Blogs

http://laughingsquid.com/the-dramatic-reunion-of-performance-artists-marina-abramovic-ulay/

After watching the show of 17 Boarder Crossing, I am curious about whether the experiences are real? I think so, because the stories the actor acted were detailed and vivid.

Thinking of the denifinition of Deep Play, I feel like that such experiences themselves are common play, but when they were acted as a show, they could be considered as a  kind of deep play, because they were expressed with clear topics and became to have art value.

17 Boarder Crossings meets the ideal of "the live creatures" in that it's drawn from everyday life, and is in interaction with the nature. The artist finds aesthetic pleasure in the "vulgar", enjoys the problems and creates an order in the seemingly chaotic 17 crossings. Some say it has political meaning and despises the boarders that men set. But using "communist" as a way to curse and mocking small languages seem offensive rather than harmonious and unifying.

I think 17 Border Crossings had the greatest potential for deep play at the end when Pablo was crossing. That moment was not meant to make us laugh, but to have us be internally emotional. Everything else in the play felt more like examples that were humorous critical play. I think a lot of the time critical play leads to deep play and the live creature. The live creature almost seems like the emotional side of critical play, in that the live creature has more to do with being aware about the facts in your surroundings. Then deep play seems like you are more aware through emotions than facts.

I really enjoyed 17 Border Crossings and was impressed with how well Thaddeus utilized his space and objects on stage.  It left me wondering how he was able to master so any languages and the purpose of the majority of the trips.  A few of the stories slightly reminded of my not so horrific airport experiences such as a minor delay when arriving back to the U.S..  I thought Thaddeus really captured the humor and spirit behind the characters through his use of accents and mannerisms.  Overall I was really amazed at how one man could transport us all over the world using only lights, a table, chair, and passport.  

The 17 Boarders was a very interesting show. It is very impressive that the man just used several simple things a desk, a chair, a suitcase, a cup, a piece of chalk and lights to present these different countries, even to let audience to see his show in different view( when he lied on the floor pretending to be sitting). There were several scenes that reminded me of my own experiences, and I started thinking about my feelings when I was doing the same thing as he was doing, and therefore missed a few things in that show. Also, it raised a question: if by crossing boarders there are actually no difference, then what is the meaning of boarder? Meanwhile if there is a difference between two places, should there be a boarder?

            On my journey to see 17 Border Crossings, I had the opportunity to experience my own sort of border crossing. Unfortunately, this also meant that I was unable to make it to the theater in time to actually see the show. However, after some brief research about the show and about Thaddeus Phillips, I realized that my experience on Sunday afternoon, although less exciting, fit into a similar category as those told in the performance. Everything that was beyond control pretty much went wrong at one point of another. I was faced with the challenge of crossing the physical border from Bryn Mawr to Philadelphia on the SEPTA. This experience made me realize that sometimes things don’t work out as you intend and you have to be ready to embrace the challenges as they come and move forward. Although I was unable to attend 17 Border Crossings, my experiences this weekend were a good representation of the performance and its character. 

Dewey argues that one needs to understand something, one must understand how it relates to the world around it, how it works. I find this an interesting idea; it is, I admit, how I like to think about the world. Nonetheless, I am not sure that it is always the best approach to a topic. I did not understand all the foreign languages Thaddeus Phillips spoke, I did not understand all the international interactions that played into his show, and I have not been out of the country since I was very young, yet I understood his work and enjoyed it immensely. Someone once posed an idea: “You can take a rose, dissect it, discover how it grows, why it flowers, what makes it so red and so sweet smelling. And when you are done, surrounded by shredded petals and stems, ask yourself this: is this still a rose?” While there is a certain amount of depth and interest to be discovered in the connections behind a work, at what point is it better for a viewer to let the connections go?

In "The Live Creature," Dewey says that we cannot understand something without first understanding how it connects to and interacts with the world around it. Despite this, we are still able to enjoy it in one way or another. He uses the example of a flower--we can appreciate its beauty but we cannot understand it until we know how it interacts with the sun, water, and soil. Will understanding deep play allow us to appreciate it on a deeper level? Does knowing one is deeply playing give a more thorough sense of satisfaction or enjoyment, or does the opposite apply? I think that there is something magical in the mystery of deep play as it occurs.