5 the Invention of Theatricality

7/25/2019 5 the Invention of Theatricality

1/17

The Invention of "Theatricality": Rereading Bernard Dort and Roland BarthesAuthor(s): Jean-Pierre Sarrazac and Virginie MagnatReviewed work(s):Source: SubStance, Vol. 31, No. 2/3, Issue 98/99: Special Issue: Theatricality (2002), pp. 57-72Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685478.

Accessed: 19/10/2012 06:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwischttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3685478?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3685478?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc


2/17

The

Inventionof

"Theatricality":

Rereading

ernard ort ndRolandBarthes

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

Art an

only

e reconciled

ith ts xistence

yexposing

its nternal

mptiness.

Adorno,

hdorie

sthitique

At

the

opening

of

Gordon

Craig's

The

Art

Of

The Theater

1912),

the

Stage-Director,

ho has

ust

hown

he

Playgoer

round he heatern order

to

give

him

an idea ofthe"machine"

"general

onstruction,

ogether

ith

the

stage,

the

machinery

or

manipulating

he

scenes,

the

apparatus

for

lighting,

nd the

hundred ther

hings"

137]),

nvites is

guest

o "resthere

in

the

uditorium

nd talk whileofthetheater nd of ts

art..."(137).

his

lesson merits ttention: ne should never address any of thequestions

pertaining

o

theatricalesthetics

ithout

aving

first aced he

tage

tself,

even

f

only

mentally.

rior o

developing

ritical

hinking

bout

theater,

t

is

necessary

o take

note,

nce

more,

f thefact

hat

his

onfined,

lat

rea,

in

spite

of

its

being

destinedto become the

pedestal

of

an

entire

world,

appears absolutely

desertedwhen not

n

use.

In

the

past,

the

red

curtain

spared

theaudience the

ight

f

this

void;

it

was

only

drawn

back

n

order

to

et

throughmirages ormerly

evisedback

stage.

Now

purely unctional,

the

"iron

curtain"

eems

to set the

spectators

nd

the artists

part,

t

the

outset

of a

performance,nly

to endow the

absolute,

gaping

void of the

modern

tage

with

greater ower.

Behind

he

velvet

urtain,

ur

elders

were

able to

conceive

f

he

munificencend

plenitude

f

theater

ounded

pon

illusion.

Nowadays,

as

soon

as the curtain

ises,

we

become aware

of

the

inadequacy

of

the et

and

scenography,

iven

hat

hese an never

uite

fill

thevoid ofthe

tage

norfulfillhe

udience's

expectations.

he

stage,

ven

whenparticularlyurdened, emains tterlympty-andpossiblymore o

in

this ase.

It

s

precisely

his

mptiness-this

non-representativeness

hat

the

tage

seems

bound

to exhibit

o

the

udience.

I

somehow

suspect

Gordon

Craig

and

his

Stage-Director

f

having

confrontedhe

Playgoer

with

he

unredeemable

acuity

f

he

tage

n

order

to

impress

him

with the dea thatthe Art

of

the

Theater'

was no

longer

supposed

to

provide

us with sense of

plenitude

nd

overwhelming

ife,

? Board ofRegents, niversityfWisconsin ystem, 002 57

SubStance

#

8/99,

ol.

31,

nos.

2

&

3,

2002


3/17

58

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

but

that, nstead,

t

was to

convey

he

surreptitious,

rratic

nd

discarnate

actions fdeath-"theworddeath,raigobserves, omesnaturallyomind,

as a

parallel

to theword

ife

laimed

s

theirs

y

the

realists."

1912, 5)2

Illusion or

Simulacra?

Even if

one assumes

that

wentieth-century

heater

emains

founded

upon

imitation-an

assumption

that

must be

closely

examined-such

imitation,

n

Craig's

view as

well as

in

many

others'

including

number f

"realists"),

o

longer

demands the

pectator's

ubservience

o

illusion,

ut

requires nsteadhis/her riticalnspection fsimulacra. would thusbe

tempted

o

posit

that

he

footlights

nd

the red

curtain

were abolishedde

facto

nce the

spectator

was

encouraged

by

the

actorsor

any

given

group

leader-the

stagemanager,

he

director,

he

uthor,

tc.-to

become nterested

not

n

the

theater vent s

such,

but

n

the

dvent,

within

he

performance,

of theater

tself-or of

what

one

may

call

theatricality.

his

marked

new

development

hat

ed

theater

way

from he

ealm f

he

pectacular

hrough

its

nvolvement

f

the audience

n

the

production rocess

of

simulacra n

stage.

This is

an

implicit

evelopment,

which n

most

cases is not

easily

identifiable.

owever,

t

s

perfectly

dentifiablend

explicit

n

Brecht's

ork,

as

the

German

director

laims

he wants

theater o admit

t

s

theater";

his

is

also true

of

Pirandello'swork:

doesn't

the

Stage

Manager

of

Tonight

We

Improvise

eclare

very

night

o

the

public

hat

hey

re

going

o

"try

nd

see

how the

acting,

he

simulation,

he

simulacra

ften

eferred o as

theater,

functions f

tsown

accord."

Attheturn fthetwentiethcentury,hetheater,longwiththeother

representational

rts,

gradually

became

aware of

ts nner

mptiness

nd

began

to

project

his

void

outwards.

uch

a

reversal

ould

obviously

not

have

occurred

without the

conjunction

of

a

number

of

prerequisite

developments,

hich

egan

to

unfold

with ola

and

culminatedwith

Craig,

and

which

included

the

contributions of

Antoine,

Lugn6-Poe

and

Stanislavski.

hese

developments

ncompassed

he irth

f

he

tage

director,

whose

authorship

f

the

production

radually

ame

to

the

fore;

heater's

emancipation

rom he

authority

ftext; heater rtists' ew focuson the

essence of

their

rt,

namely,

n

what

was

specifically

heatrical;

heater's

acquisition

f

a

full

autonomy

s

an

art

form

istinct rom

ther

rtsand

techniques

ertaining

o

representation-beyond

he

compromise

nd

the

"undividedness"

propounded

by

the

Wagnerian

ynthesis

f the

arts,

r

Gesamtkunstwerk.

Every

ttempt

t

defining

he

revolution

hat

was

at work

at

this

point

n

the

history

f

theater

ightlymphasizes

he

consecration f

SubStance#

98/99,

ol.

31,

nos.2 &

3,

2002


4/17

Bernard

ort nd

Roland Barthes

59

the

director

nd

theend

of

the

bsolute

uthority

f

thedramatic

pon

the

theatrical; et, t would be wrong to leave out anotherfactor,whose

importance

an

only

be felt

when

facing

he

black hole ofthe

tage-that

is

to

say,

the

revelation f

theatricality

hrough

he

emptying

ftheater.

