- text by Bojana Kunst
- first published in: MASKA (V/13) Triple Issue / Spring 1995
- UDK 792.02(043.2)
- translated by Amidas
Visit kunstbody.wordpress.com for updates.
INTRODUCTION
In this introduction to the analysis of the relationship between the theatrical body and theatrical space, we will touch on several basic issues which transcend the scope of pure theatre theory and which are linked to certain general theoretical premises. At this level, the issue often shifts from the body to the subject, posing itself as a question of the relationship between the subject and space, i.e. of the subject's perception of the external world. As we know, all basic spatial features are defined according to the body (the subject defines them in accordance with his own perception): the status and form of space (up, down, left, right, etc.) are defined by the subject/body, who on the basis of his field of vision and touch, sets its limits, thinks it and at the same time thinks himself. The subject/body therefore projects himself onto the space within which he exists. This is true not only of artificial places but also of the natural environment. Nature (even though we certainly did not participate in its creation) is perceived by the subject at a basic level, according to the abilities and perceptive capacity of his body. It therefore becomes definite and describable in terms of distance and proximity, height and depth, threat and friendliness, accessibility and remoteness, sublimeness and beauty; all these are the subject's descriptions of nature, but have nothing to do with natural space per se. We can therefore describe the relationship between the body and space by saying that it is the body which defines and establishes relations in space, that its relationship with space is a priori, and that the body (even if space becomes independent of it) always represents space, rendering it acceptable, beautiful or dangerous.
At the aesthetic level - and the theatrical performance is undoubtedly an aesthetic phenomenon - the problem should be viewed slightly differently; it should be seen from the perspective of the artistic process. Aesthetic objects are characterised by the autonomy of individual categories, which are more or less radically purified and absolutised and, despite the basic cognitive premises contained in the work of art itself, are also seen and considered accordingly. The history of modern theatre allows us to track the emergence of the autonomy of individual theatrical categories; it is precisely the formation of their autonomy which defines and represents individual stages in the development of modern theatre. In twentieth century theatre, theatrical space is the category which underwent the most radical conceptual and status changes. Its manner of dealing with the body (and vice versa) is multi-layered - it extends from illusory decorativeness and constructed conceptuality to the status of an autonomous setting of physical activity. It is precisely the conceptualisation of theatrical space, which begins with the emergence of naturalistic theatre (largely due to the bizarre naturalistic theory of the three determinants, of which the milieu (environment) was directly introduced into set design), that influences the conceptualisation of the autonomy of the theatrical body, which is then forced to renounce its decorative character and the conventional system of gesticulation and to establish itself as an autonomous body synchronised with space.
DECORATIVE RELATIONSHIP
As long as the theatre is ruled by the convention of illusion, which aims at presenting ideal worlds (in accordance with the principles of the holy trinity of aesthetics, beauty-truth-goodness) and achieving artificial and entertaining identification, the role of space in relation to the body is decorative and subordinate to its visual and tactile perceptions. Here, we are talking about space as a beautiful backcloth which is not an independent (autonomous) category but which functions as a decorative background, a perspective landscape, intended not to supplement or even roughly explain anything, but primarily to stand still, to festoon and to adorn. There is no contact between the background and the foreground (the actor), either at the physical or semiotic level, or at the level of ideas. Obviously, it is a strictly decorative relationship, emerging from a minimal association based on a very general impression and intended for the taste of the middle-class sentiment. The latter positively demands decoration, as it is only within this decorative and gaudy framework that the middle-class sentiment can become ideal and a prototype for a general catharsis.
