Having recently finished playing a role in a run of Shakespeare's Julias
Caesar, the question is of particular interest to me, and one I have given
some thought to in the past.
As I see it, a play performance generally is constrained by the dialogue
flow and whatever stage directions the playwright has written in, which
represent the primary rules from which the final performance emerges. From
there the directors and choreagraphers establish further rules that
constrain the dynamics of the play. The actors are the components who,
after being given directions and stage choreagraphy, interpret their lines
and movements and deliver them a little differently every time. And where
there are multiple scenes and actors, each actor need only know his or her
own cues and lines, and need not know those of every other actor. In this
way the final performance, while highly constrained, remains not precisely
predictable and is emergent. Also, it is quite possible none of the actors
has a wholistic perception of the total performance - only the audience can
see that. And indeed the audience, as an external environmental factor, can
have a great influence on the performance dynamics, and the total system
includes the audience as one its components.
Every performance is different as actors' inflections, rhythms, pacings and
choreagraphed dynamics constantly shift, but each performance is highly
robust with a high degree of negative feedback (the actors' recollection of
the play as it has been blocked and rehearsed) which dampens any possibility
that dropped lines, miscues, or interruptions (perturbations) will spiral
out of control. These differences from performance to performance are what
distinguish an "organic" play from re-running a video, for example, which
will be precisely the same each time it is played.
Under this description, the "living" play would seem to be at the farther
extreme of a highly constrained system with a high number of rules with
emerging patterns that are generally predictable but not precisely so, as
compared to a system with few rules which give rise to plenty of unpredicted
emergent patterns or functionality.
Further along those lines, I would tend to think that themes such as "love
in hate" are actually emergent rather than constituting additional rules
from which the dynamics of the play emerge (if the latter is what you were
suggesting, though it isn't entirely clear to me). It seems quite possible
that Shakespeare did not indend for these themes to exist at all when he
wrote his plays, and that we see them now as central to the dynamics only
because the interactions of the characters and actors (and Shakespeare's
genius) allow such themes to emerge.
- Hugh Trenchard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jochen Fromm" <[email protected]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:06 PM
Subject: [FRIAM] ABMs and Plays
I am currently reading the Shakespeare biography from Peter Ackroyd. While
reading this
interesting work, I wondered if agent based models and plays can be
considered as two extremes on one scale. In both we witness the outcome of
a small number of agents or actors interacting with each other in a
particular environment
according to certain rules and intentions. Shakespeares' plays are basic
"models" for the complexity which arises through "love in hate" (Romeo and
Juliet), "hesitation in action" (Hamlet)
or "striving against destiny" (Macbeth). In Shakespeares' words "Though
this be madness, yet there is method in't." Is it?
-J.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