Roland Barthes's

amous

dictum,

tating

hat

heatricality

s "theater-

minus-text"

1972,

6),

s a

much

uoted

one.Let us not

forget,

onetheless,

his luminous

presentation

f

Bunraku,

his heatrical

orm

n

which,

n

his

view,

"the

ources

ofthetheater re

exposed

n

their

mptiness"

o

that:

What s

expelled

rom

he

tage

s

hysteria,

.e.,

heater

tself;

nd

what s

put n tsplace sthe ction ecessaryothe roductionf he pectacle:

work

s

substituted

or nwardness.

1982, 2)

If

theatricality

quals

theaterwhenever

t

becomes

an

autonomous

rt

form,

his

process

of formalizationmust

necessarily

occur once the

"exhaustion

fthe ontent

y

theform"

as taken

lace

see

the

reference

o

wrestling

n

Mythologies,

here

t

becomes

the

paradigm

f

a

theater f

the

external).

The idea of

a critical

heater,hich,

n

the

1950s,

temmed

romVilar's

TNP,

Brecht's

erlinernsemblend

Strehler's

iccolo

eatro,

as not

imited

(as

has been

alleged

t

times)

o

social

riticism.

n

theview

of

RolandBarthes

and Bernard

ort

among

he

firsto

aunch

he

dea),

the ritical

nd

political

dimension

ftheatrical

ctivity

nly

made sense

f

grounded

n a

"criticism

in

action"

of

theater

tself,

s well as

in an

efforto release

theatricality's

potential.

his accountsfor hedismissal f

all

forms f

psychological

nd

bourgeois

heater

y

the

ditors f

Theatre

opulaire,

ho

questioned

ts

overt

allegianceto the"internal,"he"natural," nd thepurported ontinuity

between

eality

nd

theater.

n the ther

and,

he

rtists

nd

writers

hose

positions

ort nd

Barthes

penly

ndorsed

Brecht,

irandello,

enet)

never

ceased to nsist

pon

the

cleavage,

he

disjunction

etween hereal and the

stage.

n

order o build a

relationship

ith

heworld at

arge

and

to bolster

itscriticismf

ociety,

heater irst ad

to assert ts

nsularity:

he

tage

was

no

longer

inked

through

hypothetical

onnecting assage,

a

kind

of

conduit,

o

an

everyday

eality

which t was

supposed

to drain and

filter

(see Sarrazac,1977);neitherwas it a

place

wherethereal, eft nchecked,

overwhelmed

ll;

it

was,

rather,

virgin,

mpty

pace,

a

blank

page upon

which the

moving hieroglyphs

f the theatrical

erformance

ere to be

written.

The discourse

developed by

the

advocates of such

a

critical heater-

which

was,

at

the ame

time,

criticism

f

theater

tself-was not

so remote

from ordon

Craig's

wn

position.

here

was,

however,

ne

major

ifference:

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos.

&

3,

2002


5/17

60

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

for

oth

Barthes

nd

Dort,

theatrical

heater

was not

ncompatible

ith

realisticheater-or t eastwith certain ype frealism.Whenboth hese

"Brechtian"

riticsdvocated

pic

realism,

hey

istinguished

t

ntirely

rom

socialist

realism

nd,

more

generally,

rom

ny

artistic

ystem

ffering

mirror-image

r

a direct

eproduction

f thereal. n Theatre

opulaire,

hey

praised

he ritical

nd

political

mpact

f

productions

uch

s Mother

ourage

and

The

Life f

Galileo

nd

acknowledged

he

power

and the

clarity-i.e.

the

theatricality--of

hese ramatic exts.

ealist

heaterwas

no

onger

upposed

to

absorb

the

real,

but

had becomemore

of

a kindof n vitro

pace,

a

space

under vacuum where experiments bout the real mightbe conducted

according

o

the

ole criteria f

theatricality.

In

the

1960s,

s

Barthesmoved

away

from heater

and

applied

to the

notion of texthis

theory

n

theatricality),

ort

went on

with

his own

investigations

nd

widened the

scope

of his research.

He

began

to

look

at

the

re-theatricalization

f theater

which had reached

its

pinnacle

with

Meyerhold

n

Russia of

he

1920s

nd

1930s.

Taking

Meyerhold

nto ccount

implies

hat

ne

acknowledges, long

with

Josette

eral,

hat the

ssertion

ofthe heatricals distinct rom hereal

appears

as the

necessary

ondition,

sine

qua

non,

f

theatricality

n

stage,"

nd that

the

stage

must

speak

its

own

language

and

impose

tsown

laws"(1988).

Yet,

Dort's most

ignificant

contribution,

s

far

s the

relationship

etween

realism

nd

theatricality

s

concerned,

s

his own

attempt

o

entirely

eevaluate

tanislavski, ntoine,

and

what s

unsatisfactorily

abeled "naturalism."

Introducing

ntoine s

"le

Patron"-the

boss

ofmodern

heater

1967),

Dort distancedhimself romGordonCraig's dealism.He did notperceive

in

Antoine's o-called

naturalistic"

roductions

ither ess

theatricality

r

a

less subtle kind of

theatricality

han

n

the

"symbolist"

nd

stylized

productions

irected

y

Lugn6-Poe.3

he author f

Le

Theatre

eel

ertainly

seemed

to

believe

that

rue

modernity

ay

n

virtually xperimental

hoices,

such as the

decision to

expose

a

fragment

f ifeor

a

social milieu

to

the

publicthrough

he

llusion fthe fourth

all,"

rather

han n

the

taging

f

ghostly

eremonies-remotely

nspired

from

Baudelaire

and

Wagner-

producedbytheMoscow ArtTheater ndthe

Theatre

e l'Oeuvre.

Perhaps

he even

discerned,

eneath he

pparent

ontinuity

nd

unity

of naturalistic

epresentation,

he

pointillism

r,

more

specifically,

he

"divisionism"

practiced by

Antoine

and

Stanislavski.

n

view

of

this,

theatrical aturalism

ould

be redefined s a

definitively

odern rtform

and

even as

the rt

of

theatricality

er

se,

since t was

chiefly

rounded

n

discontinuity,

hus

eaving

roomfor

mptiness.

onsequently,

ugn6-Poe,

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos. &

3,

2002


6/17

Bernard ortand

Roland

Barthes

61

Craig

nd

Copeau

no

onger

eeded

tobe

regarded

s

the

mandatory

athers

of ontemporaryheater;newgenealogywasin the rocess fbeingdrafted.

