Пример готовой дипломной работы по предмету: Языки (переводы)
Содержание
Содержание
Введение 2
Глава
1. Абсурд как способ отражения действительности в творчестве Николая Гоголя и Уильяма Кентриджа 7
1.1 Абсурд как движущая сила сюжета в повести Н.В. Гоголя «Нос» 7
1.2 Развитие движущей силы абсурда повести «Нос» в постановке Уильяма Кентриджа 14
Глава
2. Расширение выразительных возможностей абсурда повести Гоголя в операх Шостаковича и Кентриджа 17
2.1 Опера Дмитрия Шостаковича «Нос» как поиск новой формы выражения абсурда повести 17
2.2 Опера Уильяма Кентриджа как продолжение поиска новых выразительных средств в трактовке повести 30
Глава 3. Постановка оперы «Нос» Уильяма Кентриджа как очередной этап эволюции выразительных средств театра асбурда 33
3.1 Особенности творчества Уильяма Кентриджа как художника авангардиста 33
3.2 Уильям Кентридж как режиссер театра абсурда и его постановки 37
3.2 Новаторство Уильяма Кентриджа в трактовке мира абсурда повести «Нос» 46
Заключение 52
Список литературы 55
Приложение 59
Выдержка из текста
Введение
Yet, even considering these things; even conceding this, that, and the other (for where are not incongruities found at times?) there may have, after all, been something in the affair. For no matter what folk say to the contrary, such affairs do happen in this world — rarely of course, yet none the less really.
N. Gogol, ‘The Nose’
For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity.
Francis Bacon, ‘Of Boldness’
The year 2010 was very special for the South African artist William Kentridge. According to the Gallery Met, the Metropolitan Opera art space, director Dodie Kazanjian it happens very rarely that an artist has a chance to have his exhibition at the MOMA and stage a performace at the Metropolitan Opera . In fact Kentridge had three events in New York held at the same time. Apart from his big retrospective show at the MOMA and the staging of ‘The Nose’ for the Metropolitan Opera he also had an exhibition at the Gallery Met. The title of the exhibition, devoted to ‘The Nose’ opera production, was Ad Hoc, which means ‘for this’ in Latin. Coincidently inside the Cyrillic language zone the ‘Hoc’ writing means the ‘nose’.
When contemporary artist acquires the role of the director of the opera at one of the main theatrical stages it is always an extraordinary example of the cross-disciplinary practice. There are some other interesting cases when artists were involved in the opera productions. Anish Kapoor executed the set-design for the ‘Pelléas et mélisande’ at Brussels De Munt theatre in 2008 and for the ‘Parsifal’ production at De Nederlandse Opera in 2012. David Hockney designed the setting and costumes for the various operas, including ‘Tristan und Isolde’ and ‘The Magic Flute’. What distinguishes Kentridge’s practice from those of other artists is the fact that he was the one to suggest the novel and the opera for the production and executed the direction as well as the set-design. Kentridge was initially approached by the Metropolitan Opera to stage Verdi’s ‘Attila’ alongside the famous conductor and music director Riccardo Muti, but he refused the offer, which has been later produced by the director Pierre Audi with Herzog & de Meuron and Miuccia Prada. Instead he suggested to stage ‘The Nose’ based on the short story by the famous Russian writer of the 19th century Nikolai Gogol, written in 1836, and ‘The Nose’ opera of the Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich, produced in 1927-1928. The Metropolitan Opera invited the director of the Mariinsky theater in Saint-Petersburg, internationally acclaimed conductor Valeriy Gergiev, for the musical production. He has always been promoting the work of Shostakovich and already staged ‘The Nose’ in Mariinsky theater a few years before.
Kentridge’s courage and confidence to propose an opera production to the Metropolitan Opera relates to his deep interest in the world of literature and theatrical practices, which comes from and academic background. After earning a degree in Politics and African Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand he studied Fine Arts at the Johannesburg Art Foundation. In the early 80s Kentridge went to Paris to study mime and theater at the L'École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq, a famous physical theater with an emphasis on the body, movement and space as entry point in theatrical performance. He hoped to become an actor but admitted later that he was fortunate to discover at a theater school that he “was so bad an actor [… that]
I was reduced to an artist, and I made my peace with it." After coming back from Paris he played an active role in the Johannesburg's Junction Avenue Theatre Company. ‘The Nose’ wasn’t the first opera production for Kentridge, he previously staged the venetian period operas of Monteverdi – ‘The return of Ulysses to his Homeland’ and ‘The Coronation of Poppea’ – and Mozart’s ‘The Magic flute’.
