| |
|
 |
| |
|
What is W?
W is a collective research project on the theatrical act, led by Joris Lacoste and Jeanne Revel. W’s principle question is the following: how is one to act while others are watching? To respond, W developed three interconnected approaches: - the W theory: a study of theatrical representation - the W method: a toolbox for the actor - the W critique: an analytical practice for the viewer.
W Theory sets out to replace theater’s often murky, equivocal and metaphorical language with a lexicon that is as clear, unified and literal as possible. It is as much about creating tools to improve, accelerate and optimize the collective creative process, as it is about minimizing the power phenomena and / or conflicts brought on by the limitations of communication between the different agents of a project. W Theory is therefore above all naming game. It begins by defining the performance as the relationship between those who act and those who watch. Starting with this simple axiom, it develops an ensemble of ideas that are precisely defined and articulated in relation to one another: these articulations constitute its entire theoretical dimension.
W Method tries to provide the actor (thespian, dancer, or performer) with tools and techniques for how to act in a performance setting. W Method begins by unburdening the actor of the responsibility of producing meaning at the moment of action: the work of the W actor consists solely in carrying out actions as rigorously as possible. In other words, according to a whole array of rules and criteria: imminent criteria, designed to help him find the most appropriate action in a given situation, and syntactic rules allowing him, by successive stages, to articulate his actions in such a way as to transform the situation by increasing his own power and that of the spectator. He thus increases, respectively, the quantity of action of which he’s capable and the quantity of possible fiction generated by the show.
W Critique, on the other hand, strives to give the spectator back the task of producing meaning based on what he observed (rather than decoding something that was there à priori). With W, the performance has an even greater fictional potential because it offers the person watching the largest number of possible meanings of what he sees. By proposing simple but precise protocols for observing and interpreting, W Critique attempts to redefine the experience of “receiving” by reducing the possible meanings of the performance.
|
|
|
 |
|