Barthes reamt

f a theater

n

which,

ccording

o Dort's

formula,

matter

would

become

sign"(1993),

nd

this

dream

was not

solely

rooted n

hyper-

coded

Oriental

orms

f theater uch as

Bunraku,

ut also in

experimental

realism as

conceived

by

Brecht

and

his

predecessors,

Antoine

and

Stanislavski.

The Present-ness

f Theater

Fromtheemptiness f the tage-whetherostentatiousempty pace)

or discreet

realistic

r even naturalistic

et)-the

actor's

body

began

to

emerge

along

with

every

component

of theater-the

costumes,

scenic

elements,

ighting,

music,

tc.

As soon as the

tage

ceased to

pretend

hat

t

was

contiguous

o,

and

communicated

ith,

he

real,

theater

eased

to

be

colonized

by

life.The aesthetic

takes

had shifted: heaterwas

no

longer

concerned

ith

taging

he

eal,

utwith

xposing

resence,

hus

onfronting

the utonomous

lements-or

igns, ieroglyphs-that

made

up

the

pecific

reality

f he heater.

heseelements

were

discreet,

eparate,

nsolvable,

nd

merely

ed us back

to

their

nigmatic

ppearance

nd

organization.

eparting

from he

primacy

f he

real,

which

till

revailed

hroughout

he

nineteenth

century,

ne

was now launched

into the

"present-ness"

f

theater,

his

literalness hich

was,

for

Brecht

s

well

as for he

New

Theater,

he

great

concern f he1950s

nd 1960s.

As

early

s

1926,

Artaud

had

declared

under

the

determining

nfluence

f

the atest

trindberg

lay:

We donot eek, s hasbeendonebefore,s hasalways een haracteristic

ofthe

heater,

o

give

he llusion fwhat

s

not,

uton

the

ontrary,

o

present

o the

eye

certain

ableaux,

ertain

ndestructible,

ndeniable

images

hat

will

peakdirectly

o themind.

he

objects,

he

props,

ven

the

cenery

hich

will

ppear

n the

tage

willhave

tobe

understood

n

an mmediate

ense,

without

ransposition;hey

ill ave obe aken

ot

or

what

hey

epresent

ut

or

what

hey eally

re.

1976, 60)

Adamov

would

be the

one to

bridge

he

gap

betweenArtaud

nd

the

"Brechtian"

ritics,

t a

timewhen

he

was

still

lassified-along

with

onesco

andBeckett-asa

purely

vant-garde

ritermuch nfluenced

y

Strindberg

and Kafka. As forthe definition f the "Present-ness"

f theater-which

would

subsequently

be endowed with a more

philosophical,

more

Heideggerian

imension-it

was

conveyed

n

a textwritten

y

Adamov

n

1950

n

whichhe

explained

hatwhat

he

had "tried

o achieve

was to

nsure

that

the

manifestation

of]

the content

of

his

plays]

coincided

literally,

concretely,hysically

with he ontent

tself."4

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos. &

3,

2002


7/17

62

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

In

fact,

ather han

endorsing

he

example

of the

Mutilated

Man

(a

characternAdamov'sLa Grande t La PetiteManoeuvre),arthes nd Dort

chose to

support

theoverall dea

of

literalness. he

overtly

eratological

aspect

f he

xcessive

hysicality

epicted

y

onesco,

Beckett

nd

Adamov

did

not,

t the

outset,

win

over he

ditors fTheltre

opulaire.

owever,

he

literalness

rinciple ppealed

to

them,

or

t

asserted

he

material

ature,

s

well

as the

present-ness,

f

theater.

iteralness ame

to

be

perceived

s

the

onlypath

hat ould ead to the

dvent f

heatricality.

arthes

was

fascinated

by

the

true

protagonist

f

Ping

Pong,

hat

s

to

say

the

lectric

illiard-table,

whichtheauthorofMythologiesalled a "literal bject," n

object

whose

dramaturgic

nd

scenic unction as

not o

ymbolize

nything

ut

to

imply

be

present,

nd,

through

he

obstinacy

f ts

presence,

o

produce

actions

and

circumstances,

ven

f

thesewere

ssuing

from

language

tself.

n

fact,

the

generation

that

advocated

this

dramaturgy

f

"Present-ness" lso

supported

he

"Nouveau Roman"

authors.

ort

would be

among

the

first

to

evolve,

n

his

articles

ublished

n

Cahiers u

Sud and

Lettres

ouvelles,

thematic

approach-in Temps

des

Choses and RomansBlancs-which

foreshadowedhe

development

f

he

Nouveau Roman.

Barthes's

ong-lived,

intense nd

stormy

elationship

with

Robbe-Grillet

rovides

us with an

edifying

xample

of

such

support.

Whetherwithin

heater r

the

novel,

he

timehad

come to

irrevocably

exorcise

the

demon of

analogy

and

to

abolish,

once and

for

all,

artistic

practices

ounded

upon

the

ascendancy

f

the

nternal,

f

psychology

nd

depth.

For

us,"

declared

he

uthor

f

Les

gommes

The

rasers],

the

urface

ofthings as neverceased to masktheheart fthings."Whathad become

unbearable

o

writers

nd

theater

rtists like

was

the

perpetuation

f

the

neo-Platonic

ichotomy

f dea

and

appearances,

f

oul and

body--where

the

second

term

was

always

considered

o

be

but a

poor

translation

f

the

first

ne. What

eemed

more

relevant,

t

the

beginning

f

the

1950s,

was the

creation

f

a

theater

ntirely

evoted o

the

present-ness

f

the

performance

and

of

the

cenicevent.

This was

only

possible

f

one

ultimately

id

away

with

the

dea

inherited

rom

Hegel

that,

n

the

end,

what

was

representedon

stage

was

always

nomorethan collection fcostumed nd animated

concepts.

The

editors

of

the French

ournal

Thedtre

opulaire

wanted

the

new

perspective

developed

by

Nouveau Roman

writers

o be

applied

to

the

theater. or

Barthes nd

Dort,however,

he

hampion

f

his

evolution

as

not

a writer

elated

o the

Nouveau Roman

movement

uch

as

Beckett,

r

one

of

hemost

radical

dvocates

f

iteralness,

uchas

Adamov or

the

arly

SubStance

#

8/99,

ol.

31,

nos. 2

&

3,

2002


8/17

Bernard

ort ndRoland arthes

63

Ionesco.

