Today, it is clear that if we are in public - if not before, gentos because we are social creatures

It is easy to see that the policy has become a key word in today's gentos world of international Punch (executive) art, but immediately raises a more difficult question: why today we talk so much about politics in art, art and politics, political art, art politic etc.? Why did the policy has become a key word? What's the driving force behind all those books, texts, presentations, conferences, festivals and grants? What does it mean metaphor policy qua theater and, more generally, gentos what it means to teatrum mundi? On what grounds, historical references and conceptual views we feel this "theoretical intuition" that the artistic performance and policy related and relatives?
What I was particularly intrigued when I reflect gentos on these issues, is that along with interest for the Performing Arts in politics, we are also confronted with social exclusion and the last for the twentieth century. seeing gentos more and more limited access to the public, that macro-level calls into question the relevance of the topic.
Not an effort to reduce the tension between these two extremes, I will try to rethink the term politic performance as a discipline and artistic practices in modern capitalist society nealibiralnym democratic West, and why it is essential not only redefining the art, but will also help to better understand Western society, and how we act in it as citizens. First, I will try to determine kantekstualizavats and critically epistemiyalagichnuyu clarify the structure of the theme, because it is generally bad slip that in turn provokes such approaches to the subject, according to which as a matter of course perceived that the relationship of performance and policy gentos today must have a social value. Vita activa, vita performativa and teatrum mundi: historical and contextual view
The metaphor of politics as theater and even the whole of the public and, more broadly, the social life of the people firmly entrenched in Western society since ancient Greece, going to the Christian Middle Ages, the Baroque era, Shakespeare's time, the bourgeois society of the eighteenth century. and reaching up to the present day. My question is: on what grounds? Also taking into account that it epistemiyalagichna relevant or can be empirically proven, based on which we accept the return form? In other words, if the policy - a theater, does that mean automatically that the theater - this is politics, or is it just a mistake in the opinion, which has become a common, clear and correct just because it so many times repeated. gentos
In general gentos metaphor teatrum mundi had quite different connotations throughout history, starting with the one where we are, people just sang the song to the gods, then it turned into a bourgeois codes of conduct in public and reached our time, where we meet our social roles in endless television reality show of contemporary society of the spectacle. Yet if you try to bring them to a common denominator, the result will be an understanding that each of us is never alone with him (alone), that we are always under supervision.
Today, it is clear that if we are in public - if not before, gentos because we are social creatures - they turn into performarav, carry themselves to others and to others. Also there are many sociological, anthropological and political studies looking at public policy and practice as a theater and performance, gentos not only as a metaphor, but also point to the formal and procedural similarities between them.
I remember here abstracts E. Hoffmann about the presentation gentos itself in everyday life and the concept of social roles, Arendt's thesis about the similarity of performance and politics as two social practices, both of which contain a public sense and the presence of others, the concept of Richard Seneta about a public person, gentos and the person as actor and others. [1].
These theses and reflections raise another question, namely, whether it is a metaphor or universal connection; where could be that boundary that separates our literal acts of our performances - in art, in the public sphere and private life.
Richard Shehner tried to distribute it, spreading the concept of doing (doing), applies to all human actions, and the notion of doing the show (showing doing), gentos which relates to the performance in the arts and beyond. Showing making (compliance action) does not mean that the executable act insincere gentos or artificial, it indicates only that the performative subject is aware that he / she will perform an action, point to it, highlight and accentuate this the attention of those who are watching him / her. [2] However, gentos even with the theoretical tools at hand in life is difficult to draw the line, it is because people are always already social and as such sui generis to create gentos an environment with, and in front of other people - even if those other, gentos as one would say some thinkers, not always empirically present.
If