Kentridge’s first encounter with Gogol’s ‘The Nose’ was on board of the plane. He bought Gogol’s short stories at the airport bookshop as it was on his carefully updated reading list. The ten page absurd story, that another famous Russian writer Anton Chekhov described as the greatest short story ever written, fascinated the artist. The plot line is very simple, it’s a story of a man who wakes up one morning and finds that his nose has gone. The short story by Gogol and the opera of Shostakovich both follow the fortunes of the collegiate assessor Kovalev who tries to track down his nose. And eventually when he finds his nose to his horror he discovers that his nose is now the higher bureaucratic ranking than he is and his nose refuses to speak to him. Dmitri Shostakovich introduced the premises of Russian avant-garde in music in the late 20s with his first opera ‘The Nose’ when he was only 22 years old. This opera predefined many of the key features of the western-European musical avant-garde of the 50s and 60s, including micropolyphony, pointillism, etc. The period of 20-30s is crucial for the cultural shift , which happened after the communist revolution in 1917 and lasted until Stalin’s politics of the big terror was initiated in the late 30s.
What interests Kentridge in ‘The Nose’ of Gogol as well as the Shostakovich’s one is the idea of absurdity, which each of them sees and treats through various perspectives. Kentridge absorbs their perceptions of this category and selectively combines in his production, simultaneously introducing new details. Absurdity here gives a possible way to understanding the reality, exaggerating it to the certain extent in order to reveal something genuine in existence. Kentridge’s version of ‘The Nose’ does not give any clear answer whether it is a tragedy or a comedy or the way of dealing with social cataclysms. In fact he seems to be very honest with the viewer and assumes he doesn’t know the answer himself. He shows absurdity in its self-reflection and takes it very seriously. The artist is introducing the category of learning, learning from the absurd, as he believes that the absurd maintains the appropriate representation of the world.
It is important to set several main definitions and categories of the absurd that will be used throughout the dissertation to analyze and study the works of Gogol, Shostakovich and Kentridge. The thin red line of ‘The Nose’ production is the absurdity in political and social life and the ‘terror of hierarchy’ as Kentridge delineates it. The novel and the opera offer an ideal terrain for Kentridge's interests in the hierarchy and bureaucracy, conflicts, loss and reconciliation. Kentridge was born in the family of the Lithuanian-Jewish immigrants. His grandfather as well as his father were famous layers who took on civil rights cases against apartheid. He spent a lifetime in South Africa witnessing the brutality of the political and social systems and the aftermath of the apartheid. This is the absurdity of crazy logic, the despair of functioning in a violent and uncertain world, the category that all three authors introduce and interpret in their works. Another angle to look at the absurdity is certainly the one of a physical and mental sense. The idea of a man loosing his nose represents the physical disability, but also can be examined from the psychological point of view. Loosing ones nose can be read as loosing an important constituent of the person. In this sense ‘The Nose’ introduces the idea of solidness of a human being. This absurdity questions if we are singular and coherent or divided inside ourselves.
One of the most relevant to Shostakovich and Kentridge view on the absurdity is offered through the prism of the OBERIU, the Union of the Real Art, which introduced the anthology of the Russian absurdism in 1928. This highly influential literary, music and artistic movement was often called the last of the Russian avant-garde and also the instance of Absurdism in Russia. It was founded by Alexander Vvedensky, Daniil Kharms, and Nikolai Zabolotsky – writers who belonged to the first generation of writers to come after the October Revolution. Their practice was based on destroying the semantic coherence and linguistic realism. OBERIU members created various forms and genres of inventive texts, provocative nonsensical performances and theatrical representations. Their performances took places in various locations including university auditoriums, dormitories and prisons. OBERIU actions were perceived as ‘literary hooliganism’ and many of its associates were arrested. Daniil Kharms verse, poetry and staging influenced William Kentridge and he used it for one of his post-opera performances ‘Telegrams from the Nose’. Kharms also foreshadowed the European movement of the Theater of the Absurd.
