This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation, Interpreting, Software localization, Voiceover (dubbing), Training
Expertise
Specializes in:
Advertising / Public Relations
Anthropology
Art, Arts & Crafts, Painting
Poetry & Literature
Cinema, Film, TV, Drama
History
Social Science, Sociology, Ethics, etc.
Journalism
Philosophy
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
Also works in:
Cooking / Culinary
Environment & Ecology
Textiles / Clothing / Fashion
Cosmetics, Beauty
Media / Multimedia
Folklore
Food & Drink
Tourism & Travel
Geography
Esoteric practices
Idioms / Maxims / Sayings
Human Resources
Music
Marketing
Nutrition
Sports / Fitness / Recreation
Transport / Transportation / Shipping
Science (general)
Religion
Psychology
Education / Pedagogy
More
Less
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 2
English to Slovenian: Contemporary theatre review General field: Art/Literary
Source text - English TEKST V EPICENTRU
Teater je zelo konzervativno umetniško polje. Zelo konzervativno. Dramsko gledališče, opera in balet; te uprizoritvene vrste – ki jim radi rečemo z eno besedo: teater – pri nas finančno podpira država, kje drugje po Evropi pa so odvisni od svojega lastnega zaslužka. Zmedli bi ministre za kulturo in njihove ekspertne komisije, pa še koga drugega, če bi jih vprašali, zakaj je treba dramsko gledališče, opero in balet finančno podpirati. »Zato, ker se jih podpira, preprosto tako.« Zmedli bi jih, če bi jih vprašali, zakaj je sploh treba podpirati umetnost in kulturo? Če bi pričakali odgovor, ne bi slišali ničesar razen floskul, ki pa jim ministri ponavadi niti sami ne verjamejo. (Presenetljivo je, kako malo vizij so doslej v Sloveniji proizvedle različne kulturne politike.) Zaradi tega, ker so razlogi za financiranje podvrženi hitrim pozabam in ker se financiranje sprevrže v navade, ki pa jih odgovorni ne znajo reanimirati s kakšnimi svojimi »pravimi razlogi«, je ponavadi teater lahko tako strašno drag.
In natančno zaradi tega, ker je teater vselej tako drag, je tudi zelo konzervativen.Več ko je v teatrih denarja, bolj so ti konzervativni, večja ko je teaterska mašinerija, lažje se da nanjo priključiti različne tekoče račune. Denar je tisto, na kar se v teatrih lepi ogromno nesposobnih ljudi. In denar je tisto, zaradi česar tveganja v teatrih niso zaželjena: »Preveliki novci so v igri, da bi se igračkali.« Tako denar v teatrih prej ali slej zleze na položaj umetniškega vodje. Denar postane v teatru vrhovni poveljnik, ki vse spreminja v svoje izvršne producente, podizvajalce. Denar dela zasedbe, repertoar, ohranja predstave na sporedu, skrbi za finance in organizacijo. Denar je na koncu kostumograf, scenograf, igralec, režiser, dramaturg, inspicient, masker, rekviziter itn.; skratka, denar se spremeni v glavnega prišepetovalca v teatru. Vsi so omotični razen velikega prišepetovalca, ki igra vse vloge v teatru, ki vleče vse reglerje za mikspultom – ki zna delati vse. In kaj še?
No, zdaj smo pa tu: ne samo, da denar piše »prave tekste« za gledališče, zelo natančno predstavo ima o tem, kakšen mora biti »sijajen tekst«, malo manj pa mu je jasno, kaj so tisti teksti, ki ne spadajo v njegovo predstavo, in za katere trdi, da »niso ničemur podobni«, da »niso preprosto nič«. Za tekste, ki jih je s svojimi sodelavci ustvaril za predstave E.P.I. centra Sebastijan Horvat, bi omenjeni umetniški vodja rekel, da »niso resnično ničemur podobni«. »To ni kratko malo nič!« Potrudil se bom odgovoriti, v čem je finta teh tekstov.
