Visual Ideas I've Been Toying With

a wood scene for a childs fairytale

Reflections on Collaboration - Considering the work of one of the most influential collaborative theatre designers in Britain today

“The Designer is a Very Lonely Animal”
-Ralph Koltai-


Scenic design is an art form which is demanding of both the emotion and the intellect of the designer (Parker et al., 1990; 31). Ralph Koltai has both these qualities in profusion. For the last five decades Koltai has been revolutionising the discipline of scenography. As modern theatre has constantly reinvented itself, Koltai has been a forerunner in the field. He has immeasurably inspired the work of other generations of scenic designers such as John Napier, Alison Chitty, Nadine Baylis, Maria Bjornson, Terry Parsons and Sue Blane. In this post I intend to explore the work of Ralph Koltai. In so doing I will consider his methods and his approach to design. I then hope to continue by examining some of his design concepts. But to begin however I would like to reflect on how he came to be ‘the father of modern British theatre design’ (Nunn, 1997; 13).

Ralph Koltai fled to Britain in 1939 at the age of 13 as a refugee. Being a Jewish German, he was only saved from the concentration camps by the foresight of his father, a Hungarian-born doctor who smuggled the teenager out of the country with the assistance of the Quakers. Koltai joined the Royal Army Service Corps towards the end of the war and later became a member of the British team at the Nuremberg trials. Once Koltai was released from his duties, like many soldiers, he found himself in need of employment. His decision to go into the theatre was influenced by his girlfriend, a ballerina at Sadler's Wells. "I wanted to follow her into the business and the only thing that I was qualified for was design". As a result he signed up at Central St Martins School of Art in London and this was to be the beginning of a long illustrious career in the arts. (Davis, 2001; 28)

Ralph Koltai has since designed some two hundred productions of opera, drama, dance and musicals in the United Kingdom, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and the United States. Koltai is a recipient of many honors and awards attesting to his pre-eminence in the art of theater design. For example he was awarded the CBE in 1983; was elected to The Royal Society of Arts (RDI) in 1984 and received a special Award for Distinguished Service to the Theatre by the USITT. He has received numerous other national and international awards including: London Drama Critics award 1967 and 1981; Society of West End Theatre: Designer of the Year 1978 and 1984; he was part of the Gold Medal winning team at the Prague Quadrennial in 1975, Silver Medal at PQ in 1987, and 'Golden Troika' National Award at PQs in 1979 and 1991. Ralph is also a Fellow of The Academy of Performing Arts, Hong Kong and of the Central Saint Martin's College of Art and Design, London
(http://www.theatredesign.org.uk/desbio/rako.htm).

The reason that Ralph Koltai has received such acclaim is that his designs are distinctively innovative. He often uses materials which are not the ‘conventional’ materials for scenic design. Koltai is recognized as one of the seminal designers who moved scenography away from the customary French flats. He often opts for reflective materials which are traditional avoided at all costs to reduce glare from the stage lights. However Koltai has used these to beautiful effect in his designs for such shows as Twelfth Night, Planets, Othello, Madam Butterfly,, A Midsummer Marriage and Much Ado About Nothing (Nunn, 1997; 39). Critics of ‘designers theater’ often suggest that Koltai is ‘mechanizing the stage’. John Napier is quoted as saying ‘When Ralph and I use a piece of machinery on stage we are regarded as philistines for departing from the bare boards and the actors voice’ (Nunn, 1997; 13). However Koltai is not the type of designer to prescribe to fanatical theatrical dogma which often ties the hands of other scenic designers.
Instead Ralph Koltai uses ultimate interpretive boldness. He looks instinctively and intuitively for the metaphor with in a piece. This is because he believes that true design is not about pictorial representations of the script but rather about the manipulation of abstract objects in a space in order to give that space an atmosphere so that the nature of what happens in that space is enhanced (Nunn, 1997; 13). For Koltai the pivotal person to consider when designing a set is the actor. He believes that a stage should be incomplete without the actor. He has worked with almost all of the biggest names in theatre but it still gives him pleasure when actors such as Jeremy Irons, Dame Judi Dench and Kenneth Branagh sing his praises. Making the actors job easier means far more to him than compliments from directors, although he has had happy working relationships with many of the biggest names including Terry Hands and Clifford Williams. (http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/otherresources/interviews/RalphKoltai3.htm)

Another thing that Koltai is recognised for is that he is an opportunist who capitalises on ‘the accident’. For this reason his designs often begin with a model. He believes that accidents can happen when working with a model that can’t happen when drafting. These accidents can be the source inspiration. For example he uses an accident in his design for the show Metropolis. A box he used to carry materials to make his model ultimately influenced his final design. (Davis, 2001; 28)

Ralph Koltai is quoted as having said that ‘despite a production being a collaborative effort, the designer is a very lonely animal’. However he strives to change this. When he designs he attempts to be part of the whole production not purely be the estranged absentee set designer. He often attends the rehearsals of a production he is designing for in order to make the process a more collaborative effort. He would like theatre to be a community with little or no divide between the scenic designer, lighting designer, director, writers, actors and indeed the audience. For me Ralph Koltai work has energy and power that is rarely seen in theatre design. He can be bold and shocking and still not obscure the true sentiment of a piece of theatre. ‘His enthusiasm, his talent and his fantastic skill as a raconteur’ gives him the capability to create sets which are ‘vibrant, sensual, wonderfully observed and sexy’ (Nunn, 1997; 13).



