Reflective Practitioner: Actors-non actors

I have been thinking about ways in which to describe, identify and understand the role that I will be asking my performers to take up. They will not be actors because they will not be pretending or taking up a fictional character in the traditional sense of interpreting or mimetic action but the term performer is also far too broad with many connotations. I want to be able to understand what I will be asking the people who have come on board with the project to undertake.

I attended a conference in Feb 2006 about the Postdramatic and this difficulty of definition and distinction was something of a recurring topic of discussion and debate. It was a question of how do we classify the performative activities of those involved in postdramatic theatre and how do we train/prepare performers to approach this type of postdramatic work. Although my work is not fully described as postdramatic, it has sprung from these practices and the definition of activity and preparation is very much un-defined.

I thought that attempting a brief definition of the postdramatic at this stage would be useful:

1.1 The Drama/dramatic

In order to enable discussion of Postdramatic theatre, it is first important to briefly examine the nature of the Drama/dramatic in order to offer a provisional definition for the purpose of this investigation, which in turn is at the route of reaching a tentative understanding of the Postdramatic. There are multiple and various conventions, aesthetic schema’s that fall under the description of the Drama/dramatic. Therefore, it is difficult to offer a single or authorative classification of what constitutes the Drama/dramatic: as Szondi reminds us, ‘the notion “drama” is historically bound by its origins as well as in its content’. (Szondi 1987: 5) Throughout its long history the ontology of the Drama/dramatic has remained a contentious issue. For this study, I will not be making a historical review of the ontology of the Drama/dramatic, as many seminal studies in this arena already exist; I am, however, interested in the manifestations and understandings of those in relation to the Drama/dramatic, at the point when the possibility of a ‘post’ or beyond becomes evident. I want to examine the Drama/dramatic only for the purpose of gaining insight and understanding for the ontology of the Postdramatic, as a contemporary theatrical phenomenon. Thus, only a very specific and ‘particular dramaturgical from will be designated “Drama”’ (Szondi 1987: 5), for the interest of this investigation. It is the Modern Drama that will designate my classification and use for the Drama/dramatic: both aesthetically and historically. I will be looking to what Szondi and Fuchs cite as the Modern Drama, hence, ‘the clerical plays of the middle ages nor Shakespeare’s histories belong in this category. Working within a historical frame of reference also eliminates Greek tragedy from consideration.’ (Szondi 1987: 5) This narrows down the field of enquiry to a period and understanding of the Drama/dramatic that both precedes and embodies a crisis of the Drama/dramatic and marks the beginning of the shift towards the Postdramatic.


1.2 Postdramatic Theatre

Although Lehmann takes up Szondi’s project, he rejects his answers and explanations for the reconfiguring of the dramatic and suggests that the ‘epic’ can be understood as belonging to the very dramatic tradition that Szondi claims it dissolves: ‘One can speak of a ‘post-Brechtian theatre’, which is precisely not a theatre that has nothing to do with Brecht but a theatre which knows that it is affected by the demands and questions for the theatre that are sedimented in Brecht’s work but can no longer accept Brecht’s answers.’ (Lehmann 2006: 27) As I have shown, Szondi’s project asserted that at the end of the Nineteenth century the dramatic form was in crisis and I would suggest that at the end of the twentieth century, it is more so. As Lehmann argues in his taking up of Szondi’s project, ‘epic’ theatre was at the time a problematic answer to the crisis of the dramatic and is now, in view of traditional oppositional, political models, no longer feasible or credible in the postmodern climate. The ‘epic’ is starkly unequipped to offer any understanding of recent developments in the theatre: ‘What Brecht achieved can no longer be understood one-sidedly as a revolutionary counter-design to tradition. In the light of the newest developments, it becomes increasingly apparent that, in a sense, the theory of epic theatre constituted a renewal and completion of classical dramaturgy. Brecht’s theory contained a highly traditionalist thesis’

(Lehmann 2006: 33)

