BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Theater and shamanism

 
 
Skeleton Camera
19:48 / 06.04.04
Forewarnings: 1) this may be more appropriate to another area, but I doubt it. 2) I attend an art school.

I'm extremely imaginative, for starts. That imagination has made me very theatrical, starting from a very young age. This became problematic only recently, for at some point in adolesence the theatricality took over and I lost personal centeredness. It's not really schizophrenia but rather an imaginate glut, too many stories and ideas running around in the ol' noggin and them starting to bleed over into "actings-out" on a regular basis.

This sounds entertaining more than anything else but it's actually pretty nutty. I talk to myself a lot, voicing one or another of these imaginative characters. One of the most popular is a cranky ol' Suthuhn gennulmun, loosely inspired by Burroughs, but this guy thinks most other people are "sketch ollll' beasts." Each of these creations create psychic ripples, though, and so walking around judging everyone as the above, even in jest, makes me feel bad and get misanthropic and sulky.

Persona madness!, in other words. But it gets more subtle than imaginate characters. I've been confronted on this a few times, on taking theatrical command of situations in order to lead them where I wish. This is powerful, but needs to be directed by Will, not by a fear or aversion or needs for safety. It has, until now, been all the latter.

And yet to speak to anyone about it (remember: this is art school) they say that part and parcel of art and modern Western life is this theatricality. Re: simulacra, personae, multi-personalities, so on so forth. It's a powerful thing to be so aware of, I'm told. Great.

But it creates dishonesty and hurts people. A few close friends of mine have been alienated and wounded by knowing only one part, one personal facet. So I seek to recticfy the situation somehow, which got me thinking about theater as a phenomenon.

Theater had its origins in shamanic practices, in ritual, and in possession: literally acting out. With a certain point in history - was it the Greeks? the Elizabethans? I need to study more - at this point in history, theater became conscious of the audience/stage separation. Drama, impersonation, etc. Flash to Debord's spectacles. Shamanic ritual is a spectacle too, no need to avoid the spectacle. But there is a need to check what goes on behind it.
I'm familiar with The Birth of Tragedy and less familiar with Artaud. (If anyone has links to his texts...) But I feel that, pursuing these lines, theater and my personal theatricality can be redeemed (or consolidated, made whole) through its shamanic possibilities. Call it personal quest for the HGA, the Self, the Director.
 
 
---
21:57 / 06.04.04
Well i'm no expert in Shamanism, i'm still researching it but here's a few links i've got on it so far, maybe you'll find some stuff here that will be of help before you get books on it or advice or whatever your doing :

Foundation for Shamanic Studies
Shamanism Texts
Shamanism WebRing
Shamans and Shamanism
 
 
illmatic
07:12 / 07.04.04
I think this is a potentially really interesting thread, though I'm not quite sure where you want it to go Seamus? Any direction you want to take it in?

You should defintely get hold of a copy of Keith Johnstone's book Impro. Should be on the shelf of any budding mage, I think. It stems from Johnstone's work in improvised drama as well as his experiences as a school teacher. There's a fascinating section on maskwork which makes explict the parallels between this and possesion, as it would occur in shamanic contexts. There's lots of great material on visualisation, spontaneity and staus games as well.

After reading about the way "archetypal" experiences seemed to find their way through into his drama classes, I wonder if some kind of possession phenomena isn't hardwired into us? It doesn't have to be rolling around on the floor, foaming at the mouth either, perhaps we could see possession as a more subtle thing, any circumstance in which the interior dialogue begins to diminish and we lose our self consciousness a little, get out the way of ourselves.

On an experiential note, I've experiemented a little with assuming character types in day to day life, "acting out" certain characteristics that are at variance with how I normally am. Its interesting, found it became self-perpuating after a while, though I haven't experiemented with this stuff nearly enough as I'd like to. This most intersting thing about this is it critques the way you normally are - you begin to see this as a bit of a habit as well, and perhaps you can unlearn bits of it. Anyone else have any related experiences?
 
 
Seth
13:01 / 07.04.04
Please correct my summary if it doesn’t match your experience: it reads as though you have an extremely powerful talent to project different facets of your personality and creativity, and you want to bring a greater understanding of this into you life, as well as having a more stable base state which is more like your ideal self.

