysfunctional patterns. Some kinds of intervention have to be employed during embodiment for changes to happen.

Therefore, the question required further research is: What are the conditions for participants to understand deeper via (improvisational) action instead of being sidetracked or occupied with the urgency of doing? Would strategies like repetition or echoing help?

Reference:

Mueller, Roswitha “Learning for a new society: the Lehrstück” The Cambridge Companion to Brecht: Second Edition. Thomson, Peter and Sacks, Glendyr (eds.) Cambridge; New York, 2006. 101-117.