Although Piscator, Brecht and other playwrights such as Miller, that Szondi aligns with producing ‘epic’ works, formal aesthetic theory and dissolving the Modern Drama in doing so, Lehmann suggests, as does Fuchs, that they can actually be read as part of that very tradition of Modern Drama. They retain their place within that dramatic tradition because; ‘the fable (story) remained the sine qua non for him [Brecht]’ and this is also true of Miller. As Lehmann implies; ‘from the point of view of the fable, the decisive elements of the new theatre of the late 1960’s to the 199’s [and indeed the new millennium] cannot be understood.’ (Szondi 1987: 33) Fuchs also suggests that Brecht’s epic experiments can be understood as belonging to the modern epoch of the Drama/dramatic:

There is a radical Aristotelianism, subordinating character to plot, in Brecht’s supposedly “Anti-Aristotelian” dramaturgy. In his notes on the street scene, Brecht comments that “the demonstrator [the actor] should derive his characters entirely from their actions”.

(Fuchs 1996: 31)

In order to understand how Lehmann’s term Postdramatic theatre will be useful for my investigation I want to explore briefly some of his key assertions so that I might show a provisional understanding and usage for the term.

Hans-Thies Lehmann identifies a widespread shift within contemporary theatre since the 1970’s, from dramatic to what he describes as ‘Postdramatic’. His ‘study does not aim to be a comprehensive inventory. Rather it attempts to develop an aesthetic logic of the new theatre.’ (Lehmann 2006: 18) The shift that he identifies and examines in his study of Postdramatic theatre does not, as the pre-fix might suggest, signal the resounding death toll of the dramatic form, but instead suggests a continued relationship; he looks to understand the new ways in which that relationship is manifest in contemporary theatre practices. ‘The description of all those forms of theatre that are considered as Postdramatic is intended to be useful. What is at issue, one the one hand, the attempt to place the theatrical development of the twentieth century into a perspective inspired by the new and newest theatre-developments which are obviously still hard to categorize -and on the other hand, to serve conceptual analysis and verbalization of the experience of this often ‘difficult’ contemporary theatre and thus to promotes its ‘visibility’ and discussion.’ (Lehmann 2006: 19)