Bibliography



Davis, T. (2001) Stage Design. Switzerland. RotoVision.
http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/otherresources/interviews/RalphKoltai3.htm

http://www.theatredesign.org.uk/desbio/rako.htm

Nunn, T. (1997) Ralph Koltai; Designer for the Stage. London. Lund Humphries Publishers.
Parker, W.O., Wolf, R.C., (1990) Scene Design and Stage Lighting, sixth edition. San Francisco. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Warre, M. (1966) Designing and Making Stage Scenery. New York. Studio Vista.

Macbeth

Earlier this year I completed a night-course in welding. While there I experimented with heating iron. When the metal is over heated it changes colours. I have used this technique here to make a model box for Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The metal melts and the silver colour is replaced by beautiful reds, purples and greens.

This model is made of welded iron plates, wood and EVA plastic

she swallowed the spider to catch the fly

She Swallowed A Fly

She Swallowed a Fly

There was a girl who lost her mind
It left her floating far behind
Which gave the grownups quiet a fright
So deftly in the dead of night
They sent her with alarming pace
To and unfamiliar place
Where she could be quiet at home
for there she would not be alone
Everyone in this place you see
had lost their minds, just like she
They floated off into the sky
Leaving there bodies by and by

Among these others our protagonist sat
And on the outside it appeared that
She had a rather good grasp on thing
But inside of her
There were rumblings

In spite of this inner disquiet
The girl was known to be quiet the riot
She had the sutures nurse in stitches
Imitating shock therapy twitches
Soon enough, In no time at all
She was good friends with one and all

Ah, but let us not forget
The reason why these friends had met
Each one of them the whole blooming lot
Simply put had lost the plot

But have no fear, worry not
Because in a jiffy, in a shot
Modern science will save the day
If of course you can afford to pay
Men in white lab coats will arrive
with magical powers to prescribe
Lotions and potions and a whole array
Of things to keep madness away

So returning to our leading lady
Who’s talented, funny, and of course crazy
She told the doctor she felt sad
He whipped out he trusty prescription pad
A shiny red pill morning, noon, and night
Would keep her happy, chipper and bright

But, it also made it had to sleep
The doctor paused and though real deep
Being such a clever guy
He found a yellow pill near by
To help her get her 40 winks
But not to be mixed with alcoholic drinks

Eventually it was noted the girl was always feeling bloated
Her appetite was totally through
But our friend the Doc knew what to do
This pill was a colour dark and black
And although it gave her her appetite back
It also made her loose her hair
But she said that she didn’t care
She tried to say when the pills would let her
“Thank you do I feel much better”

"There was an old woman who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die. There was an old woman who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die. There was an old woman who swallowed a bird,
How absurd! to swallow a bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die. There was an old woman who swallowed a cat,
Imagine that! to swallow a cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die...."


Eventually our sad friend stopped taking these colourful pills
Instead she saved them all up for a rainy day when she might really need them
When that rainy day eventually came
She gobbled them all up
And she would never be sad again

She Swallowed A Fly

I would like to invite you all to attend a short performance
on Monday the 8th of December.
at either 3.30 pm 5.30pm or 7.30 pm
in The Observatory Space of The Wimbledon College of Art
I look forward to seeing you there

The Collaborative Project

During our Collaborative Project I have had the opportunity to experiment with the recording, editing and mixing of sound. After two extremely interesting workshops with Carolyn Downing, a London based sound designer, I am now trying to put into practice the skills that she has taught us. In our most recent workshop Carolyn divided the sound design for our upcoming Collaborative Project into three parts. Each of the students present at the workshop began by choosing which character we would design the sound for. In this way each of the separate characters will have very different soundscapes, which will be particularly effective for this performance as The Overlook Project is to be an unscripted piece of theatre.

For teh past week, I have been designing the soundscape for the character of Jack Torrance, the male lead in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Jack is defined by his paranoia and his resentment. He is a man who is frustrated by his place in the world and this anger is further compounded by his inability to be productive and to create. My design for Jack’s soundscape attempts to emphasize the controlling, misogynistic and obsessive elements of his character. I did this by recording naturalistic sounds and then editing them into abstraction. I recorded the sounds of drumming fingers, grinding teeth, and tearing paper. These were then mixed with metallic sounds distorted laughter and ominous droning noises.

Here is a sample of the work so far... But be warned... You are listening to the rattlings of a mad man in an empty house... This ain’t gonna be pleasant listening!

Is there life in the old dog yet... or should we let the poor beast die?

A review of The Mousetrap, by Agatha Christie, performed at St. Martins Theatre, London, November 2008.

The Mousetrap is widely acclaimed as being the longest running play in British theatre. It has now been running for over 56 years, during which time over 23,000 performances have been given. In fact, the official website for the production boasts that during this time the theatre has sold an impressive “415 tonnes of ice cream".

Last weekend I became one of the many poor suckers who have bought the overpriced ice-cream sold at The Mousetrap. Yes, I too have joined ranks with the vast legions of spectators who have visited St Martin’s Theatre to experience this relic of British drama.

From a design perspective the set was of little interest, except perhaps out of antiquarian curiosity. Bafflingly, the original design has been preserved ever since the show began its run in 1952. If the truth be told, however, I had a very enjoyable night. I laughed at all the appropriate moments and clucked my tongue in bemusement at all outmoded gender stereotypes. Yet, I did pause to wonder - how has this play persisted to find audiences while new performances struggle to gain recognition.

Allow me to be harshly critical for a moment. It seems to me that The Mousetrap is a perfect example of what Peter Brook would probably term “The Deadly Theatre”, which simply means a theatre without life or vitality.