Težko bi se reklo, kaj je vzrok za to, da so predstavam E.P.I. centra in Sebastijana Horvata implicitna branja prek pojmov multitekstualnosti, strukturalizma in poststrukturalizma, teorij diskurza, govornih dejanj in performativov, pa morda tudi Derridajeve dekonstrukcije itn. Res je, da je Sebastijan Horvat pri nekaterih predstavah E.P.I. centra intenzivno sodeloval z dramaturgom in lingvistom Primožem Vitezom, a verjetno bi bilo krivično trditi, da je ta specifična struktura Horvatovih predstav samo njegov doprinos. Vsekakor pa je ravno ta drugačna struktura tekstocentričnosti Horvatovega gledališča v zadnjih desetih letih razdvajala slovensko kulturno javnost.
Da bi pojasnil to epi-teksto-centričnost, bom opisal dve abstrakciji, ki predstavljata neko temeljno razliko v pojmovanjih teatra. V ti dve abstrakciji verjetno ni mogoče do konca napeti in razdeliti sodobne teaterske produkcije, sta pa primerni, da razumemo napetosti, ki smo jim stalno priča. Naj opišem dva različna modela teatra in razlike med njima.
V prvem primeru ima gledalec v predstavi kot objektu svojega odposlanca, s katerim ga povezuje procedura identifikacijsko-diferenciacijskih postopkov, ki je omogočena z mimesis. Da bi lahko imel gledalec pregled nad dogajanjem in kot subjekt ostal na privilegiranem mestu bralca/gledalca umetniškega dela, mora imeti v svoji interpasivni poziciji v predstavi odposlanca, nadomestek, t. i. glavnega junaka, ki zanj trpi, ljubi, umira, se bori, se kriminalizira, za kar potrebuje vrsto različnih (bodisi navzočih, bodisi prisotnih ali odsotnih) opozicijskih funkcij (npr. v obliki antagonista). Gledalec je torej v percepcijo umetniškega dela vključen preko semiotiziranega mandatarja, ki je poslan v dogajanje na način reprezentacijskega umetniškega režima in ki prestaja dramatično politiko vključevanj (komedija), izključevanj (tragedija) ali kombinacije obojega (drama), da bi se prepoznal, uravnotežil ali dopolnil neki posreden ali neposreden policijski red sveta.
V tem modelu percepcije umetnosti je center vednosti vselej v predstavi ali umetniškem delu, s katerim se gledalec konsolidira na način odčitavanja kot identifikacijsko-diferenciacijskega postopka, preko katerega prepoznava/pripoznava vlogo dramske osebe kot reprezentacijo (svoje, poznane) družbene/politične/kulturne vloge. Reprezentacijski režim umetnosti proizvaja v glavnem koherentno občestvo (občinstvo), ki ga enotijo skupni pomeni, te pa – poleg umetniških procedur, med katerimi je najpogostejša interpretacija – generira predvsem privilegirana pozicija gledalca, pred katerim se umetniška dela razprostirajo kot razmeroma pregledni in čitljivi objekti (umetniška dela).
Ta model teatra tekst razume predvsem kot fiktivno dokumentacijo nekega virtualnega dogodka, za katerega se zdi, da predhaja tekstu, in ki ga mora predstava naknadno izluščiti iz teksta, v modernem gledališču predvsem s pomočjo interpretacije. Alain Badiou bi rekel, da je gledališka umetnost »edina, ki mora dopolniti večnost /teksta/ z deležem trenutnosti /uprizoritve/, ki ji /tej večnosti/ manjka« in doda, da gre gledališče »od večnosti k času, in ne nasprotno«. Ravno zaradi tega, ker dotični model gledališča verjame, da je tekstu implicitna idealna uprizoritev, ki ni nič drugega, kakor »enostavna ponovitev« njenega izvornega dogodka, so se v preteklosti – tudi v slovenskem gledališču – pojavljale zahteve po zvestobi dramskemu tekstu; v resnici zvestobi temu izvornemu idealnemu dogodku, ki naj bi bil v tekstu latenten.