Their

hampion

was

Brecht,

hose

Berliner

nsemble

roductions

were first

erformed

n

Paris

in

1954. To the

editorsof

Th6dtreopulaire,

Brechtian

ramaturgy

eemed

far

uperior

o

the

avant-garde

f

the

1950s,

whose works

hey

eemed

a-temporal

nd

a-historical,

hereas heformer

endowed their ommitment

o

iteralness ith

historical,

ocial and

political

dimensions. he

perspective

e now have of his ime

nduces

us to

wonder

whether he

way

in

whichDort

nd

Barthes

elegated

eckett

their

espect

for im

notwithstanding)

o thedarkness f

metaphysical

nd

avant-garde

bourgeois

theater

Adamov

judged

his own

plays ust

as

harshly)

s

not

somewhat xcessive nd unfair.Retrospectively,nemay, ndeed,blame

the

critics

of Theatre

opulaire

for

having

confused

the

works of the

playwrights

fthe1950s

with

he

dealistic

way

in

which

uch

works ould

be

interpreted

in

Beckett's

ase,

Anouilh,

or

nstance,

hoseto

focus

n the

absence of

Godot-as-symbol

ather

han

on the "literal"

hyper-presence

f

Vladimir and

Estragon).

A

fundamental

ssue

had

neverthelessbeen

addressed: should thetheater tillbe about this

never-ending

ransference

from he

sensible owards he

ntelligible,

nd

this

permanent

nnihilation

of scenic formsforthesake ofideas,

argumentation

nd other

ypes

of

"messages,"

s

in

the

Sartre's

lays?

Had

the imenot

come,

t

last,

for

he

theater o

bring

o the

fore hismoment f

pure

theatricality

uring

which

the ensible

became

the

ignifier?

One

may

nfer

rom his

hat he

principle

f

theatricality

s

really

ut

a

vast

(Brechtian)

istanciation

ffect

r

a

disquieting

Freudian)

sense

of

estrangement,hrough

hich he

cenic

resence

f

objects

nd

beings,

worn

out and rendered ommonplace yso manycenturies fperformance(s),

suddenly regains

ts

archaic

and

enigmatic

power.

Such

a

demand for

literalness,

learly

ormulated

n

textswritten

y

Adamov,

Barthes

nd

Dort,

sealed

thedeal of

theater

e-founded

pon

theatricality.

he

series

f

rticles

written

y

Barthes n

Mother

ourage

nd on

the

rt

ftheBerliner

nsemble

as

well

as

Dort's

Lecture e

Brecht

Reading

Brecht)

emonstrated

hat,

within

thistheater

f iteralness

nd

theatricality, eaning

was

never

global,

ut

was

always

inked o ts

ocale nd

was

fragmentary.ignification

as

always

graspedfirst ithin hematerial ature f he cene,whichwas itselfpaced

out,

"as with

each

typeprinted

n

the

page

of

a

book"(Benjamin,

969),5

within

he

naugural

void

of

theater.

The Brechtian

xample

was,

for

Barthes,

he

opportunity

o reexamine

the

question

of

signification,

eyond

theater tself.

Departing

from

he

"exemption"

rom,

r the

deception"

f,

ignification,

inked o

Kafka nd

the

advent

of the Nouveau

Roman,

nd

under the

direct

nfluence

f

epic

SubStance

#

8/99,

ol.

31,

nos. 2

&

3,

2002


9/17

64

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

theater,

e

conceived

of the

"suspension"

of

signification.

his

implied

a

newassessment ftherecipientftheworkof rt, fhis/her unctions an

active

reader

or

spectator,

oncerned,

nce the

reading

was done or

the

performance

ver,

with

he

unraveling

f he

nigma

f

ignification.

arthes

certainly

wed his

most

refined

onception

f

semiologicalreasoning

o

Brechtian iteralness-a

polyphonic heatricality,

ased on

a

"density

f

signs,"

a

"layering

f

signification"

1972,

26).

Pure theatrical

resence

as

what

rendered

n

object, body,

world

perceptible

n

all

its

fragmentary

hyper-visibility,

ts eflexive

pacity,

o

that t

might

e

deciphered,

lthough

itcould neverbe decipheredn tsentirety.

Hence,

the ontent f show

no

longer

xhausted ts

form;

he

form,

n

the

contrary,

as the

lement hat

esisted,

bsorbed he

viewer's

ttention

and

channeled

his/her

houghts.

iteralness chievedthe

greatest ossible

levelof

oncentration

f

he heatrical

bject,

hereby

ncreasing

heviewer's

own

ability

to concentrate.

Through

this extreme

ntensification

nd

densification

f

heatrical

atter-which ffectedhe

ctors

nd

the

anguage

as

well

as the

et

and

the

objects-the spectator

as

inescapably

onfronted

with hemutualPresent-nessfmen and theworld.

Hence,

iteralness as

also a

(false)

pacity,

blindness

hat

ecamevisible

n

the

glare

f

he

heater

lights:

We

see

Mother

Courage

blind,

Barthes

writes,

we seewhat

she does

not

ee";

this

ine s echoed

by

the

following

ragment

n Platonic

dialogue

written

n

1964:

To see the

not-seen,

o

hear

he

not-heard

...].

We can hear

what

Menon

cannot,

yet

our

hearing

s commensuratewith

Menon's

deafness"

1972,

4).6

Dortand Barthes's ndorsementf iteralnessn the1950sand 1960s

may

ppearunsatisfying

oday.

o

someofhis

detractors,

recht

nly

ffers,

underthe

guise

of

iteralness

nd

theatricality,

covertly

militant,

reachy

theater.

f

one

were to

succeed

n

proving

hat

he

pedagogy

lone

ntended

by epic

theater

was of

a

heuristic nd

Socratic

nature,

major objection

could still e

made:

ndeed,

Brecht

id

not

thoroughly

xamine he

concept

of

representation,

ince he

basically

voided

the

question

of this

bsolute

present,

his

"more-than-present"resence

exposed

by

a

pure

theatrical

process.f,nthe ourse f he1980s nd1990s, new demandforiteralness

and

theatricality

as been

expressed,

uchdemand

pertains

oa theater

vent

that

s so

deeply

nvolved

with

pure

performance,

ure

presentifying,

hat t

obliterates

ny

dea of

reproduction

r

repetition

fthereal.

The

Nouveau Roman and

the

New

Theaterhave now

become

very

remote

rom

s

(although

he

singularity

f

the works

remain,

specially

that

of

Beckett),

while

Brecht,

n

the other

hand,

has

become

suspect

to

SubStance#

8/99,

ol.

31,

nos.

