- Teaches students:
- Ages 22 to 50
- Teaching since:
As a Director, my proposal always takes a reflection on the text as starting point: an analytical commitment to the author's language as it comes expressed in its structure and stylistic features. In the sense I illustrate it, it means to exert an interpretative freedom within the boundaries of what Roland Barthes called the semantic plural of a text.
Given a special interest in the experimentation through language I have restrained the scope of my reflection to the so-called theater of the absurd. In my work on that genre I have set as an aesthetic goal, to bring what was thought as a mainly dialogistic and situational language, to a higher level of semiotic interplay. In that regard, my aim is to integrate entire scenic materials (including lighting, set, and more abstract element such as rhythm) as intrusive and/or commentate resources to the sources given within the text itself.
I have never been worried about plots that give an illusion that one "understands" just because the plot imposes an order that is similar to life; where the word "dramatic development" is implicit, creating a unique sensation for the spectators. As Luciano Berio said about his splendid music, "the experience of not being completely sure of what one listens to, should be considered inseparable to the work." That's to say, not all have to be comprehended by the spectator. And as a dramatist friend says, "sometimes, not even the author, who writes, understands." It is about leaving marks, milestones, footsteps that bring a hidden sense, leaving a perceptible and therefore, terrible, ineffable image. A teacher I had at the university said in class, "Art is not about questions and answers, Art is