{"title":"《中国大西洋:海景与全球化的戏剧性》作者:肖恩·梅茨格印第安纳大学出版社。布卢明顿:印第安纳州,2020年;第vii + 262页,35幅插图。布75美元,纸25美元,电子书12.99美元。","authors":"Ping Fu","doi":"10.1017/S0040557422000114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"scholarly study and training programs. Dumont’s chapter makes a historiographical point by mentioning the subsequent tension between the “intellectual” and the “popular” in contemporary circus arts (189), as if the two terms are anathema to one another. Thus, only when the circus was removed from its original context was it recognized as artistic. Last, Anna-Sophie Jürgens’s essay “Through the Looking Glass: Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Circus Studies” (Chapter 16) performs a literary review of the imaginative scholarship taking place across various disciplines, including the sciences, literary studies, humor studies, and disability studies. Through her exploration, she demonstrates the vitality of the field of circus studies. For example, neuroscientists have investigated the “alteration of cerebral formations” through the complex motor exercises practiced in the circus (245). The editors acknowledge the recent emergence of the field; yet what is missing from the Introduction is a historiographical account of how the circus, its acts, and performers have been written about in the past. As Charles R. Batson and Karen Fricker note in Chapter 15, “circus studies is a field in formation, and as such so are the methods scholars apply in their circus research” (231). With that in mind, what has been circus’s place in the academy, historically speaking? What has constituted the nature, style, and concerns of circus scholarship prior to this entry? What are the lacunae that need to be redressed by the archive? These questions are answered, in part, by the last part of the book, but are left unattended in the Introduction, and might have provided useful context for the Companion’s intervention in the field. Nonetheless, the samplings of studies offered successfully draw the reader’s attention to the promise of circus studies by preparing students to pursue further research into the circus as a big top of manifold opportunities.","PeriodicalId":42777,"journal":{"name":"THEATRE SURVEY","volume":"63 1","pages":"239 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Chinese Atlantic: Seascapes and the Theatricality of Globalization By Sean Metzger. Indiana University Press. Bloomington: Indiana, 2020; pp. vii + 262, 35 illustrations. $75 cloth, $25 paper, $12.99 e-book.\",\"authors\":\"Ping Fu\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0040557422000114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"scholarly study and training programs. Dumont’s chapter makes a historiographical point by mentioning the subsequent tension between the “intellectual” and the “popular” in contemporary circus arts (189), as if the two terms are anathema to one another. Thus, only when the circus was removed from its original context was it recognized as artistic. Last, Anna-Sophie Jürgens’s essay “Through the Looking Glass: Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Circus Studies” (Chapter 16) performs a literary review of the imaginative scholarship taking place across various disciplines, including the sciences, literary studies, humor studies, and disability studies. Through her exploration, she demonstrates the vitality of the field of circus studies. For example, neuroscientists have investigated the “alteration of cerebral formations” through the complex motor exercises practiced in the circus (245). The editors acknowledge the recent emergence of the field; yet what is missing from the Introduction is a historiographical account of how the circus, its acts, and performers have been written about in the past. As Charles R. Batson and Karen Fricker note in Chapter 15, “circus studies is a field in formation, and as such so are the methods scholars apply in their circus research” (231). With that in mind, what has been circus’s place in the academy, historically speaking? What has constituted the nature, style, and concerns of circus scholarship prior to this entry? What are the lacunae that need to be redressed by the archive? These questions are answered, in part, by the last part of the book, but are left unattended in the Introduction, and might have provided useful context for the Companion’s intervention in the field. Nonetheless, the samplings of studies offered successfully draw the reader’s attention to the promise of circus studies by preparing students to pursue further research into the circus as a big top of manifold opportunities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THEATRE SURVEY\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"239 - 241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THEATRE SURVEY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0040557422000114\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"THEATER\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEATRE SURVEY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0040557422000114","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"THEATER","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
学术学习和培训项目。杜蒙特的这一章提出了一个历史观点,提到了当代马戏团艺术中“知识分子”和“大众”之间随后的紧张关系(189),就好像这两个术语彼此深恶痛绝一样。因此,只有当马戏团从最初的背景中移除时,它才被认为是艺术性的。最后,Anna Sophie Jürgens的文章《透过镜子:马戏团研究的多学科视角》(第16章)对科学、文学研究、幽默研究和残疾研究等各个学科的富有想象力的学术进行了文学回顾。通过她的探索,她展示了马戏团研究领域的活力。例如,神经科学家通过马戏团中练习的复杂运动练习,研究了“大脑结构的改变”(245)。编辑们承认该领域最近的出现;然而,引言中缺少的是对马戏团、其表演和表演者在过去是如何被描述的历史描述。正如Charles R.Batson和Karen Fricker在第15章中所指出的,“马戏团研究是一个形成中的领域,因此学者们在马戏团研究中应用的方法也是如此”(231)。考虑到这一点,从历史上讲,马戏团在学院里的地位是什么?在进入之前,马戏团奖学金的性质、风格和关注点是什么?档案馆需要填补哪些空白?这些问题在本书的最后部分得到了部分回答,但在引言中没有提及,可能为同伴在该领域的干预提供了有用的背景。尽管如此,所提供的研究样本还是成功地吸引了读者对马戏团研究的关注,让学生们做好了对马戏团进行进一步研究的准备,这是一个千载难逢的机会。
The Chinese Atlantic: Seascapes and the Theatricality of Globalization By Sean Metzger. Indiana University Press. Bloomington: Indiana, 2020; pp. vii + 262, 35 illustrations. $75 cloth, $25 paper, $12.99 e-book.
scholarly study and training programs. Dumont’s chapter makes a historiographical point by mentioning the subsequent tension between the “intellectual” and the “popular” in contemporary circus arts (189), as if the two terms are anathema to one another. Thus, only when the circus was removed from its original context was it recognized as artistic. Last, Anna-Sophie Jürgens’s essay “Through the Looking Glass: Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Circus Studies” (Chapter 16) performs a literary review of the imaginative scholarship taking place across various disciplines, including the sciences, literary studies, humor studies, and disability studies. Through her exploration, she demonstrates the vitality of the field of circus studies. For example, neuroscientists have investigated the “alteration of cerebral formations” through the complex motor exercises practiced in the circus (245). The editors acknowledge the recent emergence of the field; yet what is missing from the Introduction is a historiographical account of how the circus, its acts, and performers have been written about in the past. As Charles R. Batson and Karen Fricker note in Chapter 15, “circus studies is a field in formation, and as such so are the methods scholars apply in their circus research” (231). With that in mind, what has been circus’s place in the academy, historically speaking? What has constituted the nature, style, and concerns of circus scholarship prior to this entry? What are the lacunae that need to be redressed by the archive? These questions are answered, in part, by the last part of the book, but are left unattended in the Introduction, and might have provided useful context for the Companion’s intervention in the field. Nonetheless, the samplings of studies offered successfully draw the reader’s attention to the promise of circus studies by preparing students to pursue further research into the circus as a big top of manifold opportunities.