Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Grzegorz Sinko. Sylwetka badacza i krytyka teatru

100%

Kuźnicka D.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2012

|

tom 61

|

nr 1-2(241-242)

211-222

EN

Grzegorz Sinko (1923–2000) was an excellent English philologist, uncommonly insightful theatre critic, outstanding theatre theoretician – in one word, a scholar of great stature. He was also an exceptional, often difficult and always interesting person. He was born in Kraków in 1923 as son of the Classical philologist of great renown, Professor Tadeusz Sinko, and Anna Starzewska, and it is in that town that he spent his childhood and youth. In 1944, he started studying English philology at the Jagiellonian University and completed his course of study in 1948. The first five years of Sinko’s academic work were spent at the University of Wrocław. This is where he received his PhD degree in 1950. He continued his fast-paced academic career in Warsaw. In 1953–1957, he was employed at the State Institute of Art (Państwowy Instytut Sztuki), and was promoted to associate professor, in 1955. Until 1971 he worked at the University of Warsaw where, after being promoted to full professor in 1964, he held various positions. According to his own opinion, he was a demanding professor. Since his debut in 1947, he published more than 450 historical and critical articles, reviews, essays, translations, and commentaries. In the 1950s, his research focused mostly on English theatre and drama. He combined his knowledge of literature and philology with competence in theatre studies. From 1959 to 1977, and especially in the1960s, his essays, analyses and critical studies appeared in Dialog monthly, where he also published his translations of English and German dramas. At the beginning of the 1970s, just as he started working at the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Sinko intensified his collaboration with Teatr. The English- and German-speaking spheres of culture, productions of plays coming from these regions, accounts of what was going on in their theatres and literature of the field were to remain Sinko’s specialty as he was fluent in both languages. In 1970–1988 there appeared in Teatr 138 articles by Sinko; they included theatre and book reviews, essays, etc. It seems that the critical essay, with its less rigorous structure which enabled him to freely combine academic writing, elements of the history of literature and theatre, philology and theoretical approach with descriptions of particular theatre productions and their careful appraisal, supplemented with free expression of his intellect, suited him the most. He was a gifted writer; his articles were erudite, insightful and clear, and his vivid, witty and ironic style, coupled with his penchant for anecdote, were invaluable qualities of his writing. Sinko supported and encouraged theatrical experiments and those in search for something new who were breaking away with tradition just as long as they had a clear understanding of what they were trying to achieve and were able to show it in a convincing, compelling fashion. His critical essays displayed also a new research programme, which Sinko initiated while working at the Institute: the semiotics of theatre. Sinko had a clear and definite idea of how to study theatre. In his view, theatre studies needed a solid methodological foundation in the form of a well-developed theory, which made ample use of structuralism, semiotics, and theory of literature in general. Sinko wrote three remarkable books: Kryzys języka w dramacie współczesnym – rzeczywistość czy złudzenie? (A Crisis of Language in Modern Drama: Reality or Illusion? Wrocław, 1977), Opis przestawienia teatralnego – problem semiotyczny (Description of Theatrical Performance As a Semiological Problem, Wrocław, 1982), and Postać teatralna i jej przemiany w teatrze XX wieku (The Theatrical Character and Its Evolution in Twentieth-century Theatre, Wrocław, 1988). In his research he referred to a substantial body of English, German and French literature in the field of linguistics, literary theory and theatre studies, drawing from there categories and concepts to grasp, analyse and describe with precision the phenomena he focused on. He saw the importance of the of the paradigm shift that had been taking place in the modern humanities and paid close attention to post-structuralism. He died a tragic death.

2

Jak terminowałem u Zbigniewa Raszewskiego

100%

Degler J.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2012

|

tom 61

|

nr 1-2(241-242)

