Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

From the Editor

From the Editor Scholars of contemporary Western arts often spend their research hours in archives created by others. Work in the current Western humanities involves considerable theorization about the meaning of "the archive" and analysis of the motives under which archives were assembled. In contrast I see many of the authors in this volume (as is often the case in Asian theatre research) creating archives. Figurative or literally, the work is capturing the data and details we did not know. Examples are Jay Keister's breakdown of the dance of the kabuki hero Sukeroku and field reports (Shiva Massoudi on Iranian stringed puppetry, Sir Anril Tiatco's on komedya performed at the University of the Philippines, and Madan Sarma and Parasmoni Dutta on bhaona in festival context in Assam). Does this digging up the data that we often see in these pages make our Asian theatre as a field less theoretically sophisticated than Euro-American theatre analysis? Is this detail-oriented issue less important than issues with more articles making multiple theoretical leaps? My personal hunch is that many of the theoretical slants being used by current academic writers are passing--that is, vagaries that concern the important (but often culture- and class-specific) battles being fought http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asian Theatre Journal University of Hawai'I Press

From the Editor

Foley, Kathy
Asian Theatre Journal , Volume 26 (2) – Feb 6, 2009
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/from-the-editor-XrVCXAjCyx

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'I Press
ISSN
1527-2109
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Scholars of contemporary Western arts often spend their research hours in archives created by others. Work in the current Western humanities involves considerable theorization about the meaning of "the archive" and analysis of the motives under which archives were assembled. In contrast I see many of the authors in this volume (as is often the case in Asian theatre research) creating archives. Figurative or literally, the work is capturing the data and details we did not know. Examples are Jay Keister's breakdown of the dance of the kabuki hero Sukeroku and field reports (Shiva Massoudi on Iranian stringed puppetry, Sir Anril Tiatco's on komedya performed at the University of the Philippines, and Madan Sarma and Parasmoni Dutta on bhaona in festival context in Assam). Does this digging up the data that we often see in these pages make our Asian theatre as a field less theoretically sophisticated than Euro-American theatre analysis? Is this detail-oriented issue less important than issues with more articles making multiple theoretical leaps? My personal hunch is that many of the theoretical slants being used by current academic writers are passing--that is, vagaries that concern the important (but often culture- and class-specific) battles being fought

Journal

Asian Theatre Journal – University of Hawai'I Press

Published: Feb 6, 2009

There are no references for this article.