In his seminal piece of literature “The Empty Space”, the author makes a very strong argument against playing a show, “the way it was written”, or in the style that it has previously been performed. Brook warned that theatre can quickly transform from the “lively to the moribund” when exact reproductions of performances are recreated outside of their original context. By using “imperial gestures and royal values [that] are fast disappearing from everyday life” each generation will find these performances more and more hollow and meaningless.

Unfortunately, Brook’s theories of “The Deadly Theatre” paint The Mousetrap in a rather abysmal light. And I do not wish to give such a negative review of what was really quiet a nice show. However, I do believe that theatre artists must not become slaves to tradition. ‘In the theatre, every form once born is mortal; every form must be reconceived’ (Brook, 1968 : 16)

With this in mind one begins to wonder... if the Guinness Book of Records saw it fit to award David Raven with the title of 'Most Durable Actor' for his 4575 performances as Major Metcalf in The Mousetrap, perhaps they should also acknowledge the long suffering audience with the title of “Most Durable Audience”.

It is time to reinvent. Not time to re-enact.

ONE MINUTE ME

Your advice on this draft would be VERY welcome!!! so please respond if you have any suggestions or opinions

If We Can No Longer Alienate, What Can We Do?
- A Critical Analysis of the Theatre-maker’s Political Power, and Societal Duty -

By Sarah McLaughlin

Towards the end of the twentieth century, there was an expressed belief that “political theatre” was dying out in Britain. For some this perceived extinction was greeted as a welcome reprieve. It was believed that theatre had been granted a new freedom and could finally exist purely as an art form, without carrying the burden of also being a political platform (Goodman, 2000; 2).

Contemporary British theatre, however, appears to be experiencing a resurgence of political content. Confirming this, the current director of The National Theatre, Nicholas Hytner, has remarked that while theatre “is art and not journalism... The National Theatre should be sceptical of authority. It should be investigative of how our Government is doing... [and] should be relentlessly curious about the world that we [the theatre-makers] serve” (Hynter, cited in Reynolds, 2004).

Hytner’s image of the theatre-maker as a public servant is by no means a new concept. In fact, some authors claim that theatre not only has the duty to serve but also the unique ability to bring salvation to a corrupt and distorted social world. Jerry Grotowski, for example, famously alleged that his actors were “holy”; he viewed performance as confession; he referred to the edifice of theatre as a “temple”, and he considered art to be a ‘calling’ leading toward spiritual and political salvation (Croyden, 1974; 144).

Through research I plan to explore claims such as these, which impose immense political and moral responsibility upon the theatre-maker. I intend not only to call into question theatre’s supposed obligation to effect change but also it’s very capacity to do so. Is theatre in essence a political medium? If so, was the perceived death of political theatre at the end of the 20th century, little more than a mirage of relief from the burdensome political duties of the artist-come-martyr? Or perhaps, arguably the real hallucination is the delusions of self importance that permeate the world of art?

In an attempt to answer the above questions, my research must engage with certain age old philosophical debates concerning the fundamental ideas of truth. There exists a wealth of literature that calls into question the artist’s very ability to make a valid comment on the social world, let alone effect any sort of genuine change within it. One such argument is the emic-etic paradox[1], which implies that while on the one hand one cannot fully understand a society of which one is not a part, on the other hand, examining one’s own society demands an unattainable perspective (Pike, 1967; 41).

Even if the emic-etic paradox is overcome, perhaps creating a piece of political theatre in response to a social problem may only serve to trivialise that problem, or worse still, romanticise it. Through critical analysis I hope to question the intention of the artist who takes a beautiful picture of a starving child. Even if the photographer is motivated by a desire to do good, is the intention achieved? Does the viewer truly see the starving child or simply a beautiful picture?

Theorists such as Brecht, Adorno, Craig and Artaud (among many others) have offered possible means by which to motivate an audience to react to what they see. Although they have offered differing perspectives on which is the most effective method, most approaches essentially attempt to shock the audience into attention (Brook, 1968; 72). It remains to be seen, however, if we can continue to find new ways to alienate. As shock theatre becomes more and more common, can we still jolt our audience into action? If we can no longer alienate, what can we do?





suggested Readings for Bibliography
Abbing, Hans (2002) Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Adorno, Theodor W. (1975) ‘Culture Industry Reconsidered’, New German Critique. No. 6, p. 14.

Artaud, Antonin (1977) The Theatre and Its Double. V. Corti [trans.], New York: Calder.

Baudrillard, Jean (1994) "The Precession of Simulacra", Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. S. F. Glaser. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Bishop, Claire (2007) Participation. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery & MIT Press.

Boal, Augusto (1998) Legislative Theatre: Using Performance to Make Politics. A. Jackson[trans.], New York: Routledge.

Brecht, Bertolt (1957) Brecht on Theatre; The Development of Aesthetic. J. Willett [ed.], New York: Hill and Wang.

Brook, Peter (1968) The Empty Space; A Book about the Theatre; Deadly, Holy, Rough, Immediate. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Craig, Edward Gordon. (1924) “The Actor and the Uber-Marionette”, On the Art of the Theatre. Chamberlain [ed.], New York: Routledge.
Croyden, Margaret (1974) Lunatics, Lovers, and Poets; The Contemporary Experimental Theatre. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Gabriella Giannachi (2006) The Politics of New Media Theatre. New York: Routledge.

Goodman, Lizbeth and de Gay Jane [eds.] (2000) Routledge Reader in Politics and Performance. New York: Routledge.