The Theater of the Absurd sets another prism through which William Kentridge’s production of ‘The Nose’ can be analyzed. Kentridge’s theatrical practice and academic background in the Parisian university seem to have infused his view on the opera production with the ideas of the Theater of the Absurd. Kentridge’s famous works about Ubu — ‘Ubu Tells the Truth’ and ‘Ubu and the Truth Commission’ — were based on the very famous play of 1896 ‘Ubu Roi’ by Alfred Jarry, who is considered one of the most important precursors of the Theater of the Absurd movement. The plot of the plays staged within this theatrical movement often revolved around unexplained metamorphosis, a supernatural change, or a shift in the laws of physics. Characters in Absurdist drama face the chaos of a world that science and logic have abandoned.
In this dissertation I would like to trace the absurdity and its variations in all three versions of ‘The Nose’, identify the definition and the meaning of the absurdity in each case and try to understand why Kentridge is putting so much emphasis on the absurd to communicate with the audience. I’m interested in defining what William Kentridge is learning from the absurd himself and what he is trying to make us learn through it by constructing absurdist multi-layered structures in the cross-disciplinary production of ‘The Nose’.
Список использованной литературы
Список литературы
1. Абсурд и вокруг: Сб. статей / Отв. ред. О. Буренина. — М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004, с. 7-72.
2. Акопян Л.О. Дмитрий Шостакович: Опыт феноменологии творчества. — СПб., 2004.
3. Алтынов П.И. «Петербургские повести», Ленинград: «Детская литература», 1978., с . 27
4. Анненский И. О формах фантастического у Гоголя, — М.: Наука, 1979.
5. Афанасьев Э.С. О художественности Н.В. Гоголя « Нос »// Литература в школе, 2004 № 4, С.13-14
6. Базилевский. А.Б. Художественный ориентиры зарубежной литературы XX века.// М. — ИМЛИ РАН — 2002 год.
7. Белинский В.Г. Полное собрание сочинений, — М.: Академия наук СССР в 10 т., 1981г.
8. Богомолов Н.А. Заметки о русском модернизме //Новое литературное обозрение. 1997. № 24. С. 246— 255.
9. Богданова А. Оперный театр Шостаковича. М. 2006 г.
10. Большая Российская энциклопедия: В 30 т. / Председатель науч.-ред. совета Ю. С. Осипов. Отв. ред С. Л. Кравец. Т. 1. А — Анкетирование. — М.: Большая Российская энциклопедия, 2005. — 766 с.
11. Брагина Н.Н. Н.В.Гоголь: Симфония прозы. Иваново. 2007.
12. Буренина О.Д. Символистский абсурд и его традиции в русской литературе и культуре ХХ века. — СПб.: Алетейя, 2005, 332 с.
13. Буренина О.Д. Quia absurdum… // Die Welt der Slaven, XLIV 2000.5. 173-198.
14. Бурков И.А. Николай Гоголь, — М.:Просвящение, 1989.
15. Великовский С. Мифология абсурда//Лит. газета. № 72.
1. июня 1960.
16. Вдовиченко О. В., Культурфилософский контекст абсурда в художественном сознании России рубежа XX — XXI вв. : на материале творчества В. Пелевина, Д. Липскерова : диссертация … кандидата культурологи.- Саранск, 2009.- 170 с.
17. Гальцова Е.Д. Сюрреализм и театр. К вопросу о театральной эстетике французского сюрреализма (М.: РГГУ, 2012)
18. Иткулов С. З., Нонсенс и гротеск как формы смысла в художественной картине мира Н. В. Гоголя. Автореферат. Шуя – 2009. — 22 с.
19. Дрозд Б.Д., Уроки Анализа литературного произведения. – Ростов н/Д: Феникс, 2008. – 248 с.
20. Кинематическая графика Уильяма Кентриджа [Электронный ресурс]
– Режим доступа: http://botinok.co.il/node/73002
21. Клюев Е. В. Теория литературы абсурда. М.: УРАО, 2000.
22. Левая Т. Хармс и Шостакович: несостоявшееся сотрудничество // Хармсиздат представляет. Сб. материалов. — СПб., 1995.
23. Машинский С. Н.В. Гоголь в русской критике и воспоминаниях современниках. М.: Просвещение, 2005. -367 с.