Za ta umetniški režim so značilne žanrske forme in njihova hierarhija, pregledni in čitljivi načini uobličenja vsebine, refleksija tega umetniškega režima pa proizvaja umetniške tehnike, kritiko ter sisteme poetik in estetik kot filozofskih praks.
V drugem primeru gledalec nima stabilne pozicije subjekta (opazovalca), predstava pa ni izključni objekt. Gledalec nima pregleda nad dogajanjem, ampak je z različnimi umetniškimi postopki vanj vključen, pri čemer ga umetniško delo s svojimi postopki objektivira, kot on objektivira delo. Gledalec v predstavi nima odposlanca: lahko bi trdili, da s tem, ko je postavljen v intersubjektivno razmerje z umetniškim dogodkom, ko postane dialoški partner umetniškega dela, vlogo odposlanca zasede sam. Objektna pozicija umetnine se umakne dogodkovni potencialnosti umetniške komunikacije, v kateri se center vednosti v času umetniškega dogodka prestavlja med tistimi soudeleženci, ki prostor umetnine skupaj »naseljujejo« (izmenični ustvarjalci in gledalci, subjekti in objekti), da bi se lahko vzajemno subjektivirali. Na mesto reprezentacijskega režima, ki s pomočjo mimesis generira identifikacijsko-diferenciacijske postopke bralnega dejanja pri gledalcu, stopi estetski režim umetnosti, ki odpravlja privilegij govora nad vidnostjo (npr. privilegiranosti zgodbe – figuralike – nad sliko, dramaturgije nad koreografijo, mita nad značaji, značajev nad nastopom itn.), kakor tudi hierarhijo umetniških praks, vsebin in njihovih žanrov, drugačna distribucija čutnega pa posameznim estetskim vidikom umetnosti omogoča soudeležbo po kriteriju enakosti.
Umetniški dogodek za razliko od umetniškega dela nima funkcije zagotavljanja stabilne pozicije policiji, ali implementacije političnega procesa subjektivacije v red policije, ampak s svojo nestabilnostjo takorekoč v komunikaciji z gledalcem odpre sam proces politike – izmeničnega vključevanja in izključevanja v procesu opredeljevanja. Ta model gledališča ne proizvaja več občestva, ki bi se lahko zedinilo na temelju skupnih pomenov, ampak mnoštvo posameznikov, ki se do procesa politike v komunikacijskem modelu različno opredeljujejo ter javni prostor konstituirajo kot prostor diskusije. Ta umetniški režim uporablja vrsto umetniških postopkov in diskurzov, za katere je v opoziciji do umetniških form teorija vizualnih in scenskih umetnosti v zadnjem času začela uvajati pojem formata kot načina, na katerega je v formo vpisana potencialnost gledalskih vlog, participacij in kreacij.
Ta model teatra pojmuje svet kot igro različnih (bolj ali manj avtonomnih) tekstov (diskurzov, performativov, ideologij), vendar ti teksti niso fiktivni dokumenti kakšnih predhodnih originalov, niso znakovni pričevalci svojih izginulih referentov (nekega realnega), ki bi jih bilo treba skozi uprizoritev zgolj rekonstruirati, jim pridelati delček njihove manjkajoče trenutnosti, ampak so zgolj neka nemirna potencialnost svojih bodočih ponovitev, ki se bodo odvile skozi najrazličnejše modifikacije.
Če v primeru prvega modela enostavna ponovitev predpostavlja določeno adekvatnost, identičnost uprizoritve in teksta (vsaka ponovitev mora biti zvesta, popolna rekonstukcija originala), pri drugem modelu njegovi umetniški protagonisti ne verjamejo niti v omenjeni original teksta niti v njegovo popolno ponovitev: enostavna ponovitev, po Deleuzu, za razliko od kompleksne zgolj prikriva, da med originalom in njegovo ponovitvijo vselej obstaja razlika ali da originala kratko malo ni. Razlika je ključni pojem za ustvarjalce drugega modela, v katerega prištevam tudi Horvata: dogodkovnost gledališke predstave je v razliki, ki naj vznikne med različnimi teksti (med tekstom igralkine identitete in tekstom njene vloge, med tekstom uprizoritve in tekstom režije, med tekstom predstave in tekstom gledalčeve percepcije, med tekstom umetnosti in tekstom stvarnosti itn.) ali v posamezni tekstovni enoti sami. Realno ni nekaj, kar predhaja simbolnemu, realno lahko vznikne zgolj kot prekinitev v simbolnem, kot zareza razlike v tekst in med teksti.