Why, in fact, are we talking about decoration, when our intention is to discuss the relationship between the body and space in modern theatre? It is true that, under the influence of the demand for autonomy of theatrical space, its concept and status are fundamentally changed, resulting in the autonomy of stage design (the emergence of the institution of the stage designer, no longer merely a mechanic in the traditional sense). This leads to an understanding of set design as an institutionalised form of art, creating a meaningful (ideal and semiotic) relationship between the body and space typical of the modern theatre performance. Nevertheless, it is precisely when we examine the relationship between the body and space that we see that performances limited by traditional conventions (i. e. performances which continue the tradition of the middle-class theatre and which are usually connected with the repertoires of large national theatre institutions) still need and design decorative sets. The relationship between the body and space is still decorative, since the set is designed to provide explanations, to complement the actor and the plot; the actor also needs such an explanatory set because of the traditional and conventional dictates of plot crisis, resolution, etc. The reason for such a relationship can be found in the fact that, in the context of these performances, we cannot talk about the body as an autonomous category, but only about the autonomous category of role, which dictates all other categories in the performance. In constructing the role, and in achieving empathy and identification with it, space and the body walk hand in hand. In constructing the role, their relationship is one of mutual decoration, but a decoration no longer based on general associations but defined by ideal and semiotic references, by an explanation of content and form, etc. Therefore it is only outside the role-based relationship that we can talk about the autonomy of space and the body; autonomous space must be accompanied by autonomous body.
We will attempt to analyse the problem theoretically and to trace it through the three basic types characteristic of certain Slovenian theatrical performances which do not observe the traditional decorative relationship. In this context, it is typical of the status and function of space that it is (metaphorically) faced by the autonomous body (which in certain cases demonstrates such a radical attitude that it, to paraphrase Brook, demands empty space), which assumes a pattern of behaviour towards it and refers to it with a certain degree of deference, but which never ignores or subordinates it; even when the body negates space, it paradoxically recreates it and its autonomy.
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCT: THE BODY INHABITS SPACE
By the term conceptual construct, we mean the type of theatrical space which exists as a new construction, to which all layers of the theatrical performance must adapt. It is no longer merely a scenographic transformation of the given Italian box set, but an elaborate construction which also reflects other components of the performance. Such a set functions primarily as an autonomous new world, within which the functions of the body, its actions and the audience's look, can be conceived. This influence is of course mutual: just as the autonomous body demands a new space for its movement, the new space demands a transformed, different body. The body in this special space is forced to assume an attitude towards the concept of space; the constructed set furnishes it with a new meaning and at the same time a new perspective from which to view it. It is typical of the conceptual construction that it constantly reflects the audience's look, constantly defines new targets for its look (narrowing it, guiding it around the set, directing it up or down), always integrating and topicalising it. Another characteristic of the construct is the new meaning and new form of the active (or passive) body in it. Instead of decoration, a synthesis at an absolute and totalitarian level takes place, the body functioning as an active participant in the new world, as its prophet and visionary, as its messiah and the great interpreter. This absolute synthesis causes the transformation and reflection of the body itself, which, within the constructed worlds, constantly appears as an abstraction of the concrete body and attempts to establish it as a new body for a new space.