There’s a very easy questioning technique to do the latter (finding the stable base that is your ideal self, that is). I’d recommend trying this with a second person (someone you trust) asking the questions, as long as they’ll do you the service of sticking exactly to how the questions are worded. Change the wording, change the result.

I’d suggest running the exercise in three parts:

Part 1

- Identify five emotions that you are likely to experience in any given week. They have to occur with that kind of regularity, you’ll see why in the next step.

Identify five specific instances in the last week when you felt each of the five emotions strongly. Sometimes it’ll be the same set of circumstances that will bring up a range of emotions, so you don’t have to have one separate instance for each emotion. If it helps, relive the situation and its associated emotional state, paying particular attention to what you see, hear and feel (and maybe taste and smell, too) – it’s especially fun to do this with happy memories. Then run through these questions, in this order, using this exact wording:

1. In that situation, what were you ______ about? (Fill in the blank with the emotion, ie: …what were you angry about?)

2. What is significant about ______? (Fill in the blank with whatever answer was given in response to question 1, using the exact wording that was used in response to question 1)

3. Why or how does ______ matter? (Fill in the blank with whatever answer was given in response to question 2, using the exact wording that was used in response to question 2)

To give a rationale for how this works: our emotions give us vital feedback about things that are important to us and our identities. These questions will probe into specific instances that elicit those emotional states, getting to the bottom of exactly why it’s important. When I ran through this exercise I asked the questioner to write down my answers (using the exact words I’d used) and the information about me that was revealed was pretty central to how I view myself and my identity. And yes, you can ask these questions week after week and get progressively varying results, because we’re all identity configurations in constant flux. The more you do it, the more you get to know yourself.

Part 2

Straight into questions this time. Again, it’s very important to use the exact wording (even if the wording sounds strange or badly phrased when you insert material from a previous answer), and to get the answers recorded, too. Recording with a dictaphone and then transcribing it is certainly worth the effort.

1. What are you always caring about?

2. What are you always trying to achieve regarding ______? (Fill in the blank with whatever answer was given in response to question 1, using the exact wording that was used in response to question 1)

3a. How do you go about doing ______?

3b. What does ______ mean for you?

(Questions 3a and 3b are pretty interchangeable. Fill in the blanks in accordance with whichever questions you asked immediately beforehand, or even backtrack and fill in both with the answer to question 2)

4. How is ______ and expression of who you are? or, How is this an expression of you?

By using the universal quantifier *always* you’re going to be sorting through your experience to find the things that matter to you the most, the structure than underpins your model of the world. Your answers will say a great deal about your core identity. There’s no reason to just run through this once, you can always begin over by saying, “What else are you always caring about?”

When both Part 1 and Part 2 have been done, do some contrastive analysis. Explore your answers to see how the results from the two exercises are similar and different, and perhaps even start sorting the information to see if it naturally falls into categories that seem right to you. If you want to give the categories a name or a symbol, feel free to use whatever you want, as long as it’s yours and you feel happy with it. Know that it can change again later, anyway.

Part 3

This is where things become really interesting, in exploring the relationship that these projected characters and personalities have with your core identity. You might already have found that connections are apparent even after having run through Parts 1 and 2.

There’s all sorts of ways you can do this. You could run Part 1 and Part 2 for each facet in turn, then compare the results to each other, and then finally for the version of you that isn’t acting out these characters. You could describe each character in detail, their physiology, sensory experience (what they see, hear, feel, etc), thought patterns, emotional state, even their histories, and see how this relates to you. You could run Part 1, only substituting instances in which you feel specific emotions for instances in which you manifest each different persona. Or you may find that you’re so comfortable with the identity mapping you got from Parts 1 and 2 that you don’t even feel the need to investigate further and do Part 3. You’re a creative person, I bet you can think of tons of other ideas.

