Concept

Description:

This week we started with Paucartambo’s PPP. We started with the analysis of the stimuli and arrive to a concept.

Analysis:

Looking for a stimulus was the first step; we started looking for something that could be analyzed. As we all had different ideas everybody looked his way, but finally we all decided that our concept could be discrimination.

In Paucartambo we saw how the “other” and the “Yo” struggle with each other to finally join. We saw how this problem applies to our world. We wanted that the idea our play was going to be about could relate with the audience. As Paucartambo showed their identity we wanted to show ours, we wanted to show how we are.

We started looking for a problem we could show, what was going to happen in our play. We thought in the struggle for property. In our society we always see problems between two groups because they want to be the owners. We thought that this problem was applied in CONGA for example. We wanted to represent this problem first but it would be trying to change the world, or making them reflect in a theme that for many isn’t important. We wanted to make something that take more part of the identity of the audience, the people from school.  So we started saying that for that the “property” should be the school.

Who is the “yo” who is the “other”. That was our next question. Students and teachers? We thought that the students could fight against the teachers so that they ruled in the school.  We also get to the idea of presenting three parts, as in Paucartambo 3 days and the last one would be  “la guerrilla” that would be when the problem would be resolved. After thinking on this we had our vision.

The students will be studying and the teachers will treat them as how education was before. All the injustices and the “dictatorship” there was. The students will then reveal and take the school. Finally the order would be reestablish but in a more just way.  From this we got to our concept: “Pachakuti: The world upside down.”

This was once again another case in which there wasn’t a fixed order. As the game sometimes comes first this time the vision came before the concept. After arriving to the concept I felt a relive. I think that arriving to the concept is the hardest part. What needs more analysis. Production can take a lot of effort but getting to the concept I think is the more challenging as it has to make since, everything in the play has to go around this. The story, structure, design, etc.  

Connections:

La falsa criada: We could find a concept for this play, and this was evident in the presentation. There wasn’t any coherence between the desing elements, the direction and the acting.

A matter of dissection: The concept for this play was “Live at the center, death at the top” This concept could be only understand by the ones in the group. The idea helped for our vision and later for the presentation, here the concept wasn’t applied much to the design because it was difficult to apply that idea for thing like music, costume or make-up, but we could apply it to the scenery.  How did this worked if the concept wasn’t followed?

Reflections:

A concept is what makes the play coherent, but if a concept isn’t follow then can there still be an order? What I think a matter of dissection followed although the concept wasn’t present in most of the design elements we still made an effort so that the design elements had coherence with each other, a connection between them. The costumes followed for example the color scheme, the music would be the same in the start and at the end of the play. A think that a concept makes easier the coherence inside a play, but if the concept cannot be followed or applied in an specific part of the play then we still have to put order into the play. The order is what gives coherence and so that when you watch the play you don’t feel that what you are seeing have nothing to do with what have you seen before in the play.