Četudi refleksija tega umetniškega režima uporablja vrsto orodij, značilnih za prvi model, njena pozicija ne teži k sistematizaciji, ampak k liminalizaciji; njena participacija v umetniškem polju je prav tako vmesna, necelostna, kakor tudi umetniški dogodki in njihova percepcija, na mesto filozofske sistematike pa stopi dinamična pozicija teorije ali natančneje: teoretizacije.
Tekst, kakšnega je mogoče razbrati v umetniški ustvarjalnosti E.P.I. centra, ni v funkciji (re)animacije dogodka, ki naj bi ga neki zapisani tekst dokumentiral, ni iskanje tekstovnega izvora v obliki dogodka, za ustvarjalce E.P.I. centra je izvor vselej sam tekst, zato njegova uporaba ne more poškodovati kakšnega njegovega predhajajočega originala. Teksti so identitete in njihove različne funkcije (Nataša Matjašec, igralka Nataša Matjašec, vloga Fedre), teksti so dejanja (performativi; govorna dejanja v primeru Elizabeth II idr.), teksti so različni (estetski, politični, ideološki) diskurzi (skozi njih reprezentirane ali manifestirane oblasti, moči, norme) in žanri, teksti so uprizoritveni teksti (lahko nastajajo sproti ali pa uporabljajo gotove dramske tekste), teksti so (dramska) igra in njene različne tehnike, teksti so režije in njihovi postopki, teksti so scenografije in njihovi postopki itn., teksti pa so tudi vsakokratne gledalčeve recepcije predstav, njegova bralna dejanja in interpretacije. Dogodki vznikajo v razlikah med njimi.
Ker dogodek gledališča Sebastijana Horvata in E.P.I. centra ni v rekonstrukciji predpostavljenega originala v tekstu, ampak v razliki, potrebuje Horvat za svoje predstave izrazito multitekstualno (večbesedilno) situacijo, saj mu le ta lahko zagotovi vznik dogodkov, vznik razlik. Zato Horvat predstavljane subjekte v predstavah gradi iz različnih žanrov, različnih tekstov in njihovih diskurzov, tekste s svojimi ustvarjalci piše in režira z različnimi umetniškimi postopki (ne zgolj z interpretacijo), glas predstave pa gledalca nagovarja izrazito mnoštveno – večglasno, hkrati pa to večglasnost evocira tudi v samem gledalcu.
Ravno zaradi teh reči nastopajo v tekstih E.P.I. centra: katalogi imen, pojmov, reči, repeticije in variacije, različna izključujoča se govorna dejanja, vrsta slovničnih struktur in primerov, medijski in tesktovni žanri, zgodovinske umetniške reference, različni ready-made teksti in apropriacije, podvržene najrazličnejšim postprodukcijskim postopkom. Horvatove režije jih razmeščajo, premeščajo, ponavljajo in variirajo, režejo in razstavljajo, interpretirajo ali parodirajo, realizirajo in derealizirajo, vzporejajo in ukinjajo, da bi gledalcem zagotovile doživetje različnih ontoloških (ne)stabilnosti.
Zato tudi menim, da je zbirka tekstov, vključno z manifesti, za katere ne vidim razloga, da se ne bi v nekem trenutku na nekem mestu oglasili z odrov, zbirka okruškov neke multitekstualne situacije (predstav) in hkrati neka nova kreativna potencialnost, ki pa ji kakšni novi ustvarjalci predvsem – ne smejo biti »zvesti«.