The key to this process is to explore slowly, by stages. Maybe only do Part 1 in a day, then come back and do the rest later. Give yourself time to process each stage, don’t let your conscious mind race to find answers, because the important answers will come in their own time. And trust yourself. If you feel this kind of exploration isn’t helpful, then don’t do it. If you get that kind of objection, then ask the part of you that’s objecting, “What is your positive intention in raising this objection.” It’ll give you interesting answers, and you can always negotiate with yourself to get permission to do the exercises, even if you state it as, “Well, shall we just pretend to do it and we can see what things are like afterwards?” You can always do it later, but I’d trust yourself if any part of you doesn’t want to do it.

It’s fun to do this kind of stuff, but remember: none of it is necessarily true. Treat it as concepts, ideas and values at play. Enjoy it but understand that these things are ephemeral, you’re nailing jelly to a wall with a particularly well adapted nailgun. Have fun!
 
 
Seth
13:08 / 07.04.04
Oh, and my recommendations on Shamanism: research won't get you very far. Experience it, journal it, but don't pretend for a second that your journal accounts are anything like the experience. You might pick up some interesting ideas and mythological stuff through research, but it sounds like you already have a working means of achieving embodiment, ecstactic states and spiritual theatre. Explore your experience, read the academics if you feel there are specific things that you need to have explained.
 
 
Skeleton Camera
01:15 / 08.04.04
WOW. Thank you tremendously for those extensive responses! (And thanks, ZM, for the shamanism links)
I agree with Seth's summary of the situation, particularly the stability/ideal self goal. That's the main one - to rein these in as is needed.
I'll have to sit down with someone and try the various self-analytic exercises. Those sound like great help in mapping the various personas.
More on all this later, greater detail. But for now THANKS!
 
 
Skeleton Camera
16:19 / 08.04.04
Ok, so more detail...

Seth's summary of what I'm describing is very accurate. If you take Morrison's idea of multiple personalities as a lifestyle option, that only works if you have them hinged on a center, if you're able to pick and choose which personality works for which situation. Or, perhaps, if you're aware enough to catch each personality coming up and then either allow it function or stop it.
Right now it's as if I'm keeping the lid on the whole pot. One dominant personality keeps the others in check, even though that dominant one is a coordinator of the others rather than a personality in and of itself. I don't think this coordinator is much good right now. It's certainly not the ideal Self. More like an overworked parent of 10 children, or in keeping with the ideas of theater, a director who can't manage a damn thing on stage.

The theater-shamanism connection interests me because shamanism seems to be a "way in" to these various personalities. I've dealt with one big one via magic - a demon of paranoia and paralysis - and assimilated it into my greater being. Now to do that with all the others?

Most of my education to this point, re: magical matters, or self-changing work, has been a strange amalgam of Taoism, Buddhism, Wicca and personal Chaos stuff. So my approach is usually one of seeking a center, trying to find the eye of the storm - a Self that is even beyond the director. This has borne fruit, many times, but is not a constant. Which may just mean more work at it.

But there's another draw right now, which is to do the reverse. To plunge into the storm. I'm not schizophrenic because I'm never dominated by one personality. It's always the director in dialogue with, say, the Burroughsian character. But I don't like that guy much and don't have much desire to embrace that facet. I've been cynical and judgemental long enough. If anything he's old and outdated, a nagging personality from earlier days.
Exorcism then?

And there's the question of HONESTY. This is a big one. Is honesty being true to whichever situation arises, or is honesty truth to that core Self? The theater of everyday life hinges on this question, as does the need to "redeem" or somehow transform that theater. I believe (now at least) that honesty is truth from the Self, strong truth. And so to reach that Self, and bring it into the everyday, is a shamanic process rather than a theatrical one.
 
 
Skeleton Camera
02:29 / 24.04.04
This looks interesting...

http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/rit_vtheatre.html

The Theater of Voodoo. Ring any bells?
 
 
Sobek
18:51 / 25.04.04

I have been thinking about this sort of thing recently and am going to be doing an action before a concert on 4/30. I made a couple of masks and the "script" is 66.6% derived from cut-ups (of Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto, Bey's CHAOS and HOLLOW EARTH, the biblical description of the "New Jerusalem" and Morrison's AND WE'RE ALL POLICEMEN...). Mostly it will just be a reading, low-key, but I will try to lightly embody some of the ideas. I have been advertizing it as a mix of Shamanic ritual and Surrealist theater.