Grotowski, Jerzy (2002) Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Routledge.

Kaprow, Allan (2003) “Manifesto”, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life. CA: University of California Press.

O’Connor, Brian [ed.] (2000) The Adorno Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Pike, Keneth L. (1967) The Language in Relation to the Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour. The Hague: Mouton.

Reynolds, Nigel (2004) “Theatre 'has duty to seek truth on Iraq for public'”, article in The Telegraph. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1471499/Theatre- [last viewed 19 Nov. 2008].

Rorty, Richard and Engel, Pascal (2007) What's the Use of Truth? New York: Columbia University Press.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1974) The Gay Science, With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. New York: Vantage Books.


[1] Here the emic-etic paradox is referring to K.L. Pike’s contribution to cultural analysis. According to Pike one can either understand a culture as an affiliate of that culture, emically, or one can understand it etically, from an objective exterior viewpoint. However, from this perspective one cannot comprehend all emic facets, and vice versa.

The Same Old Moon

underwater costumes

Images from Project 1

New and Improved whale

After much hard work i am proud to present the new and improved Whale!

I own sketch up!

sketches for my sweetheart the whale

This week i learned how to use google sketch up from scratch.

here is one of my first attempts to make a whale bone skeleton for Project one...

as you can see my skills need a bit of work and my whale needs to be fleshed out a bit!

underwater movement

I just wanted to share some great images I’ve come across of underwater movement. If anyone is interested in this sort of performance you can check out the work of Jörg Müller. He dances in a tube of water. It’s very beautiful.

This is something I'm certainly going to experiment with.

"if it does compete with the art, then maybe the art isn’t good enough"

I would like to make a response to the opinions expressed by Lyn Gardner in her recent post on http://www.guardian.co.uk/ on the 23 of Oct 08.

In this post, which was entitled “Is drama losing out to design in modern theatre?”, Gardner criticised the employment of overpowering visual imagery to compensate for a lack of content in contemporary theatre. The author perceives that there is a current trend among theatre makers to focus more on the setting of a piece rather than on the piece itself.

“it seems to me that I'm increasingly coming across stagings and design,
site-specific or otherwise, that seem intended to dazzle so that you don't
actually question the content too closely. What you are often getting is lamb
dressed as steak.” (Gardner, 23/10/08)

In opposition to Gardner’s statement, I am of the opinion that the content of a piece of theatre is not simply expressed through the performance. Indeed, good design should encompass both form and content.
Having discussed Gardenr’s article with fellow VLP students, I have found that there is a great awareness among new theatre makers of the concerns expressed by the author. In fact among those to whom I’ve spoken there is a collective belief that a good designer must be a rather selfless actor. A designer cannot let his/her ego distort a piece of theatre for personal glory.
With this in mind, allow me, if you will, to play devil’s advocate and to say a word in defence of the designer’s ego.
I do not hold with the idea that design must take a back seat in the performative setting. It is an old-fashioned and false belief that the greatest complement a theatre designer can get is if the audience leave a performance and do not mention the scenography. Theatre designers are authors in their own right.

While I agree that theatre must be a collaborative endeavour, and that it is simply poor design practice to create a set that does not complement all aspects of the production, I do not, however, believe that it is necessarily the fault of the designer if the action on stage is not to the same standard as its settings. No matter how collaborative a project is - there are some elements of a production that are outside the remit of the designer. It is possible that if the settings overpower the performance then the performance is not strong on its own merit. If anything a good design may serve to highlight a poor performance all the more, but this should not reflect badly on the designer.

This point reminds me of a great quote i once heard by artist and director Julian Schnabel. When Frank Gehry’s design for the Guggenheim in Bilbao was criticised on the grounds that his design was too overpowering to function effectively as a museum space, Schnabel retorted “if it does compete with the art, then maybe the art isn’t good enough”

one for the scrape heap

Know when to cut your losses and start over

Yesterday I finished my model box... and today that model box is in the bin... Having spent a great deal of time planning and constructing the original model - I had reached a point with the design, where I felt that I had lost my control over it. I was no longer able to stand behind it and justify each design choice.

And so now I start over again...

Time is limited and the pressure is on

So- back to the drawing board I go

designer as tour guide = audience as tourist

I've been wondering about the current trends in theatre design towards minimalism. As a designer, minimalist techniques appeal to me, however, it is necessary to ask the following question -

Other than aesthetic motivations, what are the reasons for using this style in theatre design?

A minimalist design may be employed to communicate the intent of a performance more clearly. By meticulously removing all the elements of production that are not specifically crucial to the transmission of a definitive concept, it is hoped that the audience will not miss the message, which the theatre practitioner is trying to communicate.

However this leads me to ask a second question –

By designing with the intention to communicate a definitive concept are theatre makers erroneously trying to control the experience of the audience?

In other words, does this form of design not dictate what an audience member can look at, thereby deciding what the audience member should think? Would a fuller design possibly give the spectator more autonomy by allowing the eye to make an independent journey, juxtaposing different images into limitless combinations?

In essence, my concern is that the attempt to communicate a core theme by minimalist design, may risk treating the audience as idiots. If instead we as theatre artists could relinquish control of the movement of the audience eye we could allow individual audience members the space to think autonomously and experience something independently within the collective.

In the upcoming mash-up project (which is due on the 13th of Nov) I will try to explore how to design in a less prescriptive manner. Ill report back if I can find any answers to these questions.

Theatre as Disposable Art?