2

&

3,

2002


10/17

Bernard ort

ndRoland arthes

65

many.

t s therefore

empting

o reconsider

he

value of

a

principle

uch

as

literalness,hichdatesbacktothe 950s, nd toeither ropose morepotent

version

f tor dismiss

t

ltogether.

ome of

oday's

heater rtistsntend

o

extend

the reach and

expanse

of the Present-ness f

theater;

hey

eek to

further

ilatethe

theatrical

nstant,

o ntroduce

greater

istance etween

the

performance

nd its

ignification

n

order o

free

heater,

t

ast,

from ll

necessity

f

ommenting

n

dramatic ction

Brechtian

heatricality

emained

subordinated

o the

"commentary

n

gestus"[see

Brecht,

964]).7

Yet,

one

can

also

sense,

t

the

core

of

the urrent

ontroversies,

n indictmentfthe

misusesof iteralnessndof he ossof rustnsignificationhatt ngenders.

Depth

sn'twhat

t

used to

be. For

f he

nineteenth

entury

itnessed

he

long

process

fthe

destruction

f

ppearances

nd their

upplanting

y

meaning,

he

wentieth,

ubsequently,

aw

an

equally

massive

rocess

f

the

estruction

f

meaning...

nd ts

eplacement

y

what?

We

find

leasure

neither

n

appearances

or

n

meaning.

1990,

)

Baudrillard's

ronicobservation

hould

certainly apture

the attention f

today's

theater

ractitioners

nd

scholars.

From

Stage

to

Text

Theatricality

s

often

efined s theater's

ropensity

o distance

tself

from he

text,

which s

not

without

ustification

ut can lead

to a

rather

univocal

and

abusive

use

of thisnotion.

Barthes,

t

any

rate,

did

forewarn

us

against

uchreductive

hinking:

hile

he

defined

heatricality

s "theater-

minus-text"

n

Baudelaire's heater

26),

he introduced

paradox according

to which uch

theatricality

s "a datumof creation otof

production."

He

specified

hat

in

Aeschylus,

n

Shakespeare,

n

Brecht he written ext s

from he

first arried

along

by

the

externality

f

bodies,

of

objects,

of

situations."

s

Barthes's

osition hereby mbiguous?

t

s,

f

one considers

that t

does not

hed

ight

n the

relationship

etween hetext nd the

ther

elementsof

the

theatrical

erformance.

t

isn't,

nsofar s it

secures the

possibility

f

a

dialectic,

tension

etween hese lements.

ForBarthesndDort, heatricalityidnot allfor text-deprivedheater,

but rather or heater n

the

process

of

being

made,

or as it

becomes.

This

conveyed willingness

otrace

heater

ack

to

thehic

tnunc f

performance,

and

to reinstate t

within

ts

specifically

cenic

dimension,

fter everal

centuries

ffeudal ubservience o

iterature

to

"Your

Highness

The

Word,"

as

Baty

so

pleasantly

put

it;

as for

Artaud,

he

denounced

the

attitude

f

"grammarians

nd

ntroverts,

hat s

to

ay,

f

Westerners").

bove

all,

there

was

a

desire o free heater

rom

ts

abstract

nd

atemporal

iterary

dentity

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos.

&

3,

2002


11/17

66

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

in

order

o

reconnect

t

o

theworld

nd

to

the eal.To this

xtent,

heatricality

reestablishedheartof theaters action.

Theseconcerns ere

not

first

xpressed y

the ditors f

Thadtre

opulaire.

Henri

Gouhier,

or

nstance,

ad

always

defended he dea

that heaterhould

be examinedfrom hethreshold f

performance:

Performance

s

nherentlyart

f

drama,

he atter

eing

ble

o

fully

ome

into

xistence

olely

hrough metamorphosis

n

time

nd

space.

Hence,

performance

s not n

added

bonus

hat an

be

dispensed

with;

t

s an

end n tself.

his

s

true

n

two

ways:

n the ne

hand,

rama s writteno

be

performed,

hereinies

ts

finality;

n the

other

and,

performanceconstitutesn

accomplishment,

hemoment

uring

which rama

inally

reaches

ompletion.8

It s worth

oting

hat he cademician

ctually mployed

he

phrase

score-

text."

However,

Gouhier's

position

or

a

very

imilar

ontention

ut

forth

y

Touchard,

his

contemporary)

till

partook,

s

far s

performance

s such

was

concerned,

f

this

"textocentrism"

enounced

by

Dort. To the

very

"Galilean" author fLectureeBrecht,eitherhetextnoranyofthescenic

elements

were

to

be

considered s

the

center f

the

theatrical

erformance.

In

an

essay

that

s as clear s

it

s

erudite,

e Texte t a scene:

our

nenouvelle

alliance,9

ort

delineated

he

birth nd

development

f

the

modern

oncept

of

an

open, ncomplete,

ramatic ext

waiting

ts

staging.

Almost

n

spite

of

himself,

egel

had

endorsed

he

xistence f

he

reative

ole-instead of

merely

nterpretative

r

illustrative-of

he

actor,

who

through

his/her

mimicry

nd

silent

ctions illed

n

the

gaps

na

text

which,

n

tself,

emained

unfinished. e Texte t a scene efers othepagesinAestheticshatdealwith

drama,

onsidered

s a

new

genre,

nd

where

t

s

said

that

the

poet

even

lets

gestures

xpress

some

of

what

the

Ancientswanted to

be

expressed

solely hrough

ords"(1984).

long

with

Hegel,

Dort lso

could

have

referred

to

the creative

function-often

n

contradiction ith

spoken

words-of

"pantomime"

s

described

y

Diderot

nd

Lessing.

Yet,

f

Dort

denounced extocentrismn

order o

assert he

utonomy

f

performance,

e

categorically

efused o

be

swayed bythe"modern"myth

of a

theatricality

hat

would be

incompatible

ith

he

existence

f

text.

He

even

added

yet

nother

aradox

to

Barthes's

y

stating

alluding

n

part

o

Artaud)

that

theaterwithout ext

s

a

writer's ream

that]

has

only

been

able

tobe

conceived

nd

expressed

hrough

ext nd in

writing.

Whence he

theatrical ilence

to which ts

prophets

re

condemned"(1984)10.

he

line

must

thereforee

drawn

between

necessary

reakwith

purely

iterary

theater

evoid of

physicality,

nd a

more xtreme

osition,

f

not

n

mpasse,

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos.

