Play in the City 2013

Samantha Plate

Play In The City

Mark Lord

11/24/2013

The Postman

            I have never really had an emotional connection to a painting before. I found the notion of crying simply because of a painting ridiculous. How could a simple canvas inspire do much emotion? At the Barnes Foundation I learned exactly this.

            As soon as I saw one of the famous Postman paintings, off in a corner, neglected by the crowded room, I was drawn to him. Having gone round in the wrong order, this was the last room that I had left to visit, and I still hadn’t decided what work of art I wanted to view for half an hour. As I made my way over his eyes drew me in. The brilliant light blue contrasted with the rich royal blue of his uniform and hat. They seemed to have a gleam in them, like he was on the verge of tears. As I stared into those eyes I found my own eyes watering too. This surprised me. What was making me so emotional? It could have been influenced by the emotional day I was having outside of the Barnes, the Postman did not look like my granddad, but I found my mind wandering to him and the funeral that was taking place on the other side of the world. Even so it was very strange to me that I had to suppress the urge to cry in the middle of Room 2 of the Barnes Foundation.

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.

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?

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 reading 17 Border Crossings I can see all of the ways in which it is creative and playful, and very impressively entertaining, which I was not expecting considering there was only one actor and I had never seen a one man show before. I felt that the variety of the stories, and the intricate piece of lighting kept the show interesting and fast paced, enacting a great state of play. Watching the performance for me was not deep play, but I feel that for Thaddeus Phillips, certain moments certainly could be perceived as deep play. I think this could develop out of the great pride and work that has gone into this piece. The performance itself was playful, and stayed light and comedic the entire time, offering me a break from reality, without leaving any heavy emotions on my shoulder. 17 Border Crossings was certainly a playful outlet of creativity for Thaddeus, and a joy to watch for the audience.

"Reading" 17 Border Crossings was an interesting experience that surprised me with its creativity and expressiveness. I feel that I was experiencing deep play during the performance, and the performer Thaddeus Phillips, in the other hand, was playing critically.

I felt engaged  in the play and imagined myself being as a part of it as if I was the person that was going through all those things. Thaddeus used "you" as the narrator, which seemed like an invitation to us to actually participate in the play. To me, it was "an alternate reality". I was focused and had high consciousness and realization, which was a part of my definition of "deep play."

As for the performer's part, I could imagine that he was playing critically, in the preparation of the performance and during the performance, since he was thinking about how to tell his story in a condensed version by using simple stage settings, but to also express his point behind the story.

I'm sitting in the audience, freezing from only wearing shorts and a wind breaker. I didn't have time to change after practice and I was completely exhausted and freezing. I came into the play with minimal interest. Once, I walked in and saw just a table and a man oblivious to the crowd of people walking in front of him, I honestly questioned the quality of whatever it was that I was about to watch. 

But that man, table, and lights, as simple as they were, made me forget I was freezing to death and kept me intrigued rather than dozing off. Yes, I loved like everyone else, his impressive talented accents and the way the personal stories captured the hearts of the audience, but none of this would have been possible without that hardwood table and lights that brought to life each border. He's a brilliant man, like Barnes, he took the ordinary and made it so much more beautiful.