The shift into Postdramatic theatre identifies ways in which theatre developments’ relationship with the dramatic is being configured in the light of a mass-media, globalized, visually-led culture. The paradigm of Postdramatic theatre is a way in which we can describe and look to understand the current relationships that theatre has with drama in a culture of performance. The typographical categorizing of much new theatre as Postdramatic allows those practices a distinct visibility within the plethora of activities that shelter precariously underneath the umbrella of ‘performance’ and thus opens up the possibility for a field of debate and critical engagement with those practices, that has one foot firmly in the history and traditions of the theatre. ‘To call theatre ‘Postdramatic’ involves subjecting traditional relationships of theatre to drama to deconstruction and takes account of the numerous ways in which this relationship has been refigured in contemporary practice.’ (Lehmann 2006: 2) I would now like to identify some of the key aspects that mark work out as Postdramatic, along with some of the key playwrights, groups, artists and practitioners that will form the focus for part of my research into contemporary theatre practices.
Lehmann, Kaye and Fuchs, note that many of the developments since the 1960’s in theatre, no longer have the imposing and totalising structure of the Drama at its core and neither epic or Lyric interventions can account entirely for these developments. This is true however, of much Live Art and Performance Art, as well as other theatre forms, that aren’t linked or don’t have a relationship with the Drama/dramatic. I want to briefly outline how one might recognise and understand what signals Postdramatic theatre practices from the plethora of other contemporary performance phenomenon. As postmodernism has not left behind modernism entirely, Postdramatic theatre has not altogether abandoned the dramatic: ‘Postdramatic theatre, again and most definitely does not mean a theatre that exists ‘beyond’ drama, without any relation to it. It should rather be understood as the unfolding and blossoming of a potential disintegration, dismantling and deconstruction within drama itself.’ (Lehmann 2006: 44)
Postdramatic theatre has a variety of relationships with drama; text, the dialogue and the interpersonal communication that drives the action in the Drama/dramatic, is displaced. The primacy of the spoken word that is the vehicle of dialogue (and thus dramatic action), is lost and gets pushed alongside the other theatrical modes of presentation and representation; it becomes just one consideration among many: ‘the hierarchy vital for drama vanishes, a hierarchy in which everything (and every thing) revolves around human action, the things being mere props.’ (Lehmann 2006: 73) Dialogue (text) becomes an equal component alongside music, lighting design, costume and props. The hierarchy of the Modern Drama/dramatic disappears, all the elements of staging that served the human action no longer remain just support, instead they generate the thematic of the object: ‘we can speak of a distinct thematic of the object, which further de-dramatises the elements of action if they still exist.’ (Lehmann 2006: 73) The aesthetic components of Postdramatic theatre are multiple and varied but the one shift that they all point to is the turn towards performance and the shift from ‘work’ to ‘event’. ‘The fundamental shift from work to event was monumentus for theatre aesthetics.’ (Lehmann 2006: 61)
Many critics and theorists, most notably, Auslander, Fuchs, Phelan, Zarrilli and Lehmann have identified various playwrights (Crimp, Kane, Müller, Lori-Parks and Handke), Groups (The Wooster Group, Lone Twin, Goat island, Forced Entertainment, Mabou Mimes, The Living Theatre, Blast Theory and Imitating the Dog), artists (Spalding Grey, Orlan, Laurie Anderson and Bobby Baker) and practitioners (Robert LePage, Robert Wilson and Richard Foreman) that they suggest might be understood as Postdramatic or postmodernist. It is these groups and their commentators/critics that will be the starting point for my investigation into performance practices. I will be examining and exploring their interventions for the possibility of a shift in the actor/audience relationship and thus the potential for a shift in the audience’s role. I have selected the various groups, playwrights, artists and practitioners because of their relationship and involvement specifically within the tradition of the theatre rather than fine art or visual practices. (Although some of the practitioners may have a background in the fine arts or other disciplines, the work they produce has a relationship and link of some kind to the dramatic.) As well as looking to established and widely documented theatre practitioners that fall within the arena of Postdramatic theatre, I will also be looking to examine and identify new work. I will be applying the same principles of selection with which I will identify the more established works.
Lehmann is of course not the first to identify such a shift in contemporary theatre, other writers, critics, academic and practitioners have identified and attempted to offer an understanding of new theatre practices; most of which precede and to some extent pave the way for Lehmann’s classification of the Postdramatic. Many theatre theorists have attempted to identify and explore the widening gap between theatre and drama within contemporary theatre practices; a gap that has arisen in the wake of the postmodern condition and a move in the visual and performing arts towards performance: ‘Performance functions in a variety of contexts. Through various discourses and their theories, we have been advised that performance can be lucid, liminal, liberating; that it can infiltrate text, disposes it, and displaces its power along with that of the inseminating author.’ (Heuvel 1991: 5) Elinor Fuchs, Nick Kaye, Peggy Phelan, Philip Auslander, , Philip Zarrilli, Tim Etchells, Baz Kershaw, Herbert Blau and Richard Schechner are among others who have written on the relationship between theatre and performance; focusing on the role and relationship of elements of the new theatre practices, issues that have arisen since the 1970’s: the role of the actor, presence, narrative, plot, character and text for performance being some of the issues of contemporary theatre practice considered by those mentioned above: presence, action, dialogue and character being directly related to the dialectic.
However, I want to suggest that the majority of the studies previous to Lehmann’s have been undertaken in order to establish the theatres (re) action and response to the phenomena of globalization, mediatization, the primacy of visual aesthetics, the homogenization of culture, postmodernist and poststructuralist thought. As Nick Kaye suggests: ‘If ‘postmodernity’ indicates a calling into question of the modernist faith in legitimacy, then it marks modernity at its end rather than a true surpassing of modernity. It follows that one might understand ‘postmodern’ art and discourse as an unraveling of modernist claims to legitimacy.’ (Kaye 1991: 2) Many of the previous studies might be understood as part of such a discourse rather than as a direct response to the crisis of the dramatic as posed by Szondi, which is continued and re-addressed by Lehmann: ‘After Brecht we saw the emergence of absurdist theatre, the theatre of sceneography, the Sprechstück, visual dramaturgy, the theatre of situation, concrete theatre and other forms that are the subject of [Lehmann’s] book. Their analysis can no longer make do with the vocabulary of the ‘epic’.’ (Lehmann 2006: 33) Szondi cites the ‘epic I’ and Lyric theatre as the opposing force to drama and posits it as the answer to the crisis of the dramatic.
I am not suggesting that the Postdramatic is entirely separate or divorced from postmodernist/postructuralism and thus the previous studies that I mentioned, because it is very closely connected with them. As Karen Jürs-Munby suggests: ‘the theory of Postdramatic theatre is of course resonating with many aspects of postmodernist and poststructuralist thinking.’ (Lehmann 2006: 13) As both Jürs-Munby and Lehmann assert, there has long been a deep connection between the dramatic form and history with the dialectical model of philosophy; the dialectic has been a dominant feature of classical drama and ‘the model for a desired, imagined or promised development of history’; (Lehmann 2006: 13) however, as is well discussed and documented by numerous academics from various disciplines, most notably Lyotard and Hutcheon. Kaye examines Lyotard in saying, ‘The postmodern occurs as a moment in which ‘no single instance of narrative can exert a claim to dominate narratives by standing beyond it’; where the ‘grand narrative’ is given over to the little narrative and the telling of the story is displaced by the telling of a story that looks towards its own displacement.’ (Lyotard in Kaye 1991: 19) The events of the last century have shaken our confidence in those dominant Enlightenment ideologies and have led to a crisis of both the dramatic form and dialectical model of history. ‘We have lost a cultural space for The Excellent Work. This is not the day of cathedrals; it is the day of rental apartments. We are achieving McGreatness.’ (Ehn 2002: 194) It is as we look back over the events of the last century, ‘with hindsight and knowledge of our century, optimism has received a hefty blow: too much has happened in the name of science for us to retain an unquestioning belief, whether in science itself, reason, human enlightenment, or any global equality of progress.’ (Gottlieb 1999: 2002). Sadly similar events that have carried on into this one), the growing phenomena of globalization and mediatization that has generated the postmodern condition ‘Post-modernity signals an acute destabilization of the cultural climate throughout the world: an end to all certainties of the modernist past.’(Kershaw 1999: 6) It is exactly these cultural, political and social processes that have had a direct bearing on recent developments in theatre.


