border crossing

The new theatre, defined in terms of the modern and the avant-garde, has been surrounded by prejudice stemming from an old-fashioned way of thinking and from the worst of the traditions of bad taste. Its other causes are ignorance, lack of sensitivity and a total disregard for the crucial functions of art.
One of the symptoms of the prejudice surrounding the new theatre is the old and overused accusation concerning its incomprehensibility, exclusiveness and indifference to social matters. What is ignored is the simple fact that such accusations may result from applying a false strategy to the recognition of a work of art. In this case it is exactly so. The strategy which is used has been inherited from the 19th century, the age of the downfall of arts. The rule applied says that art is an illustration - not of life any longer, but of everyday practices of life and of its superficial anecdote. In this light any artistic production that reaches beyond this thin layer appears to be incomprehensible and strange. I am strongly convinced that only the theatre which is based on the methods of modern thinking and perception has the potential to become the mass theatre, merged with the society. Giving up the pseudo-inquisitive analysis, imagination reaching beyond the limits of everyday experience, metaphors increasing human sensibility, surprising and shocking because of their expressive power - all this creates a sphere of great tension, capable of influencing and convincing a great mass of people.



THE SO-CALLED "SCENERY"


The terms "the stage set", "the scenery" or "stage design" become useless and unnecessary in the new theatre. They imply a distinction. What is understood by these terms ought to be integrated with the theatrical whole so strongly as to melt into the entire stage matter. It should not be discernible.
The relationship between the actor and "this thing", i.e. the former "scenery" or "props" ought to be as inseparable as the guillotine and Kapet's head in the time of the revolution - everlasting.
The theatre that I am talking about has renounced the idea of the "scenery" understood as an illustration of art. This belongs to the worst of theatrical traditions. The scenery does not have to, and even should not, function only as the location, regardless of whether the form is constructivist, surrealist, expressionist, symbolic, naturalistic or poetical. It has much more important and alluring functions to perform, such as the function of locating emotions, conflicts and the dynamics of the action. It may not exist at all, absorbed by the actor's movement and expression, replaced by the light or by works of art: a painting or a sculpture carrying the value of authenticity, just as it used to result from the application of authentic values in the theatre - a poor example of stylization.