31–50

EN

Professor Zbigniew Raszewski as a researcher and many-year editor of Pamiętnik Teatralny had a tremendous impact on the development of the Polish theatre studies, building their foundations and devising methodological principles and directives before theatrology gained university status in 1975. It had been a pretty long process, its progress marked with subsequent articles, studies and books by Raszewski and monographic issues of Pamiętnik Teatralny which at the beginning of the 1960s became a major centre of the Polish theatrological thought. Zbigniew Raszewski was an uncontested academic authority and an example of what a scholar should be. Many of his studies were groundbreaking and inspiring. Such was the case with the study Paradoks Wyspiańskiego (Wyspiański’s Paradox, 1957) whereby Raszewski argued that Wyspiański could be viewed as an innovator in the history of European theatre because he had conceived drama as a kind of theatre score. Another fundamental study of his was devoted to the concept of theatre score (1958) in which Raszewski explained why in theatre it was impossible to create something equivalent to the music score and then proposed that the concept be understood as the elements of drama structure and passages of text that are respected in every production without exception. The monographic issue of Pamiętnik Teatralny (vol. 1–3, 1959) devoted to Polish Romantic drama, up to that point considered closet drama, brought about another breakthrough. In his studies on the pieces by Mickiewicz and Słowacki, Raszewski showed conclusively that they were written with the stages of Paris and London in mind as both authors had been familiar with theatre houses in these cities and had consciously taken their staging and production capabilities into consideration. In the second part of the article, the author talks about his cooperation with Zbigniew Raszewski, quotes his letters relating to publishing the book Trudny Rebus. Studia i szkice z historii teatru (A Difficult Riddle. Studies and Sketches On Theatre History, 1990) and recalls his opinion about the Wiedza o Kulturze Publishing House, which, after Professor’s death, published an anthology that he had prepared, Sto przedstawień w opisach polskich autorów (A Hundred Performances Described By Polish Authors; withheld by the censor in 1972) and the volume Weryfikacja czarodzieja i inne szkice o teatrze (Magician’s Verification and Other Sketches On Theatre, 1998).

3

O “Pamiętniku Teatralnym”. Rozważania na 60-lecie

100%

Ratajczak D.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2012

|

tom 61

|

nr 1-2(241-242)

5-31

EN

The text is an attempt at recapitulating the sixty-year history of Pamiętnik Teatralny, the first Polish theatrological periodical, and showing its place and role in Polish theatre studies. Through all these years, a lot of things have changed. For one, theatrology, non-existent at the time the periodical was established, has flourished and developed in many directions; universities have formulated curricula for the courses of study in the field; but most of all, as a result of changes affecting the humanities in general, the function and importance of theatre history have changed. It no longer encompasses the whole, extensive field of theatrology, and the tradition and traditional kinds of research are not universally accepted. The situation called for taking a closer look at the periodical which was meant to become the foundation Polish theatre studies, starting with its tell-tale title. Its significance was paramount, since it enabled the founders to define the horizon of the periodical, its field of research, and to determine the norm and research formula which made Pamiętnik Teatralny a kind of “external memory” not for the theatre medium but rather for theatre art. The article recounts actions of three consecutive editorial boards focusing mostly on programmatic enunciations of the editors in chief: Leon Schiller, the tandem of Bohdan Korzeniewski and Zbigniew Raszewski, and Edward Krasiński. The periodical’s programme stemmed from the modernist traditions and visions of the interwar period. The founding myth of Pamiętnik Teatralny and of the Polish theatre studies as well, comes from Leon Schiller, and his successors have remained faithful to that myth. Schiller envisaged a highly modernist formula of theatre history as an autonomous inquiry, devoted to research on great auratic art created in institutional theatre. The major goal was to prepare a synthetic history of the Polish stage, and all individual issues, whether of monographic or review character, were to serve that purpose. Thanks to the canon of values, research approaches, subjects and problems, the artistic phenomena and artists that became “heroes” of the monographic issues, Pamiętnik Teatralny has become a solid, uniform periodical of almost monolithic dimensions, untouched by some exceptions that appeared along the way. Despite the fact that the whole system worked well in the previous years, it seems that it now needs rethinking. The sixtieth anniversary is an excellent occasion to make such an effort.

4

O “Pamiętniku Teatralnym” i jego redaktorach

88%

Kuligowska-Korzeniewska A.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2012

|

tom 61

|

nr 1-2(241-242)

51–58

EN

The article consists of two parts which have been written from two different points of view. The first part is based on materials from Bohdan Korzeniewski’s home archive. Among the documents there is a typed manuscript that sketches out the periodical’s programme and contains a list of possible collaborators. This part is complemented with an account of Korzeniewski’s actions aimed at realising his vision. The second perspective is somewhat more personal. The author, being at the same time a collaborator of Pamiętnik Teatralny, recounts her most important meetings with the editorial board, finishing the article with a description of the party celebrating Bohdan Korzeniewski’s eightieth birthday.