Preface: My Research Question.
"By using Bolter and Grusin's 'Remediation' on the fourth-wall of theatre, is immediacy no longer the 'ideal', and has hypermediacy become the dominant desire in theatre?"
Expanding on my prior essay offers mixed results. I find that the essay works as a stand alone piece. Even though it deals with most of the elements of my thesis, it takes an alternate direction. THIS IS ACADEMIA, where the same concepts can be applied in a variety of ways to achieve vastly different results.
Let's pull it apart via my question. Firstly, Remediation is two-fold. By this I mean that it can be applied conceptually (for me) both historically and within a singular work. I've separated these ideas as Remediation (the historical) and Remediating (in-work - note the active usage of the term).
B&G (Bolter and Grusin) also identify in this manner - I just need a convenient shorthand for ease of writing/thinking. As far as I can tell, Remediation is always in pursuit of immediacy, whereas Remediating is not.
This in itself poses a huge dilemma. Theatre as an art form is consistently Remediating, but in terms of history there is a distinct period (mid C17-approx. 1900) where the general trend of theatre was toward the immediate.
Just over the last century, theatre has done as much as possible to dispel this line of thought, but the problem still remains:
Is hypermediacy a by-product of theatre, or a sought-after end-point?
Dear chosen deity, make it stop...