| dc.description.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. | en_US |