The relationship between space and the body in the conceptual construct can be more or less radical. In the performance Molitveni stroj Noordnung, (The Noordnung Prayer Machine) by Dragan Zivadinov, this relationship is established in a synthesis with two viewpoints: the dancers move above the heads of one part of the audience, which through rectangles in a transformed traditional kabuki set decorate the space of Noordnung for the observing part of the audience. In the performances Zenit (Zenith) and Kapital (Capital), the audience is situated in an explicitly constructed world (e. g. a railway carriage-rocket), in which the active body functions as the absolute component of the constructed space, its missionary and apologist, moving in and for the space and only activated within its limits (space activates its movement), creating the image of an autonomous world. Dragan Zivadinov's projects are particularly illustrative of the extent and type of the autonomy of the stage space in the conceptual construct. His performances somehow continue the line of artists (Meyerhold, Craig, etc.) who first met the demand for autonomy of the stage space, vaguely feeling the necessity of something also being done with the body. The autonomy of the conceptual construct, creating a new world (new space), calls for the body to be subordinated in the sense that it dictates its absolute fidelity. This fidelity can be seen in the concept of the new body inventing special modes of existence in the constructed places, a process which can be achieved in different ways - from the invention of special techniques of movement in the new space (biomechanics) to the gradual abstraction of the body; we even know of conceptual constructs which demand that the existence of the body be abolished altogether. The totalitarianism of the constructed space seeks to renounce the human figure as the remainder of the traditional physical limitations of the human body and to replace it with a new means of expression which could meet the demands of the conceptual construct. An absolute and radical consequence of the perfection of the constructed space is therefore the abolition of the body or an attempt at its abstraction; the body is expelled from the stage, to be replaced by the perfect super-marionette (Craig), an abstract figure (Schlemmer) or a mechanical substitute. The new space of the conceptual construct is therefore in its final consequence a mechanical or artificial space, in which the body is replaced by an automaton, a cold anthropomorphic being, an intelligent machine. The other possibility, which is more in favour of the body as a means of expression and does not abolish it per negationem, seeks a body which functions differently, which brings about new theatrical modes of expression. This is, for example, true of Zivadinov's performances; he constantly plays the role of a functionary of the constructed space, becoming an inseparable part of it. The body becomes a new participant, a working and organised entity, which advocates and only acts in synthesis with the conceptual construct. The body is therefore no longer merely a container for mimesis, and space is no longer just its supplementary-decorative correlate.
ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIP: SPACE INHABITS THE BODY
If we begin this chapter by returning to our original premise of the body/subject as an entity which establishes, defines, describes and perceives space, then their abstract relationship can be described as a consequence of the radicalisation of the modernistic subject (autonomously dispersed in his perception), which, through an independent, unpresentable and minimalist multi-layered dance gesture, establishes, defines and designs space. The original spatial relations (left, right, up, down, far, near, high, low) become dispersed and begin functioning separately, so that they can only be felt when we watch the body dancing in space (usually bare - which is indicative enough), a body which, through its choreographed (as well as improvised) movements alone, establishes our aesthetic perception of the set. The modernist/structuralist reasoning on the relationship between space and the body inevitably brings us to minimalist concepts, as well as to a whole series of theoretical and artistic explorations of the relationship between space and the body, pride of place being given to the body as the basic form and means of expression capable of forming and constructing space: "Dance fascinates precisely because the invisible bodily space is joined with the perceptible visual space." 1
We can therefore say that, in the abstract relationship, space inhabits the body, which is, through the process of abstraction (a choreographed independent gesture), capable of play and playing with spatial relationships. However, we are not interested in the relationship between the dancing body and space; this relationship merits a separate essay, as in that case the body in its relationship towards space establishes itself through formally designed relations, incorporating and producing the setting of its own kinetics, which encompasses the body to such an extent that it functions best in an empty space. As a matter of fact, this habitation is only accomplished when it is connected with other conceptual components and not only with the minimalist or any other succession of the choreographed form and gesture. In the performance Gertrude Stein, directed by Vladimir Repnik, we look at a body inhabited by space, a body basically connected to the category of time (which is an autonomous and prevailing category in the performance). This peculiar synthesis reaches its climax in the final scene, when we witness very slow and extremely tense linear movement of the body across the stage. At the beginning (on one side of the stage), the tense body of the actor Boris Mihalj, with its first gesture, indicates precisely the route it intends to walk, and (for our perception, which is used to montage and cartoons) the infinite time which it will use for this. The tense body, with every step and every move, shifts the extended linear space into boundlessness: it changes the infinite route and (to our consciousness at first sight unimaginable) the relationship to infinity into a tangible and aesthetically extremely effective theatrical expression. The body carries in itself the wonderful ability to play and at the same time define the infinity and limitations of space. 2