&

3,

2002


12/17

Bernard

ort nd Roland

Barthes

67

whichwould

imply

he

repudiation

f dramatic

exts

ltogether.

ort

was

so concernedwith henecessityffinding balance-or perhaps dynamic

imbalance-that

he strove

o solve

the

ontradictions

hat haracterized

he

Theater

nd tsDouble:

When

Antonin rtaud

uoted

Woyzeckmong

he

irst

orks obe

enlisted

in the

repertoire

fhis

theater

f

cruelty,

e

seemingly

ontradicted

is

determination

o

do

away

with

masterpieces

f

the

past,

yet,

he also

foresawhe ew

lliance

f

ext

nd

tage

which

may uite ossibly

efine

today's

heater-beyond

he

lleged pposition

etween ext

nd

staging

(mise

en

scene),

etween text-orientedheater

nd a theater-oriented

text. Dort,1984)11

In

spite

ofhis attachmento

the

piphany

f

performance-the oint

t

which

theatricality

anifestedtself-Dortremained

pen

to

the

question

of dramatic

ext,

specially

when

dealing

with

ontemporary

exts,

nd

he

was

well

aware

that he

atter esisted

mimesis.

he

fact hat he text

ould

refuse

o

play

the

game

of

representation-since,

s Duras

wrote,

when

a

text s

performed,

t s at ts

remotest

oint

from he uthor"-did

not

ppear

to Dort as an aberration.n truth, nlikeBarthes, ortwas not fond of

impasses

but

of

passages.

n

Le

Texte

t a

scone:

our

ne

nouvelle

lliance,

nd,

a

little

ater,

n

La

Representation

mancipde,

e

attempted

o outline-in

his

usual

"reasonable"

manner-a new

post-Brechtian)

topia

of

performance.

Above

all,

by suggesting

"new

alliance,"

Dort warned us

against

two

dangers

hat

urrently

hreaten

he

relationship

f

tage

and

text.

On the ne

hand,

rather onservative

ttitudes

becoming

ncreasingly

prevalent

nd can be

interpreted

s

a

willingness

o restore

iterary

heater,

namely,"text-orientedheater."JacquesJulliard, or nstance,recently

asserted

n

one

of

his chronicles or he

magazine

Nouvel

Observateur:

For

s

long

s

the

heaters led

astray

romts

original urpose,

which

s

to

ensure hat he

acred

words f

the

poet

an be

heard,

nd as

long

s

the

urrent

irectors,

hese ll-bred ould-be

yrants,

eep

up

their

acy

posturing

t the ost

f

he

uthor,

hedramatic

ontract,

his

hree-sided

adventure hich

nites

uthor,

nterpreters

nd

spectators

round

text,

will

be

torn

part,

ishonorednd

destroyed.

We caneasilycounter ulliard's rejudiceswhich, ytheway, argely

pre-date

he

emergence

f

modern

directing) y

quoting

Dort's

comments

on what

he

designates

s

"the

greatest

heater exts":

They

seem most

problematic

o

read

...],

so

complex

s to

ppear

ncoherent

...],

proliferating

on

the

edge

of

disorder

since

hey]

eliberately

ndorse heir wn lack of

completion

and]

require taging."12

On the

ther

and,

we are

faced

with n

alternative

hich,

n

accordance

with

the dea of the

"emancipation"

f

performance

I

believe this

phrase

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos. &

3,

2002


13/17

68

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

dates back to

Evreinoff),

emains

ague,

unreliable

nd hazardous. Such

a

position seems to induce Alain Badiou, in his "Dix Theses sur le

Theatre"(1995),

o do

away

with

he

uestion

f

ext,

hus

reducing

he

atter

to

a kind

of eternal

ssence

to

which the

performance

lone

may

bring

sense of

mmediacy,

f

being

nthe

moment,

r,

n other

words,

f ife.

Dort

would

probably

gree

withBadiou's

claim

hat the

dea oftheater

emains,

within

text r

a

poem,

unfulfilled,

nd

[...]

the

text's

taging

r

mise-en-

scene

is not

an

'interpretation'

ut a 'fulfillment'."et I

imagine

that

he

would

find ar

ess

convincing

he

ssertion

hat

heater

s

the

organization

of xtremelyariedmaterial nd dealcomponents hose existencessolely

dependent

upon performance."

adiou

simply

seems to

forget,

n

his

arguments,

hat he ext

ecessarily

as

a

different

tatus nd

function,

ithin

the

performance,

rom

heother

omponents.

irstly,

y

default,

s thetext

is the

only

lement

hat o

longer

xists

n

ts

original

orm-that

s to

say

as

a

written

ext-when included

in the

performative

vent;

t

transforms,

metamorphoses

nd

virtually

ispels

tself

hrough

ts

very

manifestation.

Secondly, yexcess,

s the

text s

so

much

more

pervasive-able

as it s to

infringe

n

bodies, voices,

pace,

and

even

on the minds of the

spectators

who

may

have

a

prior

knowledge

f

t-than

any

other

lement

resent

n

stage.

An

Impending

Polyphony

Should

one

advance

beyond

Adamov's contention o

whichDort

and

Barthes

subscribed-"the

theater

of which

I

conceive is

entirely

nd

absolutely inkedto performance"-andendorse Badiou's stance,which

alleges

that

heatricality

or

the

"idea of

theater")

nly

exists

within nd

through

he

performance"?

he

drawback

of Badiou's

"idea of

theater" s

that,

ecause it

does not ccount or

he

rticulation-or,

s

Dort

would

put

it,

the

"interplay"-between

the

various

scenic

components,

it

only

strengthens

he

ambiguity

hat

we

have

previously

dentified

n

Barthes's

work.

n a

way,

he

idea

of

heater" ills he

place

eft acant

y

the

Brechtian

gestus,

he

ornerstonef he

onception

f

critical heater

arlier

eveloped

by

DortandBarthes:

Every

ramatic

ork an

and must educe tself o what

Brecht

alls

ts

social

gestus,

he

external,

aterial

xpression

f

the ocial conflictso

which

tbears

witness.

t s

obviously p

to the

director

o

manifesthis

gestus,

his

particular

istorical chemewhich s at the

core

of

every

spectacle:

t

his

disposal,

norder odo

so,

hehasthe nsemblef

heatrical

techniques:

he

ctor's

erformance,

ovement,

nd

ocation,

he

etting,

lighting

...],

ostume.

Barthes,

972,

1)

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos. &

3,

2002


14/17

Bernard ort ndRoland

arthes

69

The

advantage

of

gestus--nowadays

onsidered

obsolete,

long

with

all forms f theater ased on fable-over the"idea of theater"s that t s

both ranscendent

n

relation

o

the

omponents

f

performance

s a

whole,

and

indexed

to

the

text.The

gestus

xistsnot

only

as

an

all-encompassing

viewpoint

fthe

ext,

utalso as a

unit

in

the

emiological

ense)

which an

be

used

towards

reading,

reaking

own

and

commenting

n

a

text.