ROK VEVAR
Translation - Slovenian TEXT IN THE EPICENTER
Theatre is a very conservative, artistic arena. Very conservative. The performing arts, commonly referred to as “theatre” - drama, opera and ballet - are financially supported by the state in Slovenia, whereas they depend on their own profits in some other European countries. Each and every Minister of Culture and his expert commissions would surely feel puzzled, should one question them as to why the dramatic theatre, opera and ballet require financial support. “Because supporting them is how we do things – simple as that.” Furthermore, they would feel no less puzzled if confronted by a more general question: why should art and culture be supported in the first place? One would expect an answer in vain, while listening to the cliché phrases even the Ministers themselves don’t believe in. (It is quite striking to think about just how very few visions have been engendered on the side of different cultural policies in Slovenia so far). Legitimate arguments for providing financial support are promptly reduced to oblivion, leading to financing becoming a sort of blind habit. Since the responsible authorities are unable to bring this tautology back to life by identifying the “right arguments” for it, theatre can in many cases become a very expensive matter.
And precisely because it is so very expensive, theatre is also very conservative. The wealthier the theatre, the more conservative it is. And the more widespread the theatrical apparatus, the easier it is to produce all sorts of new transaction accounts for its alleged needs. It is money that attracts a mass of incompetent people to theatres. And to take things further: it is money that confers a pejorative connotation upon risk-taking: “There’s too much at stake financially to play around.” Thus, the money in theatres sooner or later becomes equated with the position of an artistic director and acquires the status of commander-in-chief by transforming everything and everyone into its executive producers and subcontractors. Money thus assembles casts, sets the repertoire, keeps performances on schedule, and takes care of finances and organizational matters. In the end, money becomes the costume designer, scenographer, actor, director, dramaturge, stage manager, make-up artist, property master and so on. In short, money acquires the status of the main prompter in the theatre. Everybody seems dizzy all of a sudden. Everybody, but the great prompter, who plays all the parts in the theatre and pulls all the strings: who knows it all. And more?
Well, this is what it all comes down to: not only does money write all the “right texts” for the theatre, but it also has a very specific idea of what a “brilliant text” should look like. What seems less clear for the great prompter is what to do with those texts which – as he claims – “look like nothing” and “simply are nothing”. The very texts that were created for the E.P.I centre performances of Sebastijan Horvat and his colleagues would probably be referred to in those very terms by the aforementioned artistic director himself: “they really do look like nothing”. “All in all, the whole thing counts for nothing!” I will try to examine the trick of these texts.
It is hard to say why the performances created by the E.P.I. centre and Sebastijan Horvat implicitly refer to the reading modes as constituted in the arena of multi-textuality, structuralism and post-structuralism, discourse theories, speech acts and performance art, as well as Derrida’s deconstruction perhaps, etc. It might be prudent to add that Sebastijan Horvat did cooperate closely with the dramaturge and linguist Primož Vitez when working on some of the E.P.I. centre’s performances, but it would, on the other hand, probably be unfair to assert that this specific structure of Horvat’s performances is solely the result of Vitez’s work. One can claim for certain though that it is this radically different structure of Horvat’s theatre, emerging on the grounds of the texto-centric approach, which has divided the Slovenian cultural sphere in the last ten years.
I will explain this “epi-texto-centricity” by describing two distinctive abstractions, which both stand for the basic difference in the notions of theatre. It is probably impossible to neatly arrange contemporary theatre production amongst the two abstractions, but they will prove useful, however, for the purpose of demonstrating existing tensions. Let me therefore describe the two different theatre models and the differences between them.
In the first case, the performance becomes a delegate-as-object for the spectator and the latter is connected with the former by series of identifying-differential procedures, which emerge on the grounds of mimesis. There must be a delegate, or a substitute in the form of the so-called main hero, for the spectator and his interpassive position and it is through this delegate that the spectator will maintain his understanding of what’s going on and preserve his privileged place of the reader/viewer of an artistic work by occupying the position of a subject. It will be the main hero in the form of a substitute, therefore, who performs actions on the spectator’s behalf; he will suffer for him, he will love and die and fight for him, he will perform criminal acts for him and this will require all sorts of different (either attending, present or absent) oppositional functions (in the form of the antagonist, for example).
