Talk:The Public (play)

Moved to English translation of title, in accordance with wikipedia standard convention on naming of articles

DionysosProteus 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Surrealist?

Almost all recent scholarship agrees that it is incorrect to classify El público as surrealist. See, amongst several others:

• Jerez-Farrán, Carlos. 'La estética expresionista en El público de García Lorca', ALEC 11.1-2 (1986), pp.111-127.
• Morris, C. Brian (ed.). The Surrealist Adventure in Spain (Ottowa: Dovehouse, 1991) [Andrew Anderson's chapter; I forget the exact title]
• Boalch, Nicholas. Opening the Theatre beneath the Sand (Durham: University of Durham, 2005)

Martínez Nadal, in his analysis of the play which appeared with the original edition, surveys the question and considers the avant-garde groups of Madrid and Barcelona as a much greater influence than French Surrealism, eventually concluding that Lorca 'no sólo quedaría al margen sino en declarada oposición al movimiento'.

Lorca forcibly rejected being called a Surrealist on numerous occasions and disclaimed a wide selection of common Surrealist techniques. Writing with specific reference to El público, he wrote that 'los credos, las escuelas estéticas, no me preocupan. No tengo ningún interés en ser antiguo o moderno, sino ser yo, natural.' --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick, I'm recategorizing the play as a Surrealist work, for the following two reasons:

Firstly, I haven't responded to your note for a couple of weeks as I've been busy with Hamlet. What that work throws into relief here is that your argument isn't addressing the play's genre, but rather material that in a Shakespeare edition would come under Sources and Influences. But what type of a play this play is is not wholly determined by what influenced it; the two may be wildly divergent. It is in this sense that Lorca's designation should be assessed: lots of modernist writers disassociated themselves from the "branding" of a particular movement; that doesn't affect the nature of the works of art that they created nor does it determine how subsequent generations categorize them.

Secondly, having taken a close look at Nadal's book, I think you've been a little selective in your presentation of his argument; he makes a sources argument, it's true, claiming (with a touch of POV nationalistic pride) that the Spanish context is more relevant to an understanding of the influences on the play, than Breton's French one. However, he then goes on to discuss at some length the ways in which the play is'' a surrealist play. He starts his section on "Surrealism and Cultural Tradition" with:

“ By its form The Public could be classified as a surrealist drama, very likely as the first important attempt to apply surrealist techniques to a theatre of living problems both on the plane of reality and of dream. The extracts so far quoted show the visual surrealism of the play. More could be mentioned. ” — p.70-71

He goes on to point out differences and divergences from Breton's French group, it's true, and claims native influences. The issue of the degree of consciousness in the artist's process is an obvious difference. However, he then goes on to claim the work as Surrealist in a broader sense:

“ But if by 'surrealism' we understand the use of unorthodox techniques tending to facilitate communication between the most intimate world of the artist and the outside world, the coexistence of dream and reality, the intercommunication of different levels, the elimination of the traditional conception of time and space, The Public will be the first full surrealist drama and Lorca, in this play and in a major sector of his work, a singular exponent of the movement. And as this conception of surrealism embraces prominent European artists it would seem legitimate to speak of two types of surrealism. ” — p.72-72

It is in precisely this sense of 'surrealism' that we include our other major exponent in the theatre, Antonin Artaud; his theatre of cruelty was conceived outside of the Breton circle, yet it is undeniably Surrealist. It's the narrow, Breton-dominated conception that is at fault. DionysosProteus 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication Date

The play was actually published for the first time in 1958 as "The Audience" in Evergreen Review #6, perhaps someone should change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.215.15.93 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that's right - it may have excerpted a couple of scenes, but it wasn't published until the 70s. The manuscript only returned to Nadal's possession in '58. DionysosProteus 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, they are scene 1 and 5, translated from "Los Quatro Vientos" (Madrid, 1934). This is mentioned in teh short introduction by Ben Belitt. (anon.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.186.211 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)