24. Набоков В.В., Николай Гоголь//Лекции по русской литературе: Чехов, Достоевский, Гоголь, Горький, Толстой, Тургенев — М.: Независимая Газета, 1999, С. 31— 134
25. «Нос». Опера в 3-х актах по Н. В. Гоголю. 15-е сочинение Д. Шостаковича. — Л.: Государственный Малый оперный театр, 1930, с. 4.
26. Огурцов А. П., Абсурд // Новая философская энциклопедия. В 4 т. Т. 1. // Под ред. акад. B.C. Степина. М: Мысль, 2000. С. 21
27. Савенко С. Слово Шостаковича // Д.Д.Шостакович: Сборник статей к 90-летию со дня рождения / Ред. сост. Л.Ковнацкая. СПб., 1996 (в англ. переводе: Shostakovich’s Literary Style // Shostakovich in Context / Ed. by R.Bartlett. Oxford University Press, 2000).
28. Сигов С. Истоки поэтики ОБЭРИУ//Russian Literature.Vol. XX. 1986. C. 87-95.
29. Стафецкая М., Феномен абсурда / М.Стафецкая // «Мысль изреченная…»: Сб. науч. ст. / АН СССР, Ин-т филос. – М., 1991. – С.139-146.
30. Сумарова И.Р. Незнакомый Гоголь, — М.: Высшая школа, 2000. – 197с.
31. Тараканов М. История современной отечественной музыки: Учебник. Выпуск 1. — М.: Музыка, 2005.
32. Театр абсурда: Сборник статей и публикаций. – СПб., 2005., с. 11
33. Федоров Г. Вокруг и после «Носа» // Советская музыка, № 9, 1976.
34. Чернорицкая О.Л., Поэтика абсурда Т.
1. Классика. Вологда, 2001. – с.126
35. Чухров К. Бессмыслица как инструмент возвышения // Новое литературное обозрение, № 69, 2004.
36. Шостакович Д. К премьере «Носа». — Рабочий и театр, 1929, № 24
37. Шостакович Почему «Нос»? // Рабочий и театр. — СПб., 1930. № 3
38. Эйхенбаум Б. Как сделана «Шинель» Гоголя // О прозе. О поэзии: Сб. ст. Л.: Худож. лит. Ленингр. отд-ние, 1986. С. 45-63
39. Ящук И.П. Русская литература, — М.: Гардарика, 2000. – 596с.
40. Azarmi А. А. The Theatre ofthe Absurd: A Study of Communication. United States Univ., 1970.
41. Bosquet А. А. Capitaine de l'absurde. Paris: Le cherche midi editeur, 1990.
42. Cartledge В. Aristophanes and his Theatre of the Absurd. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1990.
43. Calvin Tomkins, "Lines of Resistance: William Kentridge 's Rough Magic," The New Yorker (January 18, 2010) Video materials
44. Gibian G. (ed. and transl.).
Russia's Lost Literature of the Absurd: A Literary Discovery: Selected Works of Daniil Kharms and Alexander Vvedensky. Ithaca; London, 1971.
45. Lodge D. Working with Structuralism: Essays and Reviews on nineteenth-and twentieth Century Literature. Boston; London; Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.
46. Michalski М. Slobodan Pesic's film «Slucaj Harms» and Kharms's Sluchai // N. Comwell (ed.).
Daniil Kharms and the Poetics of the Absurd: Essays and Materials. London: Univ. of London, 1991. P.123-131.
47. Matthew Gurewitsch, "As Plain as the Nose on his Stage," The New York Times (February 28, 2010)
48. Maria Gough, Kentridge’s Nose, October magazine (134, 2010)William Kentridge, I Am Not Me, The Horse Is Not Mine, a theatrical monologue published in October magazine (2008)
49. Martin Esslin, The Theatre of the Absurd (Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1962)
50. Martin Esslin, Absurd Drama (Penguin, 1965)
51. Roberts. The Last Soviet Avant-Garde: Oberiu — fact, fiction, metafiction. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.
52. LEARNING FROM THE ABSURD: A Conversation with William Kentridge, New York Public Library http://www.nypl.org/events/programs/2010/03/12/william-kentridge-paul-holdengraber.
53. Nose production interview http://artforum.com/video/id=24967&mode=large&page_id=7
54. Picture This: A Nose on the Loose: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/arts/music/08nose.html ?_r=0
55. William Kentridge Nose [Электронный ресурс]
– Режим доступа: http://www.davidkrutpublishing.com/11070/william-kentridge-nose