1.3 Why is the term ‘Postdramatic’ Useful?

Postmodernism has generated a vast cross section of studies that straddle various disciplines but are concerned with theatre and performance in the postmodern climate. Lehmann’s study of the Postdramatic is indeed a part of that body of work and intrinsically linked with the move towards performance in the arts. However, his study is particularly useful in identifying a particular group of practices (that have varying and multiple aesthetic and formal schemas) and pulling them out of the vast arena of work that gathers under the gargantuan title of performance. The Postdramatic is a term that can help to identify work which still has its roots in dramatic theatre rather than in other activities that can claim the title of performance; ‘Theatre is the site not only of ‘heavy’ bodies but also of a real gathering, a place where unique intersection of aesthetically organized and everyday real life takes place. In contrast to the other arts, which produce and object and/or are communicated through media’ (Lehmann 2006: 17) Postdramatic theatre is a useful term that can trace the lineage of certain performance practices from within a very distinct theatre perspective and in doing so can help to gain further insight and understanding to those practices. As Carlson suggests, ‘ “Performing” and “performance” are terms so often encountered in such varied context that little if any common semantic ground seems to exist among them.’(Carlson 1996: 3) I will be using the Postdramatic as a term and set of loose criteria with which to identify the practitioners and practices to be examined from the overwhelming multitude of work within the arena of performance: ‘The field of Performance Studies takes performance as an organizing concept for the study of a wide range of behavior. A postdiscipline of inclusions, performance studies sets no limits on what can be studied in terms of medium and culture.’ (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett in Bial 2004: 43) It will not be the only study that I turn my attention to (I will also be looking at those academics that I cited previously among others) but will be a useful term for identifying the starting point for my field of study.

At the conference in Feb 06 at Huddersfield University drama dept, there was a lot of discussion about the performer as a vessel or cipher- a deliverer of text and action. I have not been able to find any literature about this to date but will keep looking as I am sure papers will begin to crop up around this area of study. I think that I will be in a better position to consider this idea of the vessel of cipher once we get into the rehearsal room and start to make work. I am hoping that this will be something that I can start to explore in my reflections of our devising sessions.