The spectator thus takes part in the perception of an artistic work through the semiotized formateur, who enters the happening on grounds of the representational artistic regime and goes through a dramatic policy of inclusions (comedy), exclusions (tragedy) or combination of both (drama) for the purpose of self-recognition, self-balance, or to supplement some police order of the world, which exists in a direct or indirect manner.
This model of perceiving art always situates the center of knowledge into the performance or into the work of art, which the spectator uses for the purpose of consolidation through the act of reading as an identifying-differential procedure. The use of this procedure thus allows for the recognition/acknowledgement of the dramatic person’s role as a representation of (their own, already known) social/political/cultural role. The representational regime of art mainly produces a coherent community (audience), which pushes together for the purpose of joint meanings. Beside the artistic procedures, amongst which interpretation is the most common one, those joint meanings are predominantly generated by the privileged position of the spectator, who stands witness to the artistic works, spreading out in front of him as relatively clear and readable objects (artistic works).
This theatre model understands the text as a predominantly fictive documentation of some virtual event, which – by apparently preceding the text – poses a demand upon the performance to be extracted from the text, which is mostly done by the use of interpretation in the modern theatre. Alain Badiou would say that theatre art is: “the only art that needs to complete the eternity /of the text/ with the share of fleetingness /of the staging/, which /this eternity/ lacks” and adds that theatre travels “from eternity to time, and not the other way around.” And exactly because the theatre model in question believes that the text implicitly contains the ideal staging, which is nothing but a “simple repetition” of its original event, certain demands have appeared in the past – also in Slovenian theatre – which argued for loyalty with regard to the drama text. But to be precise, this loyalty is really established in relation to the primordial ideal event, incorporated in the text in a latent manner.
This artistic regime presupposes genres and their hierarchy, clear and readable ways of producing content-based forms, whereby contemplation in reference to this artistic regime gives birth to artistic techniques, critique, systems of poetics and aesthetics, as well as to philosophical practices.
In the second instance, the spectator is divested of a stable position, which would define him as a subject (viewer), whereby at the same time the performance does not constitute the exclusive object. The spectator does not have a grasp of what’s going on, but takes part in the happening itself by different artistic procedures, whereby he is objectified by the procedures of the artistic work on the one hand, and on the other emerges as the agent who objectifies this very work in reverse. There is no delegate for the spectator in the performance: one could even claim that the spectators themselves take the part of the delegate by being placed into an intersubjective relationship with the artistic event and by becoming a dialogic partner with the artistic work. The object position of the art gives way to the event potential of the artistic communication, which provides a framework for the constituting center of knowledge, which during the artistic event travels between those co-participants, who “inhabit” the place of the artistic work in a collective manner (alternating between producers and spectators, subjects and objects) for the purpose of reciprocal subjectivization. The representational regime, which generates the identifying-differential procedures of the reading act in relation to the spectator through the use of mimesis, gives way to the aesthetic regime of art. The latter abolishes the privilege of speech as opposed to the arena of the visual (this, for example, refers to the privileged status of the story – the figure – as opposed to the image, dramaturgy as opposed to the choreography, myth as opposed to characters, characters as opposed to performance, etc.), which also announces the abolishment of the hierarchy in relation to artistic practices, contents and their genres, whereas the different distribution of the sensual allows for individual aesthetic understandings of art to take part according to the criterion of equality.
In contrast to the artistic work, the artistic event does not have the function of ensuring a stable position for the police or of implementing the political process of subjectivization by introducing it into the order of the police, but opens up the process of the politics itself by its instability – the alternating inclusion and exclusion in the definition-producing process – and in communication with the spectator. This theatre model no longer produces a community, which could become one on the grounds of common meanings, but generates a multitude of individuals, who take different sides in relation to the process of politics in a communication model and, furthermore, constitute a public arena for a space of discussion. This artistic regime uses series of artistic procedures and discourses, which have been dealt with by the theory of visual and performing arts - in opposition to artistic forms - under the recently introduced notion of the format, which denotes a way of inscribing the potentiality of theatre roles, participations and creations into the form.
