• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    The old drama and the new: conceptions of the nature of the theatrical experience in the work of William Archer, G.B. Shaw, W.B. Yeats, E.G. Craig and H. Granville-Barker. 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • The old drama and the new: conceptions of the nature of the theatrical experience in the work of William Archer, G.B. Shaw, W.B. Yeats, E.G. Craig and H. Granville-Barker.
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • The old drama and the new: conceptions of the nature of the theatrical experience in the work of William Archer, G.B. Shaw, W.B. Yeats, E.G. Craig and H. Granville-Barker.
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    The old drama and the new: conceptions of the nature of the theatrical experience in the work of William Archer, G.B. Shaw, W.B. Yeats, E.G. Craig and H. Granville-Barker.

    View/Open
    ARRELLTheOld1976_vol1.pdf (18.40Mb)
    ARRELLTheOld1976_vol2.pdf (17.55Mb)
    Publisher
    Queen Mary University of London
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Two opposing philosophical outlooks can be discerned in the thought of the men discussed in this dissertation.. The humanist view, associated with Archer and Barker, sees life as centred solely on man; the religious thinkers, Yeats and Craig, are concerned with man's relationship with a power beyond himself. Shaw is unique in his advocacy of contradictory elements from both philosophies. The humanist thinkers are concerned in art with the communication of information about man; those of the religious party value an indescribable experience communicated by artistic symbols. These two kinds of communication can perhaps be seen in the English theatre of the nineteenth century; the theatre of the early part of the century made use of a traditional language of theatrical symbols, while the later theatres of Irving and the Bancrofts abandoned tradition in favour of new "realistic" portrayals of society and human psychology. Archer illustrates the humanist approach to art in his concern for the moral and psychological information conveyed by the play. In his humanist guise, Shaw emphasizes the need for drama to convey new social and philosophical ideas. For Barker, drama conveys, through the medium of the actor, a special kind of "subjective" truth. Each of the religious theorists seeks symbolic value in a different facet of the theatrical performance;, for Yeats, the religious communication is achieved by the traditional symbols of poetry; for Shaw, in his religious guise, the performer is the prime source of symbolic value; for Craig, purely visual symbols of natural process provide a glimpse of a world untainted by man's egotism. The theories are open to criticism. The humanist theories seem to deny the value of artistic form, while the religious theories seem to seek form without content. All the theories seem to show insufficient respect for the laws of audience psychology.
    Authors
    Arrell, Douglas Harrison
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/1362
    Collections
    • Theses [3321]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.