Journal home page 

Consciousness, Literature and the Arts

 

Volume 19 Number 2/3 August/December 2018

(Final Issue)

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

Clelia Falletti, Gabriele Sofia and Victor Jacono (eds.) Theatre and Cognitive Neuroscience. London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi, Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2016 260 pp. ISBN 978-1-350-03559-1 (paperback). 

Reviewed by

Šárka Havlíčková Kysová

Masaryk University

 

The fourth book in the series entitled „Performance and Science: Interdisciplinary dialogues“[1] focuses on various issues that cognitive neuroscience could bring to the effort of researching the field of theatrical practice. Most of the questions in the book revolve around general yet crucial topics of performing and perceiving theatre performance: most of all around the notion of performative space and spectator’s experience.   

The book is divided into four sections with four introductory chapters. The first part of the book explains theatre as a space of relationships. The topic is treated from the perspective of theory of mirror neurons (chapter 1 and 2), of motor behaviour and, more generally, of human ability to understand their behaviour in the context of theatre (Maria Alessandra Umiltà in chapter 1). The topic of perception of body presence and of extra personal space is emphasised in a chapter by Giorgia Committeri and Chiara Fini (chapter 2). The chapter focuses closely to action perception system and to processing of extra-personal space. It introduces shared action space in the context of performance and of intense bodily dialogue among the actors on the one hand, and among the actors and their audience on the other (chapter 2). In the last chapter of this section Philippe Goudar applies the cognitive approach to the circus actor performance in the attempt to answer the question “what circus actors create and offer us” (p. 44). He focusses more closely to the aesthetics of the risk. He comes to conclusion that cognitive science (by drawing on the resources of neuroscience, linguistics, cognitive psychology etc.) is more competent to answer the question than philosophical and conceptual approaches.

The second part of the book investigates spectator’s experience and the notion of “embodied theatrology” – the term treated thoroughly by Marco de Marinis in chapter four. De Marinis follows a variety of approaches to the body and corporeity from semiotics to neuroscience by clarifying the key concepts (e.g. body/flesh, corporeity, kinaesthesia, mimism/play/replay, embodied simulation) in the form of multidisciplinary glossary entries. In his “Provisional conclusions“(p. 72) the author calls for reconsidering the theatrical relationship and the spectator’s experience and for redeeming the notion of pre-interpretative reactions, the concept introduced in the 1980’s in Theatre Anthropology. In this context De Marinis refers to the notion of “motor heritage” which “affect the degree of mirror neuron activation in the spectator as he watches specialized performances (mime, dance, etc.).” (p. 73).

Chapter five presents the outcomes of empirical research focused on the proximity and co-presence in dance performance. The authors Corinne Jola and Matthew Reason make a comparison of perception of ballet and Indian dance and they analyse the effects of proximity and co-presence on sensorimotor simulation. Their experimental research deals with the question how the proximity and co-presence are experienced by the spectator. They propose that “different forms of performance invite or depend upon different forms of presence” (p. 90), while linking both notions to the kinaesthetic empathy. In this context the “proximity” can be characterized as “involving the self looking at the other, protected by the aesthetic and psychological barrier of the fourth wall”, while the ”co-presence entails the return of the gaze and, within that, the existential challenge that comes from being looked at” (p. 91). The authors come to remarkable findings about spectator’s appraisal of the performances (see p. 82-86). Antonin Artaud’s art is the object of re-examination from the perspective of cognitive approach in chapter six written by Lorraine Dumenil. The author focuses on the shared space of action, efficacy of scenic action etc.; and on Artaud’s identification of theatre with plague. In concluding paragraphs of the chapter she takes into consideration the possibility to explain the catharsis by mirror neurons theory.   

