Lisa Jones’ Combination Skin: Embracing the Combination

Lisa Jones’ Combination Skin (1996) is not simply an attempt to play around with the TV show format that seems to be regarded as the most overly popular variety at that particular period of time. Its complexity extends further than only to re-emphasize series of problematic yet widely-accepted ideas regarding the discourse of race, color and culture. The play portrays not only the natural binary oppositions but also the unnatural effort in actually embracing the unavoidable variety. Its approach by utilizing TV’s variety show format ends up aiding the play to construct its own variant and response to such variety.     

Despite its obvious attempt to differentiate yet assimilate the well-known issues within racial and cultural discourses, Jones’ own variety of actually situating such problems is worth the effort of a thorough dramatic—though mostly textual—analysis. Her unnatural construction situates a distortion within the aforementioned popular discourses, and also a distortion between notion of Mind and Body. Both of which does not only make strange the already-established ideas regarding such issues. Both of which also attempt to formulate, again, seemingly new understanding towards the discourses. It is a new understanding that tends to embrace its varied elements rather than abruptly differentiate them.  

Doing Performance while Doing Some Art

The following piece of writing will be a brief report on the form of both performance and artistry that our drama class has done. Even though I am not sure how to call such combination, it involves controlling our body not only to perform our own plays while putting our attention into other activities; spreading the canvas within the floor, painting whatever comes to our mind, and so on. What then becomes the difficult part of the whole routine is to still be able in gathering people’s attention to our own plays when they are clearly have something to do too; that is painting and, for some, performing their own performances as well.

Disguise and Deception in King Lear

As far as my observation goes, there are two change of roles that occurred within the play; the one with Kent and Edgar.

Kent, the former earl, ends up disguising himself as a low life servant for his former adversary, King Lear. After being banished by Lear as a result from Lear’s own arrogance in not accepting or even hearing Kent’s advice relating to his way of ruling the land. Despite the fact of his banishment from the kingdom, Kent’s love and compassion for the king and the kingdom is far too great to make him surrender. Thus, he decided to try different approach in giving Lear guidance, by becoming one of his trusty servants.

Tragedy, Body, and Mental Images in King Lear, M. Butterfly, Purgatory and Zoo Story

Albeit being written in different period of time and by different playwrights, King Lear (1606) by William Shakespeare, M. Butterfly (1988) by David Henry Hwang, Purgatory (1938) by William Butler Yeats, and The Zoo Story (1958) by Edward Albee, do construct similar and different yet relevant signification especially in terms of its tragic moments, body and its social placement, and externalization of psychological condition and mental images.   

We, You and I

Duty is not the only
Thing that matters
As it is just
The way we are,
You are, I am

Role we are assigned
With that comes without
Any of our permissions
As it is who we are,
You are, I am

They overlap, tugging
Our conscience without
Any sorts of mercy
As it is who we are,
You are, I am

Priority collapses, broken
By sequential hurdles
Emerging from each sides
As it is who we are,
You are, I am

Time consumed vigorously
By a mere act of thinking
Without making any resolve
As it is who we are,
You are, I am

Who are we?
Who are you?
Who am I?

Rancangan Awal Penelitian - Wacana Ambivalensi pada Karya-karya Derek Walcott

Dalam salah satu tulisannya yang berjudul “Signs Taken for Wonders”,[1] Bhaba menjelaskan bahwa segala permasalahan ataupun pembahasan yang berkaitan dengan masalah kolonial selalu bersifat ambivalen atau kontradiktif. Baik dalam hal munculnya transparansi yang pada akhirnya menimbulkan adanya pembedaan ruang, kedudukan dan kadar pengetahuan antara satu dengan yang lain, atau bahkan dalam terbentuknya sebuah hibriditas yang nantinya menyebabkan adanya distorsi dalam rangkaian proses wacana kolonial yang ada. Walaupun demikian, cakupan pembahasan yang telah disajikan oleh Bhabha nampak begitu luas—cenderung berkaitan dengan sebuah komunitas—sehingga terlihat tidak memberikan perhatian yang selaras terhadap individu-individu pembangun masyarakat yang sama. Selain daripada itu, merujuk kepada anggapan yang telah disampaikan Bhabha bahwa “The discovery of the book…is, as well, a process of displacement” (penemuan buku adalah juga merupakan sebuah proses pemindahan),[2] terdapat sebuah keterkaitan antara buku—atau literatur; tulisan—dengan proses perpindahan atau perubahan tempat yang menimbulkan suatu distorsi lain ketika tulisan tersebut diulang, diterjemahkan, dan di salah artikan. Bisa dikatakan, buku ataupun tulisan merupakan salah satu media ataupun pemicu munculnya ambivalensi-ambivalensi dalam masyarakat dan wacana kolonial. Maka dari itu, dengan pemahaman akan adanya kaitan tulisan dengan ambivalensi dalam wacana kolonial tersebut, saya akan coba untuk memusatkan penelitian saya terhadap gejala-gejala wacana ambivalensi yang disajikan dalam karya-karya milik Derek Walcott.  

Question of Passion

Important, it is, one’s genuine compassion

All that mater relates to one’s concrete passion

Yet, it is troubled, when one does not have the reason

A pity, indeed, yet it does situate such a confusion

Thought, it was a matter of making a choice

Following, obeying, your heart’s own voice

Without being aware of a loss of interest

Spoiling one self, the priority that came first

Too many questions, none were and are answered

Fear and anxiety, things that makes us cornered

Yet worry not, such matter lies without a context

It is a thing, against us we cannot protect