Today I've attended my first Bale Ajar class, and it was quite interesting to say the least. The two main points which I've obtained from this class are self-consciousness (viewpoint) and deconstruction of traditional theatrical performance. We would walk with a certain pattern with a certain objective; for example, calculating the tempo, duration, length, deciding the start, middle, and end of a pattern. Y'see, the main focus of the performance is the presentation; how can you interpret these seemingly sets of movement to an actual theatrical performance with story. It's an intriguing meta way of creating a story, although I found it to be rather flawed and mundane. To make a good theatrical performance, you need an actual direction, perhaps a concrete role to be the part of the story. Me and my classmates walking around in a seemingly random behaviour does raise some intrigue, but after a while, you would ask yourself "I know this is supposed to be symbolic and open to interpretations, but what is their to interpret when the source material is just an incoherent, jumble of people walking in a funny way?" It deceives the audience to make them think that this untidy heap of movements does actually have a coherent meaning. I'm all open for abstract art, but abstract art always has a clear unique presentation; it knows what it want to convey, but it could be subjective for everyone.

Also, if you construct the drama from performance to story, you'll have to practice the exact performance again, stripping all of the points that make the performance to be abstract. The example we watched during the class is a theatrical performance titled "Time is Transient. We are Eternal". This is what exactly what we should strive for, the scene where there's a janitor making the floor red like blood is exactly what sort of exact that we're looking for. I think that's all, thank you for reading my third AES, now leave me alone.