Recent discussions in class have revolved around the topic of environmentally friendly art. How can art be made sustainable? What can we do as theatre practitioners to make our work a regenerative force rather than a destructive one? Must theatre design be disposable art?

EcoArt has been an issue of interest to me for some time now. In my opinion, one of the more progressive movements of this kind has developed within graffiti art. “Reverse Graffiti” or "Green Graffiti" are terms used to describe the practice whereby graffiti art is made by removing dirt and grime instead of spray painting and stencilling. I have attached some examples of reverse graffiti.

I now pose the question, how could the principles and practices of reverse graffiti be utilized in a preformative setting? More on this to come – watch this space...

The Hairy Ape

I’ve just been playing with some visuals for Eugene O’Neill’s seminal piece of literature The Hairy Ape. The below work was inspired by the opening line of the play, which reads

"...men cursing, shouting, singing- a confused, inchoate uproar swelling into a
sort of unity, A meaning - the bewildered, furious, baffled defiance of a beast
in a cage..."

images i took for my one minute me video

The Gospel According to Grotowski: An Exploration of the Use of Religious Parables in Jerzy Grotowski’s Akropolis.

Jerzy Grotowski is a renowned advocate for an acting style wherein the actor is propelled by an innate force rather than conforming to the ‘alphabet’ of accepted human motions in order to replicate the act. However, in 2004 The Wooster Group, a New York experimental theater company, staged a production entitled ‘Poor Theater: A Series of Simulacra’ in which the performers simulated video images of Jerzy Grotowski’s Akropolis. The production was extremely controversial and was met with consternation, particularly so at the Warsaw Theatre Festival in October of 2004. One commentator, speaking “in the name of those people who had the opportunity to see Grotowski’s group live,” called Poor Theater merely a “faded carbon” and an “embarrassing” example of “artistic chutzpah.” Some even went so far as to call the production “blasphemous” (Dunkelberg, 2005; 49). This comment denotes how Growtowski’s followers zealously believe that his theatre is Christ-like. Grotowski’s work is imbued with religious imagery, symbolism, and terminology. He speaks of theater as Revelation leading to Grace. He considers his actors ‘holy’, refers to the theater as a temple, views performance as confession and considers art to be a ‘calling’ leading toward spiritual and political salvation (Croyden, 1974; 144).

This essay will consider why Grotowski used spiritual references in his work particularly in the case of Akropolis. Akropolis manifests many of Grotowski’s notions of “poor theatre” such as a minimalist design, non-representational acting, an intense actor-spectator relationship and a distinctive staging style. By illustrating how The Wooster Group’s Poor Theater deviates from these notions, I hope to show why their production was considered by many critics to be sacrilegious. Also, putting Grotowski’s work in a comparative framework should serve to make his concepts all the more pronounced.

In 1968 Grotowski wrote his influential text Towards a Poor Theatre in which he poses the question ‘What is the theater?’ By systematically eliminating all that proved superfluous, Grotowski found that theater is defined by one thing only: the actor-spectator relationship (Grotowski, 1968; 18). That is to say that lights, make-up, scenography and costumes are all unnecessary. Without this additional pomp, theater still exists: a distilled pure form of theatre. This essence is what Grotowski called poor theatre. He chose the word ‘poor’ to express the renunciation of extravagance (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). Believing that theater has something unique to offer that other disciplines do not, Grotowski denounced what he called ‘artistic kleptomania… constructing hybrid-spectacles, conglomerates without backbone or integrity’ (Grotowski, 1968; 19). Turning Grotowski’s use of the term ‘poor theatre’ on its head, The Wooster Group uses the expression as a pun. Their Poor Theater was far from Grotowski’s poor theatre, which sought to penetrate the conventions of representation in order to tap an existential core. Instead, they used the term in a comic manner to suggest that their production was poorly executed, poorly funded and to be lamented (Dunkelberg, 2005; 43).

Under the direction of Elizabeth LeCompte, The Group strayed from Grotowski’s concept of a poor theatre in more ways than one. LeCompte began her artistic career as a painter and so, orientated towards the visual arts, she used technology freely in her Poor Theater. Much like other directors of her generation such as Robert Wilson, Richard Foreman and JoAnne Akalaitis, she developed a theatrical language very different from the actor-centered, Grotowski approach (Dunkelberg, 2005; 44). These directors often use artistic eclecticism, which is wholly irreconcilable with what Grotowski advocated. He believed that “the integration of borrowed mechanisms (movie screens onstage, for example)…is all nonsense” and a transparent compensation. “No matter how much theatre expands and exploits its mechanical resources, it will remain technologically inferior to film and television. Consequently, [he] propose[d] poverty in theatre” (Grotowski, 1968, 18).

Grotowski’s philosophies were best adapted by an ensemble of skilled artists, known as the Teatr Laboratorium (1959-1984). Of all their productions, Akropolis is widely considered to be their most harrowing work and is a fine example of the concepts of poor theatre (Akropolis; 1985). Akropolis is a poignant dramatization of the atrocities of Auschwitz. It renders the dreams and imaginings of condemned prisoners, as they build their own crematorium. The wretches take the names of Biblical and Homeric heroes and indulge in daydreams by acting out their own version of these legends.

The inmates are the protagonists and, in the name of a higher unwritten law, they are their own torturers… The throbbing rhythm of the play underscores the building of a new civilization. (Wolford and Schechner, 1997; 64)

Because the actors play both the protagonists and the torturers the action is condensed. It does not rely on intermediary sources as the Wooster Group’s Poor Theater did. There are no screens or mirrors in Grotowski’s Akropolis.