While

resigned

o

the

fact hat

rechtianism as done

with,

ort,

ntent

as

he

was

on

preserving

certain

interplay"

etween he theater

nd

the

real

world,

trove o devise

the

urrogate

topia

alluded to

earlier,

which

is moretechnical hanpolitical.Whencehischoiceto extend heBrechtian

metaphor

of

a

"Copernican"

revolution of theater to

that

of

a

truly

"Einsteinian" evolution.

n

order

o

make his

ope

more

feasible,

e

evoked

a

model

of the

deal

performance:

The

Copernican

evolution f theturn f the

century

as become n

Einsteinian evolution.heend

of

he

rimacy

f

he

ext ver

tage

has

led

to

general

e-evaluationf he lementsf he

heatrical

erformance

in

their

elationship

o

achother. he dea of

rganic

nity

onsidereds

a given,r ven f nessence f he heaterventthats to ay, hemystery

of

theatricality),

ave

eventually

een

relinquished,

nd

the

heatricals

nowconceived

f

s a

signifyingolyphony,

ncompassing

he

pectator.

(1998)13

The

"emancipated performance,"

ccording

to

Dort,

was

certainly

closely

related

to

Barthes'snotion of

"polyphony";

however,

unlike his

colleague,

Dort

rejected

the

idea of an "ecumenical"

theatricality.

ort

specificallyupported,

mong

thevarious

components

f

performance,

he

type fviolently ontradictoryelationshiphat recht adinitiallylanned

to

develop

in

his

theory

f

a

"Brotherhood f the

Arts"

Schwesterkunste),

but

which,

ccording

o

Dort,

he

had

eventually

eglected:

Endowed

ith

he

rivilege

nd

utiesf

playwright

nd

stage

irector,

as

well as

that

of an

artistic irector or

the Berliner

nsemble,

e

undoubtedly

orsookhe

ndependance

f rotherrtsn

ordero

devote

himself

o

a unified

ramaturgicalonception

fthe

workshe

directed.

However,

is

eachingsxpand

eyond

is

wn

ractice.

hey

utline

non-unified

erformance

hose various

lements

hould

co-exist,

r

perhapsvenrival neanother,atherhan ontribute,hroughhe

annihilation

f their

ifferences,

o

the

constructionf an

overarching

signification.

1998)14

For

Dort,

"play"

was

always synonymous

with

struggle

nd

strife.

However,

he

heoretician's

ntractability

as

attenuated nd

channeled

y

his

spectator's

ropensity

owards edonism.

Incidentally,

or

his

pectator

of

romantic

roportions,

he

"joy

of

theater"

was

always

imbued

with

a

nostalgic

nd even

melancholic ura.Was

this

ue

to the

fact

hat

is

activity

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos. &

3,

2002


15/17

70

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

as

a

critic

was

irrevocably

ooted

n

thebattles e had conducted

long

with

Bartheswhentheywere theeditors f Theatreopulaire? rwas itbecause

no theater

roduction

ad

ever

fulfilled

heir

xpectations

n the

way

the

staging

fMother

ourage

y

Brecht

nd

The

Life

f

Galileo

y

Strehler

ad?

Or did

t

perhaps

have todo

with

more

mysterious,

roader

eeling,

irectly

connected

o the dvent f

heatricality:

he

feeling

f

the oss

f

heater

ithin

theater

tself?

hatever he

ase

may

e,

for ernard

ort,

erformance

urned

out

to

be the ite

for hatwhichwas

lacking,

or

he

xperience y

default

f

a

space

and a

timewhich

were

forever ut of

reach.

As

if

the

spectator's

passion could henceforth nly express itselfas a relentless formof

disenchantment. disillusionwhich the artist

who

was the

spectator

f

his/her

wn

effort

o

make

theater)

hared

with

he

udience.

Echoing

n

a

contradictory

annerBarthes's

eclaration

I

no

longer

go

to

the

theater,"

Dort

never eased

to

warn

us

mezzo oce

hat heater as

constantly

orsaking,

deserting

s

and

itself).

t was

themode

of

nostalgic

edazzlement,ndeed,

which

characterized ort's

appreciation

f Sur La

Grand-Route

y

Gruber:

"a stalling

f the

nfinitely

ecurrent otion

hrough

which Grubernever

ceases to eave the

tage

...],

SurLaGrand-Route

peaks

of last

prospect

f

happiness."'5

The

ast

paradox

of

heatricalityayvery

well

consist f he

Beckettian)

task of

being

done

(again)

with

theaterwhile

constantly

dreaming

of

beginning

heater

ll

over

again.

For theater an

only

be achieved

outside

itself,

henever

t

s able to et

o of

heater,

nd

this

an

only

e

accomplished

if

heater

s

recurringly

mptiedf

heater.

Institut'"tudeshdtrales,aris

translated

y

Virginie

agnat

Notes

We

thank

he

ournal

sprit

or

ermission

o

publish

ur

ranslationf

"l'Invention

e a

thdatralite"Esprit,an. 997). his ssay lsoconstituteshapter of arrazac, ritique

du

thidtre.

e

l'utopie

u

disenchantement.

elfort:

irce,

oll.

Penser

e

theatre,

000.

1.

Craig

laims

o

be the

first

o

define heater

s

an

autonomous

rt,

hat s to

say,

n

art

independent

rom

iteraturend free rom he

indivision"

hich,

n

Wagner's

iew,

implied

that

heaterwas

still ontrolled

y

music,

poetry, antomime,

nd even

architecturend

painting.

2.

Craig

dds:

"several

imes

n the

ourse fthis

ssay

has

a word

or

two bout

Death

found ts

way

on to the

paper--called

here

y

the ncessant

lamouring

fLife ife

Life

which

he ealists

eepup."

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos. &

3,

2002


16/17

Bernard

ort

ndRoland

arthes

71

3.

Josette

eral,

Naturalismtself

s

acknowledged

s

being

form f

heatricality."

4.

Our

translation.

ee

also,

"Si

le dramed'un homme onsiste ans une mutilation

quelconque e sa personne,e ne voispas demoyen ourrendre ramatiquementa

v6rit6'une elle

mutilation

ue

de

a

representer

orporellement

ur a

scene."

Adamov,

1964)

5. Our translation.

...commedes caracteres

'imprimerie

ur la

page

d'un livre.

(Benjamin,

969).

6. Our translation.

Voir e

non-voir,

ntendre

e non-entendre

...

i.

Nous

entendons

e

que

Menon

n'entend

as,

mais

nous

ne

l'entendons

u'a

proportion

e

la

surdit6 e

M6non."

Barthes,

964,

8)

7.

On the

necessary

ubordination

f

heatricality

o

he

ommentary

n

gestus,

ee

Barthes

(1955, 972).

8. Our translation.La representationst nscrite ansl'essencede l'oeuvretheatrale;

celle-ci

'existe

eellement

u'au

moment

tdans e ieu

h

'accomplit

a

m6tamorphose.

