Disruption of language in improvisation: Failed if you do, failed if you don’t Main Menu

Improvisation

7474
In researching the origin of language Andrew Haas concludes that: “improvisation is the origin of metaphor, of metaphoricity and literality alike – and this is, to put it in Nietzsche’s terms, the birth of language out of the spirit of improvisation.” (341) By this conclusion it is possible to make the next assumption that improvisation or at least the spirit of improvisation exists before language. It then becomes extra interesting that improvisation and theatricality seemingly can surpass the communication of words the signifiers of language. Improvisation and theatricality is before the spoken word. This complies with Brook’s findings in Africa and his research into a performance before language. 
A connection to one of Viola Spolin’s basic ideas of improvisation is foremost the idea of the importance of a spectator or an audience. Spolin writes: ”Without an audience there is no theatre.” (13) The necessity of an audience to be theatrical is the same of the conversation there needs to be at least a receiver if not a back and forth to some extent. If there is no separate entity to receive an utterance there is no need for understanding and neither any risk of failure to understand.
According to Mortensen we have to “… assume the risk of misunderstanding, and of being misunderstood, particularly in situations where it seems there is little or nothing that can be done.” (179) In the case of the improvised theatrical event a part of the game is always the possibility of misunderstanding and being misunderstood. And the willingness to do this is a part of what makes the game amusing to witness.  


Works Cited:

This page has paths:

  1. Index page Sune Roholt Mortensen