In Akropolis the relationship between actor and audience is established by sheer corporal proximity. However, physical contact is never actually made and the viewers are not expected or encouraged to participate in the performance. The action of the play takes place in all areas of the auditorium and performers move among the spectators creating a suggestion of an undefined space. The viewers represent the world of the living and the actors are dream-like characters that rise from the smoke of the crematorium. They are the dead (Osinski; 1986; 69).

These are two separate and mutually impenetrable worlds… These are the living and the dead. The physical proximity… helps confirm the separateness. The viewers… are provocatively ignored. The dead appear in the dreams of the living, strangely and incomprehensively. And, as in a nightmare, they surround the dreamers on all sides. (Teatralny cited in Osinski; 1986; 68)

For Grotowski, this physical propinquity is an essential facet of poor theatre. The Teatr Laboratorium would only perform in small venues such as the Theater of Thirteen Rows. Grotowski strongly objected to the suggestion that he should increase the audience capacity of his performances. In an interview with Margaret Croyden, he retorted that the spectators are an integral, composite part of the performance and a bigger venue would destroy the authenticity of the work (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970).

This intimate actor-spectator relationship was cultivated so that the actors could “teach people to think politically… and to be masters of their own fate.” In other words, close proximity was used to help the spectator to internalize a social problem presented by the actor so as to inspire the audience to find a politically constructive response (Mitter, 1992; 81). This element of the poor theatre is reminiscent of what Bertolt Brecht termed ‘alienation.’ However, it is important to note that Grotowski differentiated his approach from that of Brecht. Grotowski wished ‘to draw attention’ but was also wary that alienation could inadvertently have ill effects. Rather than inspire the audience to adopt faith in the feasibility of change, he warned that it might unsettle the audience to the point of cynicism (Mitter, 1992; 81).

With this in mind, returning to the example of the 2004 Wooster Group performance, it is evident that the disapproving reaction of critics to the piece was due, in part, to the disregard of the artists for the actor-spectator relationship. Although the piece was held in a small setting (The Performing Garage, 33 Wooster Street, New York), it did not resonate with the same haunting effect. The play began with a video documentary of The Wooster Group actors watching a video of an early documentary film of the Polish Laboratory Theatre. The artists intentionally distanced themselves from the audience by starting the play with a video of people watching people (Dunkelberg, 2005; 45). It was considered distasteful by some that The Wooster Group should have the effrontery to pay lip service to poor theatre, and then so blatantly contradict it.

Also, the staging style used by the Wooster Group was quite unlike that which Grotowski promoted. The entire ‘set’ of Akropolis’ comprised of rusted pipes, wheelbarrows, bathtubs and pieces of scrap metal. These items served multiple purposes throughout the play and nothing could be introduced into the scene that was not present on the stage from the beginning. This imposed a sense that, beyond the space of the play, nothing else exists. From this wasteland of junk, the prisoners built an absurd civilization and a labyrinth of gas chambers (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 63). Traditional lighting techniques were abandoned and, instead, Grotowski played with natural shadows. All existing luminous points were deliberately extinguished, so that the ultimate vision of hope was vanquished with ‘blasphemous irony’ (Grotowski, 1968; 63). The costumes were basic; heavy wooden shoes, identical berets and tattered sacks covering naked bodies. This uniform was suggestive of the apparel worn by prisoners in Nazi death camps. The sacks obscured any discriminating signs of sex and the gaping holes in the thin material brought forth images of torn skin and mangled flesh (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 64). This effectiveness of the simplistic design concept is in itself a testimony to the merits of poor theatre. The audience did not need elaborate death camp costumes in order to understand the play. In many ways poor theatre shows a higher level of respect for the intelligence of the spectator than traditional theater does.

Grotowski believed that expensive costumes, sophisticated lights and elaborate scenery are trivial facets of theater. Design was not a determining concern for the Teatr Laboratorium and minimalist staging styles were considered superior. Acting style was emphasized more in Grotowski’s work. He intended that his actors would not rely on the use of pretence but instead play their characters by playing themselves (Mitter, 1992; 79). The Wooster Group actors literally did not play from their own experience but instead tried to imitate the actors in Akropolis. It was hoped that the simulated video images would be more than just a representation in itself, but instead would transmute into a new being all of its own (Baudrillard, 1994; 2). This belief is epitomized by the writings of German dada and surrealist artist Max Ernst, who introduced the practice of frottage (placing paper over an object and rubbing with a pencil or charcoal) into his work.

I was becoming obsessed by the sight of the grooves in that floor. The floor itself stayed completely alive [...]. [A]s soon as I started rubbing, it instantly wasn’t parquet anymore. I mean, as soon as I started rubbing, suddenly I had these shapes. And I think these are the forms that were the source of my obsession in the first place. This must have been what I was seeing before...]. [T]he floorness of the floor was gone, and the images were so clear: and it dawned on me: ‘My God!’ (Ernst cited in Dunkelberg, 2005; 45)

Many critics of The Wooster Group’s Poor Theater did not value this form of creation and called it “a specious imitation,” and a “sham” (Dunkelberg, 2005; 45). Their resistance stems from what can be called an artistic dogma: an imposed belief that the authenticity of the original work must be preserved. Admittedly, Grotowski’s work was not entirely original either. The foundation of his method is a core idea in other schools of thought, such as that of the Stanislavski tradition. Grotowski was trained under Konstantin Stanislavski and this background influenced his work greatly. Grotowski analyzed critically the techniques of his predecessors and expropriated the elements of their work that he considered of value. However, rather than simulating past work, Grotowski expanded upon the preexisting ideas to create a new mode of acting (Richards, 1995; 4).