I want to do some more intense works in the future, though. In another thread, I mentioned getting into Alli's paratheatrical research, and thanks for the book recommendation above.

I remember a quote from Genesis P-Orridge from a long time ago, I think TG-era, where he said that everything that he had associated with the context of ART he was now associating with the context of MAGICK. I think that for me, I am having kind of the reverse of that occur. Of course, the only difference between the two really is what you are emphasizing and how it is presented.
 
 
Digital Hermes
07:59 / 26.04.04
I have no idea whether or not I'm attributing correctly, but here goes:

W.B. Yeats had a cosmology that included a sort of 'God-as-stage-manager' behind the scenes, making sure everything arrived on cue. He also indicated that the world was essentially one of masks, each of us picking and choosing what works best for us at any given time, or less postively, that we grab at masks that may not be right for us, but we wear them anyway.

We can always pick new masks.

A sexy idea for me is the one of the Director. Imagine this as a little guy sitting on your shoulder. Any good theatre director does not command, but facilitates. They use their instincts to get the best performances out of the right people. In the situation you are describing, Seamus, Uncle Bill may not be right for you right now, but he may have a scene in the future. Develop a director-persona, perhaps, let him sit on the sidelines, and then listen to and trust him, since it's his job to observe, and create the best damn performance (i.e., your life) that he can.
 
 
Skeleton Camera
18:55 / 28.04.04
P-Orridge seems a major figure here (in this thread), as does the entire performance-art-magic-culture. Certainly his realization that ART=MAGIC is key to the idea. If one takes that equation then theater becomes more than itself, more than the convention of a staged presentation. Being in art school this becomes a crucial issue. Are you making 'art' within the art-world or commodity-economic spectra? Or are you making art for something larger? They are clearly not divisible, persay, but there are students who are intently focused on their roles within art history and the contemporary arts scene, and then there are students who are trying to explore the edges of what art is. Sometimes they blend too, of course. Focusing on something larger is not necessarily a starry-eyed idealism. And it seems to me that the magical potentials of art are, strangely enough, a very practical exploration into art's greater uses.

This has certainly been the case with performance art. This is not referring to the very self-conscious and, er, theatrical end of the genre. The other end has pushed 'performance' to the point that it is indivisible from action-at-large, or even just being alive. Which is also my understanding of magic at this point.
 
 
Digital Hermes
05:33 / 02.05.04
To run with your line, Seamus, of performance as Art, Performance as Magick, (with or without the k) there is a particular writer who seems to jump on that idea strongly.

Alan Moore. A master of acknowledging everything that might be thrown at him as a mystic, and not only taking it, but making it work for him, making it sit there and prove his point.

What's more, his way of articulating this worldview is through performances, and comics. Promethea is a comic published by ABC comics, which is owned by Wildstorm, which is owned by DC. The same company putting out a book on Batman is putting out a book on Quballah!(sp)

It's his beleif that every work of art is a work of magic. It's conceptual, it's a forming of something from nothing, it deals in the abstract and metaphorical, and what's more, undebateably (I hope) affects the world around him. Sounds like magic.

So when doing some free-writing, working on a script for a one-act situational comedy, or writing the script for a one-man performance involving numerous multiple selves, that free-writing becomes a form of summoning, or binding, of these fiction-spirits, which can upload their character qualities to your cerebellum, assuming you summon them in whatever form works for you. The moment pen hits paper, or when the foot begins touching the stage boards, the magic has a chance to start.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
11:56 / 02.05.04
Wow, I'm glad somebody bought this all up.
Recently I hit on the idea of using improv to flesh out characters I'm working on. Basically this involves assuming their name, style of speech and dress and overall identity then going into somewhere where nobody knows me (a bar I've never been to for instance or maybe a gig or movie the character might enjoy) and striking up conversations in character. Obviously this only works with certain characters, I couldn't use it with characters who are women/black/older/younger.
I find this can turn a character that has little more than a name and a loose set of traits into a fully fleshed out person on par in 'reality' terms with your own self. I've just invested in a MP3 dictaphone so I'll be able to 'wear a wire' and record it all. Potentially, with more people in on the game a story could write itself.
 
  
Add Your Reply