Selection of Writings - Books

See also: Scripts • Adaptations • Essays • Papers • Other

Directing Poiesis. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1993. • Contents • Preface • Origins • Poiesis & etc. • Epilogue Excerpts from: Mimesis Aesthesis Poiesis
DIRECTING MIMESIS OR THEATRE AS A WORLD OF IMITATION AND REPRESENTATION The form of theatre as a world of representation and imitation is almost as old as the theatre itself and to a large extent still dominates the contemporary theatre. As was pointed out in the previous chapter, when theatre, because of the division of labor, separated itself from ordinary life it underwent certain transformations. But, although it became a recognized artistic form, through the process of separation it lost its independence and authentic theatrical nature. Simultaneously, the director as a main force in the theatre and its most significant engineer and energizer disappeared. Instead, the poet emerged as a dominant force and turned almost the whole history of theatre in a different direction. As a result, the theatre became a representation and imitation of the poet's world expressed in the play. In such a representational theatre, the story, the mythos, became the dominant structural part of the performance, and the words dominated the action on the stage. It was more important what was said instead of what was done. The idea of mimesis was interpreted as demanding endless imitation of both literature and reality. In that manner, the stage became a place where literature dominated and where a kind of primal logos governed. The master of this primal logos which stood at the center of the theatre structure was the poet/playwright who governed the theatrical event, owned the meaning of the performance, projected his or her values to it, and continuously searched for realistic truth. Everything on the stage served poet's/playwright's literature, his or her vision of the world, and the director and actors were there, on the stage, to represent poet's/playwright's will and vision. That is how the western theatre transformed itself into a naive form of representation. Such a single-minded concept was due to dogmatic simplifications, mechanical interpretations, and a total misreading of Aristotle's Poetics wherein he inaugurated the idea of mimesis. In that simplified way theatre and directing as well, were narrowed and their possibilities limited. Directing as a creative process became subordinated to the playwright's work and theatre as an art in general to a written drama. That is, the theatre and directing remained as a shadow of a shadow of reality for a long time. However, the idea of Directing Mimesis and/or the form of theatre as a world of representation and imitation is sought and understood in this study as a creative model which has lost its independence and serves alien aims. In this form of theatre the art of directing serves to represent and imitate on stage a world which was previously created and expressed by dramatic literature. It also serves to represent the author's ideas, thoughts and emotions expressed in his text, and altogether to imitate actual reality. Although the dominance of the mimetic principle in the theatre remains in different forms throughout theatre history, for the purpose of this study I will discuss only those forms of representation significantly related to the art of directing. In fact, the idea of Directing Mimesis will be examined here in the directorial work of Duke Georg of Saxe-Meiningen and his concept of directing as imitation and representation of historical reality, in the achievements of directing as a scientific representation of human nature in the work of André Antoine, in the form of directing as a representation of the life of the human spirit in Stanislavski's practice and theory, and in the theory and practice of directing as representation of ideological truth and social ideas in Brecht's Theatre.
DIRECTING AESTHESIS OR THEATRE AS A WORLD OF INTUITION AND SENSATION Although the form of theatre as a world of intuition and sensation and the form of theatre as a world of representation and imitation existed side by side from the beginnings of theatre, the theatre as a world of intuition and sensation was not recognized as a significant theatrical form. This form of theatre which included such diverse manifestations as improvisation, mime, juggling and acrobatics, was rejected through the centuries by the official culture. But this kind of theatre tenuously survived and existed on the fringes of community life, and practiced and performed its work of art in the streets, at religious festivals, at carnivals and/or in the informal settings of Comedia dell' Arte. Only in the twentieth century with the rediscovery of theatre and with the development of new theories of theatre, did the form of theatre as a world of intuition and sensation and Directing Aesthesis, or directing as a spontaneous and instinctive process, receive serious recognition. This form of theatre emphasizes its own independence, individuality, and theatricality. It is a theatre of free creation, liberated from any pre-established idea or intention, not representing some harmonia praestabilita, but rather expressing the director/artist's intuitive world. It is a theatre also in which intuition and senses dominate over reason and mind, and where form takes precedent over content. The idea of aesthesis, therefore, is considered to be more a kind of intuitive free-flowing play and spontaneous self expression than a highly controlled and/or finished aesthetic structure. In this form of theatre, the artist's commitment to a spontaneous creative process itself and his or her ability to follow his or her intuition is more important than completion and presentation of a pre-established and finished form. Directing Aesthesis in this form of theatre emphasizes the individual and the particular, the discovery process, and human values hidden from everyday sight. The director enters into the creative process in joyful play, transforming his or her creative work, his or her inner vision, into a process of immediate creation. Directing Aesthesis here is considered to be a spontaneous, instinctive and intuitive process, out of which comes a theatrical event as a collective free play. The function of this kind of directing is not to express a particular truth or ideological belief, but rather to realize itself in the realm of the