Grotowski pushed his actors toward a “total act.” This required an actor to confront him/herself with complete sincerity and thereby strip away his/her social mask. Although these methods share elements with Stanislavski, Grotowski did not intend phychological realism. He believed that the way people express themselves is a convoluted form of communication and hoped that his performers would act without referring to socially typical modes of expression. That is to say, that in the moment when the Stanislavski-trained actor makes an objective decision about a rational reaction, Grotowski’s actor instead acts on impulse (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). By eliminating the opportunity to rationalize an action, Grotowski ensures that the actor can not settle for an inauthentic representation.

Furthermore Grotowski’s theories are in stark contrast with the methods espoused by many theorists who came before him and Stanislavski. Edward Gordon Craig, for example, did not share Grotowski’s concentration on the performer but rather worked towards “doing away with the actor.” Craig believed that actors “confuse us into connecting actuality and art” (Craig, 1996; 142) unlike Grotowski, who believed that actuality is art. What is more, Craig alleged that an actor’s tendency to vie for admiration could damage the work of the playwright by obscuring the meaning of the piece with their crowd-pleasing ostentations. Grotowski was criticized at times for disregarding the playwright. He defended his adaptations as confrontation with a text, rather than a subservient interpretation of it. Instead of a “faithful” rendering of Stanislaw Wyspianski’s play, in Akropolis he presented his autonomous directorial vision using the individual life experiences of his actors (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970).

Grotowski believed that the fixed vocabulary of symbolic actions and gestures that are used in contemporary society are not inherent, but learned. He held that an actor should disregard the ‘alphabet’ of actions, so that a new, more primal way of moving could develop. If the actor’s ‘blocks’ were removed, then he or she could act as a complete entity, combining the body with the soul (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). This notion was manifest in Akropolis, as he stated in Towards a Poor Theatre:

The different parts of his body give free rein to different reflexes, which are often contradictory… All the actors use gestures, positions and rhythms borrowed from pantomime... The actors become stereotypes of the species… Remnants of sophistication are juxtaposed to animal behavior. (Grotowski, 1968; 77)

In the absence of stage make-up the Laboratory actors instead wore organic masks composed entirely of facial muscles. Each actor painfully held a grimace throughout Akropolis, serving as a powerful expression of the internalized oppression of the concentration camp. These were no ordinary masks. They were honest expressions of pain in that they did not attempt of express an emotion through an intermediate gesture but make the gesture the emotion itself (Richards, 1995; 26). The significance of Grotowski’s masks justifies why many considered the Wooster Group Poor Theater offensive. They simultaneously present the black-and-white images of the Laboratory actors’ faces with color images of their own actors imitating the grotesque poses. The Wooster Group faces draw laughter from the audience. The Laboratory faces do not (Dunkelberg, 2005; 46). This apparent mockery is what caused critics to call the piece “blasphemous.”

Grotowski’s work is viewed by many as having a spiritual nature. This may be due, in part, to his desire to heal the world through his art (‘theatre is therapy’). He believed that “civilization is sick with schizophrenia, which is a rupture between intelligence and feeling, body and soul” (Grotowski cited in Mitter, 1992; 82). The actor’s healing ability is his capacity for self sacrifice (Kumiega, 1985; 143). Grotowski’s actors scourged themselves in order to cleanse society. In this respect, Grotowski concurred with Antinon Artaud who posed that “actors should be like martyrs burnt alive, still signaling to us from their stakes” (Mitter, 1992; 82). Building on this idea, Grotowski conceived of the theatre as “a place of provocation” in which the holy actor, revealing a level of truth that transgresses accepted stereotypes and comfortable lies, provokes the spectator “to undertake a similar process of self penetration” (Wolford, 1996; 5). This approach led viewers to the conclusion that Grotowski’s poor theatre was more like a religious sect than a theater company. His actors were compared to fakirs “flagellat[ing] themselves until they have red welts on their backs” (Osinski, 1986; 86).

Religious imagery is ubiquitous in Grotowski’s works, and of these Akropolis is no exception. In Akropolis the Teatr Laboratorium used the story of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau from the book of Genesis. There are many possible hypotheses as to why Grotowski chose this story to stage the Holocaust. One rather literal explanation is that Grotowski selected this proverb because it can be used as a biblical justification for the extermination of the Jews during WWI, just as biblical justifications were used to rationalize Apartheid in South Africa (Fawcett, 2000: 24) The parable used in Akropolis, from Genesis 25, contains the Lord’s speech to Rebekah: “Two nations – in your womb, two people from your loins shall issue. People over people shall prevail, the elder, the younger’s slave.” Theoretically these two nations could be construed as the Aryan race (descended from Esau) and the Jews (descended from Jacob). While Esau is depicted as strong and hard working, Jacob is sly and manipulative (Genesis; 25). These are classic stereotypes that were used during the Holocaust. The story in Genesis describes how Jacob cons his brother into selling him his birthright (Genesis 25:31-34) and tricks his father into giving him the blessing meant for Esau (Genesis 27:20-29). As Esau puts it “My birthright he took, and look, now, he’s taken my blessing” (Genesis 27:36). As a result of Jacob’s treachery, Esau wishes him dead but never seeks revenge (Genesis 27:41). By exterminating the sons of Jacob the Nazis could be said to be rebalancing the natural order in society and regaining their birthright.