After the introduction (by Victor Jacono), part three of the book begins with thought-provoking chapter seven by John J. Schranz. The author focuses on the performer’s work and especially on the notion of performing and on its etymology. Again, with the help of mirror neurons theory, embodiment etc. he examines the actor’s performance, and various faculties the actor needs to get and to master. Chapter eight introduces the results of interdisciplinary experiment focused on actor and his “embodied language”. It is co-authored by Gabriele Sofia, Silvia Spadacenta, Clelia Falletti, and Giovanni Mirabella. The experiment includes semantic and non-semantic tasks and examines actor and non-actor responses to a variety of stimuli. In conclusion the authors provide the reader with interesting preliminary results of the experiment – regarding e.g. the linguistic ability; and they raise the crucial question how “theatre training modifies the neurobiology of action” (p. 138). The last chapter of the part three focuses on the topic of time in theatre. Luciano Mariti deals with the complex relationship between the notions of time and space, while warning against methodological mistake “to look at and think of time in spatial terms (reducing it in terms of quantities, measurements, distinctions, segments)” (p. 141). Mariti brings important remarks on a variety of notions such as “imprisoning of the analyst” (p. 142), “immaculate Perception” (p. 143), “action as heuristics” or “time as a process” (p. 145) etc. He treats the topic thoroughly in detailed context – not omitting e.g. the legacy of St. Augustine or the temporal characteristics (“everlasting now”) enacted by Peter Szondi (p. 146). In his conclusion the author emphasises that “lived time during performance, the time of live event, is a dimension that is not completely accessible to scientific analysis. The mind cannot perceive time directly and immediately, for the same reason the eye cannot observe itself.” (p. 152) As he concludes, “every analysis can only be based on spatialization” and therefore “the analysis of theatrical time remains partially beyond any form of scientific analysis” (p. 153).

Interdisciplinary perspective on applied performance is emphasised mostly in part four of the book. The leading theme of chapter ten, co-authored by Jenna Gabriel, Elisa Angevin, Tamara E. Rosen and Matthew D. Lerner, is the question of using theatrical techniques as interventions for autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The authors provide the reader with the results of their research on effect of theatre games, improvisation, collaborative co-creation, rehearsal process and performance on the cognitive faculties of people with ASD. Chapter eleven presents remarkable results on a similar topic: Nicola Modungo, Imogen Kusch and Giovanni Mirabella introduce their findings on theatre as a valuable tool for Parkinson’s Disease therapy. The chapter is based on the authors‘ three year research comparing two groups of patients: one undergoing standard rehabilitation and the other with theatre training rehabilitation. They found out the significant improvement in most of the non-motor clinical scales in the group using theatre techniques as a therapeutic tool. Last chapter of the part four also focuses on the possible therapeutic effects of theatre. Jean-Marie Pradier deals with the possible healing faculty of theatre. In tracing the therapeutic virtues of theatre he deals with the notion of katharsis and its significance (and effect) both in theatrical and clinical context. Pradier comes to conclusion that “theatre – live performance – is not therapeutic, but (...) the need to resort the practice of theatre reveals the deficiencies in both personal and social lives” (p. 198). Pradier’s finding can be seen as a sort of concluding thought of the book since there is no summary or afterword which would sum up the key ideas of all chapters. Should we consider Pradier’s thought as the key message of the book as a whole?

In the book, the reader finds a content corresponding to the book’s title. The book can be seen as an inspiring endeavour of merging at least two disciplines: cognitive neuroscience and theatre studies. All twelve chapters deal with interconnected topics, though some themes seem to be rather specific or distant, the connection with the key concept of the book becomes apparent. The book provides a reader with a well-written introduction to the topics that represent vital issues emerging from the fusion of contemporary theatre theory and cognitive neuroscience. Some key concepts and ideas, e.g. the mirror neurons theory, are applied by more authors in connection with the topics of their contributions. The notion of mirror neurons supports the analysis in several chapters in different contexts, and in connection with various components of theatre practice. Moreover, the crucial topics of theatre and theatre studies, e.g. the topic of time (and space) in theatre, some particular aspects of temporal perception, shared space of action, action space etc. are treated in the book in an in-depth and thorough way. The authors often reflect upon the fact that theatre often enters the public or social space. And above all, the cognitive neuroscience approach proves to be a useful tool for examining actor’s and spectator’s faculties and related issues of researching the application of theatrical methods in health care.

However, I lack in the book a chapter touching upon the cognitive neuroscience as a tool of performance analysis. Some topics treated in the book would require much more space (if not a whole book) to provide a reader with deeper and more elaborate analysis (e.g. the topics in chapters five, six or eight). From this point of view, the concept of the book raises some questions: it can be seen as a set of more or less independent studies on particular topics rather than a set of chapters in a coherent and thematically focused monograph. Anyway, the concept of the book as a set of particular studies is acceptable and understandable for the fusion of cognitive neuroscience with theatre studies is rather recent. Moreover, the introductory texts at the beginning of each of four parts of the book can be seen as significant contributions not only to the development of relevant research topics, but also to the thematic coherence of the book itself. All but one are authored by the editors of the book.[2]

As a theatre studies scholar, I find the book a highly inspiring treatise for theatre studies experts and also for theatre practitioners. Experts from other fields, e.g. from the domain of psychiatric therapy, can perhaps also find many inspiring ideas in the book, though this is not easy for me to ascertain.