senses, to express itself and to create the performance here and now, and to establish a direct, immediate communication with the spectators/ participants in the theatrical event. This form of theatre and directing also aims to bring the human being back to himself or herself. Through the imaginative free-play initiated by the process of directing, the participant discovers his or her real self and creative potential. Thus, the theatre, brought to a higher creative level, becomes a global metaphor for human life and a significant model of living. However, the idea of Directing Aesthesis and/or the form of theatre as a world of intuition and sensation is sought and understood in this discussion as a creative model which rediscovers and proves theatre's independence and freedom. It serves its own aims and expresses its own world. Although the importance of the director is theoretically stressed, in practice his or her role has been reduced. Often the director gives so much latitude to his or her co-creators, the actors, that he or she cannot be recognized in the production. Rather, at times he or she becomes one with the audience/participants. At other times the director goes even further. After giving everything to the theater for a period of time the director moves on to other ways of being in the world, breaking down the distinction between theatre and life. Since the form of theatre as world of intuition and sensation has appeared in many different forms in this century, this discussion will examine here only those forms of spontaneous creation significantly related to the art of directing. The emphasis will be made in particular on those theatre groups headed by unique individuals whose actual works or writings made considerable impact on the theatre of our time. Finally, the discussion of Directing Aesthesis will examine the process of directing as a supreme creation in Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty, the process of directing as spontaneous collective creation in Living Theatre's rituals and experience, and the process of directing as a sacrificial act leading towards the death of the director in Grotowski's Laboratory Theatre.
DIRECTING POIESIS OR THEATRE AS A WORLD OF MAGIC HARMONY The form of theatre as a world of magic harmony existed also from the beginnings of theatre, but like the previously discussed form of theatre as a world of intuition and sensation, it was not recognized as a well-defined theatrical form. In fact, it was more or less neglected and repressed by the supremacy of the representational theatre. In its past, this form of theatre included various forms which in an imaginative way reconciled reason and the senses as a united and imaginative whole. For example, this form of theatre included Shakespeare's Totus Mundus Agit Histrionem, Molière's Grotesque World, Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk, and many other imaginative works by numerous theatre artists who were able to unite and harmonize all the means of expression into a meaningful theatrical whole. Theatre as a world of magic harmony is also a twentieth century phenomenon. It is a creative and powerful form which is capable of uniting diverse theatrical elements into a completed artistic world. It is also important to recognize that this form of theatre brought about new creative approaches to the theatre. In so doing, it helped a rediscovery of the theatrical nature of theatre, developed new theatre theories and made a crucial distinction between the interpreter and creator in the theatre promoting the director to a true author of the theatre performance. In this form of theatre, the director through his or her imaginative praxis-process of directing, through a poiesis process, harmonizes and reconciles contradictions in an artistic whole. The director also uses the text as a pretext for the performance which is drawn more out of his or her imagination and fantasy than from the script itself. In this mode of creating theatre, with a practice of Directing Poiesis, the director creates a new world for the stage, a world which is neither a representation nor an imitation of reality, nor is it a spontaneous, intuitive or self-reflexive exercise. Rather, the work comes out of the director's individuality and subjective world-view. Thus, the work is a result of the director's fantasy and imaginative power to bring harmony into the world that he or she creates in the performance. Consequently, Directing Poiesis emphasizes not only the creative/productive process in the theatre, but also affirms the acting/doing principle and respects the artist's creative individuality and independence. In so doing, and being in a way a subtle mediator in the process of creation, the director explores his or her imagination in order to bring together and to harmonize history and nature, the ideal and the real, the rational and irrational, the sublime and profane. Out of these oppositions the director creates a harmonious artistic whole, a world of magic harmony. Through the process of Directing Poiesis the director also brings the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom together in a reconciled and harmonized artistic whole. The director's imaginative process of directing also bridges the gap between reason and senses, mind and body, knowledge and intuition, content and form, creating new imaginative and magic worlds. These worlds are neither representations nor imitations of this one; nor are they a spontaneous artistic expression. Rather, they stand for worlds in their own right. The idea of Directing Poiesis, therefore, is sought and understood as a creative artistic model in which the worlds are brought together and reconciled, in which the director's imagination is the main creative force while the director is a spiritus movens and the Alpha and Omega in the theatre. Although the form of theatre as a world of magic harmony has many forms and many significant achievements in the twentieth century theatre, for the purpose of this study I will discuss only those meaningful forms which are closely related to the idea of Directing Poiesis or directing as imaginative creation. That is, this discussion will include an examination and analysis of Adolphe Appia's idea of Theatre as a Form of Living Art, Vsevolod Meyerhold's theory and practice of directing in The Stylized and Theatrical Theatre, and Peter Brook's vision of theatre as reconciled cultures in Empty Space.