However this may be too simplistic an explanation for Grotowski’s decision to use this proverb in Akropolis. It is more likely that the recurring ‘crucifixions, flagellations, liturgies, and masses’ in Grotowski’s art result from what is known as the ‘Polish Experience,’” which is characterized by bitterness and despair caused by the devastating effects of Nazi brutality (Croyden, 1974; 142). Grotowski and his associates emerged from this milieu and their work was inevitably influenced by this history. Traditionally, artists from the period of Polish Romanticism, which predated Grotowski’s work, also used religion as a form of expression against disenfranchising political censorship. Their impassioned patriotism became expressed using Polish Catholicism because they could not express themselves in the political sphere, and religious mysticism merged with revolutionary narratives. Poets such as Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855) compared Poland’s suffering with that of Christ and dramatized Poland as crucified. In this respect, Grotowski’s use of parables in Akropolis is entirely in line with the writings of his predecessors (Croyden, 1974; 140).

Conversely, another explanation for Gotowski’s use of the story of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau to stage the Holocaust may in fact be a criticism of the romantic poets who went before him. The use this parable in the context of Auschwitz is, in itself, a criticism of these artists. Polish people have for many decades used romantic-religious ideas as a substitute for organized political action. By setting the story in the context of the Holocaust, Grotowski makes a scathing attack on the apathy of the Polish people. Their preoccupation with religious romanticism has led to the present state of the political system. Hiding behind fantastical myths and daydreams and making beautiful poetry from pain, they have allowed their society to become sick (Croyden, 1974; 141). By offsetting revered religious mysticism with the ugly truths of the ‘Polish Experience,’ Grotowski hoped to

teach people to think politically, to understand their interests, to fight for bread and democracy and for justice and truth in everyday life…We must fight for people to speak their minds with out fear of being harassed. We must fight so stupid and corrupt individuals won’t hold positions of responsibility. (Osinski,1986; 19)

The Acropolis was a site in Ancient Greece of the highest religious importance. The word ‘akropolis’ itself has particular significance in Grotowski’s work. It was repeatedly chanted throughout the performance in the manner of a Hebrew prayer. The actor’s repetition of the phrases ‘our Akropolis’ and ‘the cemetery of tribes’ could be used to parallel Auschwitz with a religious pinnacle of civilization. Furthermore, Stanislaw Wyspianski’s original production of this play was set in a church near the crematorium. Grotowski transforms the church into the crematorium. From these directorial choices, one could infer that Grotowski uses religion in Akropolis to assert that society has through some perverted worship played a part in its own demise (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 62).

Of course the conclusions that Grotowski reached are not universally agreed upon. In many ways the Wooster Group’s Poor Theater is a confrontation with its ancestor and a response to the history, reception, rejection and appropriation of Grotowski’s work in the United States (Dunkelberg, 2005; 43). Although The Group did not adopt many of the notions of “poor theatre” such as were manifest in Akropolis—which include minimalist staging and design as well as an emphasis on acting and the actor-spectator relationship—Grotowski might not have objected to their interpretive license. Grotowski strongly advocated the right of artists to make personal interpretations rather than subservient recreations of what came before, much as he did with Wyspianski’s original script (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). Despite criticisms, Grotowski’s reformulation brought new depth and meaning to Wyspianski’s piece, particularly by drawing connections between the Holocaust and the stories of Genesis. Artistic dogma could have stifled this artistic enhancement, a threat that still exists today.

Bibliography

• Akropolis. Dir. Ewa Miodonska-Brookes. Perf. Rena Mirecka, Ryszard Cleslak,
Zbigniew Cynkutis, Zygmunt Molik et al. Zakład Narodowy im: Ossolińskich, 1985.

• Baudrillard, Jean. “The Precession of Simulacra” (1994): 1-42

• Craig, Edward Gordon. “The Actor and the Uber-Marionette.” (1996): 142-149

• Croyden, Margaret. Lunatics, lovers, and poets; the contemporary experimental
theatre. New York: MacGraw-Hill. 1974.

• Dunkelberg, Kermit. Confrontation, Simulation, Admiration: The Wooster
Group’s Poor Theater. New York: New York University Press, 2005.

• Fawcett, L. Religion, Ethnicity and Social Change. St. Martins Press, New York,
2000.

• Genesis. Trans. Robert Alter. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.

• Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2002.

• Jerzy Grotowski. Dir. Merrill Brockway. Perf. Jacques Chwat, James Macandrew,
Jerzy Grotowski, and Margaret Croyden. Creative Arts Television, 1970.

• Kumiega, Jennifer. The Theatre of Grotowski. New York: Northumberland Press Ltd, 1985.

• Mitter, Shomit. Systems of Rehearsal; Stanislavsky, Brecht, Grotowski and Brook.
London: Routledge, 1992.

• Osinski, Zbigniew. Grotowski and His Laboratory. New York: PAJ Publications,
1986.

• Richards, Thomas. At Work with Grotowski on Physical Actions. New York: Routledge, 1995.

• Schechner, Richard and Wolford, Lisa. The Grotowski Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1997.

• Wolford, Lisa. Grotowski’s Objective Drama Research. Jackson: University Press
of Mississippi, 1996.

Day One of My Blogging Adventure

Prepare yourself, one and all, for the most exciting, challenging, reflective, insightful, ground-breaking blog every to hit the world wide web....

this is not an overstatement

expect great things….

I will start by uploading some of my past essays so that i can begin with a sort of archive of old work and build from there