- Autori: Sica, A.
- Anno di pubblicazione: 2017
- Tipologia: Prefazione/Postfazione (Prefazione/Postfazione)
- OA Link: http://hdl.handle.net/10447/233829
In the last thirty years theatrical historiography has produced a vast literature about the Enlightenment debate on actor and on the reception of theories, which this "debate" has proliferated. But what has come to us from that ancient debate is precisely the one perception of the 'visible concept', which each representation or theatrical interpretation wants to give of itself. Stopping at the analysis of the visible concept has its attractions: if the spectator cannot see what it hides behind that concept, that is, to recognize the truth on the generis of the artifice, the deception of art has reached triumphantly the purpose. But historiography, and particularly theatrology, is limping if it limits its attention to what is visible on the scene, if it limits the investigation to the observation of acting models and to the analysis of the idea that has generated the model, ignoring the practice that has developed its shape. it is instead essential to keep in mind a wide variety of sources to be compared, to reconstruct the rules and practices of actors’ acting or of a particular actor, and above all the aesthetic reflection on art must be distinguished from the explanation of the practice.