Abstract
ABSTRACT The seeming contradictions in Edward Gordon Craig's theatrical thought can be solved if they are approached as a pragmatic construct that takes the form of a concentric system that revolves around mystic contemplation, and each layer of which is a more or less remote surrogate of such contemplation. By detailing each of these layers in its relation to the core of that concentric system, the paper eventually proposes an overall synthesis of the aesthetics of Craig's experimentations.
Highlights
That “inner consistency” struck me, when I was in charge of the Edward Gordon Craig Collection in Paris, from 2006 to 2009, as a hallmark of Craig’s contribution to the theater; and even more so than Craig’s so-called contradictions
For times after humankind, as the term posthumanistic implies, but a scene that reminds us of times before humankind stepped down from its state of Innocence. That such a scene had a mystical significance for Craig is made quite clear in the notes that he jotted down on his copy of Serlio’s book, and in the scripts that he wrote with the intention of having them performed by his kinetic stage, once he had built it – which, as readers know, Patrick Le Boeuf - Gordon Craig’s Self-Contradictions Brazilian Journal on Presence Studies, Porto Alegre, v. 4, n. 3, p. 401-424, Sept./Dec. 2014
Dismissing entirely the religious aspects of Craig’s aesthetics and theatrical thought, and ignoring altogether their close relationship to similar currents of Modernism, represents, in my opinion, the best means not to understand Craig – the same way as ignoring the relation of Modernism to the sacred represents the best means to fail to fully understand Modernism
Summary
Craig made only two attempts to tread the slippery ground of the commercial theater: once in 1908-1909, when he planned to collaborate with Herbert Beerbohm Tree on a production of Macbeth in London, and the second time in 1928, when he designed the sets for Douglas Ross’s production of Macbeth (again) in Philadelphia and New York. In 1928, when Craig accepted to design his “[...] only American production,” as Paul Sheren labeled it (Sheren, 1968, n.p.), it was merely in order to earn a living: “[...] all he wanted was the money. When he signed his drawings ‘C.pb’ he confidently imagined that posterity would realize that his work was to be excused because it was a ‘Craig-potboiler’” When he signed his drawings ‘C.pb’ he confidently imagined that posterity would realize that his work was to be excused because it was a ‘Craig-potboiler’” (Craig, 1985, p. 330)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