La

representation

'est

onc

pas

un

supplement

ont a

rigueur

n

pourrait

e

passer;

elle

estune

fin

ux deux ens

du

mot:

'ceuvre

st

faite

our

tre

epresent6e;

a est a

finalitY;

u meme

oup,

a

representation

arque

n

achevement,

e

moment

ui

nfin

l'oeuvre

st

pleinement

lle-meme."

9.

Le

Texte

t a Scene:

our

nenouvellelliance

s

an

essay

written

y

Dort

n

1984 s

an

addition

o

Encyclopoedia

niversalis,

nd

subsequently

ncluded

n a

collection

f

exts

by

Dort itled

e

Spectateur

n

dialogue

Paris:

OL,

1995).

10.

Ourtranslation.

1984).

11.Our

translation.

Quand

Antonin

rtaud

itait

Woyzeck

armi

es

premieres

euvres

inscrire

u

repertoire

e

sonth6atre

e a

cruaute,

ansdoute

ntrait-il

n contradiction

avec

sa volont6 "en finirvec es

chefs-d'oeuvre'

u

passe,

mais

l

pressentait

ussi

a

nouvelle lliance

ntre

e texte t

la

scene

qui

pourrait

ien

caracteriser

e

theatre

d'aujourd'hui-au-dela

e

la

pseudo-opposition

ntre exte t mise n

scene,

ntre

n

theatre

u

texte

tun

texte heatral"

1984).

12. Our

translation.

A

la

lecture,

ils]

nous

semblentes

plus probl6matiques

...],

complexes

u

point

de

paraitre

ncoherents

...],

foisonnantsla

limite

u d6sordre

[parce u"ils]pren nent] eliberementeparti e leurproprenachevementet]font

appel

la

scene"

1984).

13. Our

translation.

La

revolution

opernicienne

u d6but

u

siecle

'estmueeen

une

revolution

insteinienne.

e

renversemente a

primaut6

ntre

e texte

t

a

scene

'est

transform6

n une

relativisation

endralisde

es

facteurse

la

representation

heatrale

les uns

par

rapport

ux autres. n en vient

renoncer

A

'idee

d'une unit6

rganique,

fixee

i

priori,

oire 'une

ssence

u fait

hdatral

la

myst6rieuse

heatralit6),

t

concevoir

plut6t

elui-ci

ous es

espcces

'une

polyphonieignifiante,

uverte ur

e

spectateur"

(1998).

14.

Ourtranslation.

Fort

e son

privilege

tdes

ses

obligations

'auteur

tde metteurn

scene,

'animateur

ussi,

du Berliner

nsemble,

l a

sans

doute acrifie

'indpendancede ces arts-freresune

conceptionramaturgique

nitaire esoeuvres

u'il

montrait.

Mais

sa

leqon

va

plus

oin

que

sa

pratique.

lle

dessine

'image

d'une

representation

non-unifieeont es diff6rents

l"ments

ntreraientn

collaboration,

oire

n

rivalit6,

plut6t

u'ils

ne

contribueraient,

n

effaqant

eurs

diff6rences,

l'6dification

'un sens

commun"

1998).

15.Our

translation....

une

halte ans

e

mouvement

nfini

ar equel

Gruber

e

cessede

quitter

e

plateau

...],

Sur

a

grand-route

ous

parle

d'un dernier

onheur

ossible"

(1998).

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos.

&

3,

2002


17/17

72

Jean-Pierre

arrazac

Works

ited

Adamov,Arthur,

Avertissement

a

la Parodie t

a

'Invasion."

ci

et

Maintenant,

aris:

Gallimard,

964.

Adorno,

heodor

W.

Aesthetic

heory. inneapolis: niversity

f

Minnesota

ress,

997.

Artaud,

ntonin.

euvres

Completes

.

I.

Paris:

Gallimard,

980.

-.

"Manifestoor

Theater hat ailed."

n

Selected

ritings

ew

York:

arrar,

traus

and

Giroux,

976.

Badiou,

Alain.

"Dix

Theses

sur

e

Theatre."

omidie

ranpaise,

es Cahiers

"15

POL,

printemps

995.

Barthes,

oland. Inside

/

Outside."

n

Empire

f igns.

ew

York:

Hill and

Wang,

982.

-

.

"Mother

ourage

lind." n

Critical

ssays.

vanston:

orthwestern

niversity

ress,

1972.

-. "Baudelaire's heater."nCriticalssays. vanston: orthwesternniversityress,

1972.

-.

"The

Diseases

of

Costume."

n

Critical

ssays.

vanston:

orthwestern

niversity

Press, 972,

.

41-50.

.

L'Empire

es

ignes,

eneve:

kira,

970.

-.

"Mere

Courage veugle."

heatre

opulaire

o8

uillet-aofit

954

nd n

Essais

ritiques,

Paris:

euil,

964.

-

.

"Les maladies u

costume

e

theatre"

hdatre

opulaire,

'12,

mars-avril

955.

Baudrillard,

ean.

ool

Memories.

ondon& New York:

Verso,

990.

_.

CoolMemories.

aris:

Galilee

987.

Benjamin, alter. ssais urBertoltrecht,rans. aul Laveau Versucheber recht).aris:

F.

Maspero,

969.

Brecht,

ertolt. Short

rganumor

he heatre.ew York:Hill

and

Wang,

964.

Craig,

dwardGordon. Premier

ialogue."

n

De

l'Art

u

Theatre.

aris:

Lieutier,

942,

pp.103-125.

_.

"The

First

ialogue."

n

On the

rt

f

he heatre.

ondon:William

einemann,912,

pp.

137-181

Dort,

ernard. a

Representation

mancipee.

aris:

Actes

ud,

1998.

-.

Le

Spectateur

n

dialogue.

aris:

OL,

1995.

-.

"Le

Corps

du

theatre."

rt

ress

'

184,

Octobre 993.

-. "LeTexte t aScene: ourunenouvelle lliance."nEncyclopaedianiversalis,984.

-.

"Antoinee Patron."

Theatre

ublic. aris:

euil,

967.

Feral,

osette.

La

theatralit&:

echerche

ur a

sp6cificite

u

langage

heatral."

oetique

5

September

988.

Gouhier,

enri. La

th

atralit&."

n

Encyclopaedia

niversalis.

Julliard,

acques.

Sarrazac,

ean-Pierre.

Le

Regard

n

Coulisse."

n

Travail

hiatral

'27,

Lausanne: a

Cit6,

1977.

SubStance

8/99,

ol.

1,

nos. &

3,

2002

5 the Invention of Theatricality

Documents

Transcript of 5 the Invention of Theatricality