This theatre model understands the world as a play of different (more or less autonomous) texts (discourses, performance art, ideologies), whereby the texts in question are not fictive documents of some preceding originals, neither are they signs-as-narrators in relation to their lost referents (the real of some sort), which would simply require reconstruction through staging or production of a piece of temporality, which they seem to be lacking. The texts in question are merely a restless potentiality of its future repetitions, which will go through various modifications.
While the first model presumes that there is a certain adequacy in a simple repetition, which brings forth the identical nature of the staging and the text (every repetition must be a loyal and perfect reconstruction of the original), the artistic protagonists in the second model do not believe either in the aforementioned original of the text, nor do they believe in its perfect repetition: according to Deleuze, when compared to the complex repetition, the simple repetition simply conceals that there always is difference to be found between the original and its repetition and that, furthermore, the original does not exist in the first place. “Difference” is an essential notion for the producers of the second model, which Horvat to my mind takes part in: the eventuality of the theatre performance is situated in the difference, that is to emerge between various texts (between the text of the actress’s identity and the text of her part, between the text of the staging and the text of the directing, between the text of the performance and the text of the spectator’s perception, between the text of art and the text of reality, and so on), or within an individual textual unit itself. The real is not something preceding the symbolic. The real can arise only in the form of a rupture in the symbolic, as a split of difference in the text and between the texts.
Even though a line of tools - which are characteristic of the first model – are used for contemplative purposes in reference to this artistic regime, the contemplative position in question does not push towards systematization, but towards restriction instead; its participation in the artistic arena is partial and incomplete, just as the artistic events and their perception. The place of the philosophical systematic becomes occupied by the dynamic position of the theory or, to be more precise: of theory.
The text arising within the artistic creativity of the E.P.I. centre does not bear any (re)animative function in relation to the event, which is to be documented by a certain written text and therefore does not represent the search for textual origin in the form of the event. For producers of the E.P.I centre, the origin is always already the text itself, which is why its use cannot damage its preceding original. Texts are identities and their different functions (Nataša Matjašec, the actress Nataša Matjašec, the role of Phèdre), texts are acts (performance: speech acts in the case of Elizabeth II, etc.), texts are different (aesthetic, political, ideological) discourses (which are used for representation or manifestation of authority, power, norms) and genres, whereby the texts are the staging texts (they can emerge in a given moment or they can also use the existing drama texts), the texts are the drama and its different techniques, texts are the directed entities and their procedures, texts are the scenographies and their procedures, and so on. Texts are also the spectator's respective receptions of performances, their reading acts and interpretations. Events emerge in the differences between them.
Since the event of Sebastijan Horvat’s and E.P.I. centre’s theatre is not to be found in the process of reconstructing the assumed original in the text, but in the difference, what Horvat needs for his performances is a distinctively multi-textual situation, as it is only the latter that is able to ensure the emergence of events: the emergence of differences. This is why Horvat uses different genres, different texts and their discourses to build the subjects he later on introduces in his performances. Moreover, together with his colleagues, he writes and directs texts with the use of different artistic procedures (and not merely interpretation), whereby the performance simultaneously uses several voices to speak to the spectator in the mode of distinct multitude, which at the same time arises in the spectator himself.
Due to this, E.P.I centre’s texts contain: catalogues of names, notions, things, repetition and variation, various speech acts, which work on the principle of exclusion, a series of grammatical structures and examples, media and textual genres, historical art references, various ready-made texts and their appropriations, which have been subjected to various post-production procedures. Horvat’s directings sort them, displace them, repeat and variate them, they cut them and dismantle them, they interpret and parody them, they bring them towards realization and then take them back to a state of suspension, they parallel them and abolish them so as to allow for the spectator to experience all sorts of ontological (in)stabilities.
