Page 145 [145]
CHAPTER THREE: BRINGING TOGETHER THE ÁRTISTIC AND THE EDUCATIONAL PRAXIS
also indirectly through offering tasks that create different levels, for example
making a depiction of where the role learned to behave in the way that was
apparent Írom the action investigated.
The use of this framework helps in making the participants of a drama
aware of different possible sources of an action and connects the individual’s
deed with other people in the community, other people in the past and
other human beings in general anywhere in the world. It is a tool that can
be implemented in both planning and during facilitating a process drama.
Davis also lists different interpretations of this framework. Maria Gee
interprets motivation as the psychological, investment as the sociological,
model as the historical and stance as the philosophical level behind an action.*”
Davis also refers to Geoff Gillham’s interpretation, who was also the first to
point out the usefulness of the AMIMS structure and also moved the “five layers
firmly into the area of the social" in his adaptation of it. Cooper describes
Heathcote’s original as analysing the subjective in the objective, the individual
in the socio-historic world and Gillham’s as the objective in the subjective,
the socio-historic in the individuals awareness.°”° Cooper attempts to create
a Bondian interpretation of the ‘layers of meaning’ in which he duplicates
the table, looking at five levels of an action as ‘reality ideologised’ and a parallel
table for ‘reality imagined’. Cooper tries to incorporate the duality of Bond’s
interpretation of reality, but he is not satisfied with the re-interpretation
created by him and wants to develop it further.°”°
Bond uses the phrase ‘acting the Invisible Object’ referring to someone from
within the drama showing the situation without its ideological interpretations.
Davis explains that “the invisible object can be misleading as a term. It does
not necessarily relate to an object but to the objective situation — what is
objectively there rather than what is perceived in ideology”.®”’ The term is
profoundly rooted in Bond’s theory, explained in detail in the second chapter,
which says that we use a culturally formed toolkit for interpreting situation
and what we perceive as reality is actually deeply informed by the cultural
narratives that we use as reference points in the process of interpretation.
Acting the Invisible Object refers to showing that there is a human situation
that is covered by ideological interpretations.
Amoiropoulos presents an example from the Bond play A Window of
a moment that the text offers as a possible moment to open up in this way.
523 Gee: The contribution of drama, 25.
Davis: Imagining the Real, 68.
525 Chris Cooper: The Levels of Meaning — a Bondian approach?, Unpublished document,
Personal communication, 6 April, 2011, Appendix G.
5% Ibid.
°7 Davis: Imagining the Real, 151.
524
+ 144 +