This is also why I believe that the collection of texts, together with the manifests – for which I see no reason why they could not resonate from the stage at some point – is a collection of fragments from some multi-textual situation (performances) and a new creative potentiality of some sort, which should not evoke any kind of “loyalty” in the artists, and most especially not in any new ones.
ROK VEVAR
Slovenian to English: Theatre performance - announced General field: Art/Literary
Source text - Slovenian Maja Pelević, Betontanc: MOŽDA SMO MI MIKI MAUS
Foto: Urška Boljkovac
Dramo Možda smo mi Miki Maus je napisala mlada srbska dramatičarka in dramaturginja Maja Pelević. Za dramo je prejela nagrado za najboljše sodobno dramsko besedilo na anonimnem natečaju festivala Sterijino pozorje leta 2007. Dramo je navdihnil eden od grafitov v Beogradu, na katerem sta objeta mladenka in mladenič, na glavi pa imata plastična ušesa, kot jih ima Miki Miška. V središču dramskega dogajanja je stari aparat za fotografiranje, kjer se srečajo junaki. Drama govori o času in odnosu posameznikov do zamrznjenih trenutkov v življenju. V središče postavi fotografijo, ki najbolje izraža željo po večnosti in hkrati strah pred minljivostjo.
Predstava na inovativen način obravnava človeka v današnjem svetu, ki je zmeden zaradi odsotnosti morale, ljubezni, tolerance in vrednostnih meril. Vsi akterji, ljudje brez imena ali samo lutke, ki želijo zamrzniti trenutek s pomočjo fotografije, prikazujejo razsulo, ki vlada v avtomatiziranem življenju 21. stoletja. Glavni liki na sceni se kot v košari zaprte čebele zaletavajo in skačejo eden v drugega, da bi izkazali svoj bes, nemoč nad življenjem in brezsmiselnostjo svojega obstoja, ter se sprašujejo, zakaj sploh obstajajo, če si nikoli niso želeli, da bi se sploh rodili.
Translation - English Maja Pelević, Betontanc: MOŽDA SMO MI MIKI MAUS
Photo: Urška Boljkovac
The play entitled Možda smo mi Miki Maus was written by a young Serbian playwright and dramaturge, Maja Pelević. In 2007 she received the prize for the best contemporary dramatic text at an anonymous contest at the Sterijino pozorje festival in Novi Sad. The play was inspired by graffiti in Belgrade, which showed a young couple holding each other, while wearing plastic ears on their head like Mickey Mouse. The focal point for main characters is an old photo camera. The play touches upon the subject of time on the one hand and the attitude one adopts towards frozen moments in life on the other. Photograph thus takes a central place due to its ambivalent symbolic scope, manifesting the desire for eternity and the fear of fading away at the same time.
The performance innovatively contemplates an individual in the world of today, who stands perplexed in the face of an absence of morality, love, tolerance and any standard of value. All performers, being either nameless individuals or merely puppets, convey the abyss of disintegration, ruling over the automated life of the 21st Century. The main characters bump into one another like bees in a closed basket, only to express rage and frustration at their powerless struggle with life and the absurdity of their own existence, asking themselves why they exist, when they never wished to be born in the first place.
More
Less
Translation education
Master's degree - University College London
Experience
Years of experience: 18. Registered at ProZ.com: May 2014.
A translator and a copy writer. A storyteller and a multilinguist. Two in one.
I'll be honest with you - I don't shine in technical translations. I'm just not a technical type. Never have been. Never will be. However, when it comes to narrating with exquisite subtlety and impeccable style, I'm the person you want to work with.
Because I know storytelling. I have it in me. I know how to develop a narrative from nothing but a blank spreadsheet, I know how to find the appropriate tone, format, genre and context for any message you want to get out there. Stories simply are my thing.
So here's what I suggest:
YOU STICK TO WHAT YOU DO BEST AND LET ME HANDLE THE WORDS.
IT'S WHAT I DO BEST.
Keywords: Arts and social sciences, theatre, tourism, transcreation, localization, general content, PR and branding