Let us try to draw a comparison within the concept of the body-space relationship between Zivadinov's conceptual construct and Repnik's abstract relationship. Even if the languages of their performances are not similar, at a certain level they both address the same basic objective: they both project their basic topics into the universe, into infinity. Nevertheless, the space which signifies the idea is fundamentally different for the two directors. Zivadinov always needs a materialised construct (association with a mechanical instrument, a rocket, a new form of space, a universal machine which makes it possible to reach the universe and demands a body which knows how to behave in it: the dome of the Cosmokinetic Campaign 1:10,000, and the like), while Repnik finds expression of infinity in the physical, tense and working body itself. Repnik here turns his back on the avant-garde (obsessed with the provocative or any other construction), and comes closer to a mystical universality which does not resort to the autonomy of artificial mechanics to achieve a synthesis of space and the body (the mechanical constructs of Zivadinov's most recent performances are fairly ingenious in their conception - they are made of wood and therefore softer), but establishes it within the field of meditation and a contemplative body, which, at the moment when it reaches a certain point of its contemplation, is capable of establishing the vastness itself. 3
The abstract relationship therefore does not offer an elaborate scenographic materialisation of space, and even when it does, this materialisation is reduced to symbolic and composite signs. It is the body itself which, through its premeditated, well-designed movement and totally devotional form, reduces and extends space, endowing it with meaning through spatial relations. The dimensions and function of space are primarily kinetic; however, if the body is conceived conceptually, they are, within the abstract conceptual relationships and categories, also ideal and semantic.
PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP: BODY AND SPACE PRODUCE ONE ANOTHER
In the physical relationship, the categories of body and space are placed and cooperate in such a way that they are both absolutely autonomous, not enforcing any a-priori domination of one over the other semantically, ideally or in reality. It is therefore a relationship in which space is not conceived and established as a construct which, in its very essence, demands its own body; a relationship in which the body does not attempt to imitate the activation of the prime mover, which draws spatial relations with its own kinetic relationships. Instead they meet (touch) at the purified level of physical (co)existence, which is of course conceptualised differently for each individual performance, but which remains strictly dependent on reality and the actual, concrete, sensory contact on stage.
At first sight, the premise of the absolute autonomy of both categories seems paradoxical, since we know that the body cannot move through a space which does not allow this motion because of the very nature of movement (if we are too fat, we cannot pass through a narrow hole no matter how hard we try). The true autonomy of physical and real space always requires a certain adjustment/limitation/expansion of physique and adjusted movement; by means of its mobility, the body shapes itself with regard to the spatial environment. However, we can only talk about the actual limitations of the body at the level of everyday real movement, while we cannot be so certain regarding the theatrical expressive body, i. e. the body as the subject of an aesthetic image. In contrast, the theatrical body confronting and coexisting with an aesthetically autonomous space can be ascribed full autonomy, as it is only in a concretised coexistence with a space with which it is an equal that it establishes itself as a liberated and actualised physical body (without abstract shapelessness and structuralist dispersion). 4
The physical relationship is therefore the relationship of the concept within which space conceptualises and forms movement, while on the other hand it is only the body, through its total physical devotion and power, which actually defines it as a physical space. The audience observes an interdependent motion relationship realised in the exploited physical body and in the space in which practical and symbolic functions merge.
In Slovenian theatre, this kind of relationship is most clearly seen and consistently realised in performances by Matjaz Pograjc, created in cooperation with the Betontanc company. In his performance Za vsako besedo cekin (Every Word A Sequin), the moving space of six actors is limited and determined by a background wall, which, with the bodies, not only establishes a relationship of limitation, prevention, obstacle or formation, but also functions as a conceptual constant: there is no movement without the wall and no wall without movement. The fact that the dancing bodies charge against the wall, jump it, bounce off it and hang from it stems not from the wall standing there as a practical, formal obstacle with which a jumping or charging relationship needs to be established, but rather from the fact that the body is only physically autonomously realised when it is faced with a concrete spatial constant, which by definition always intervenes and thrusts itself into the movement of the body. The physical relationship therefore presents, and at the same time upgrades, the maxim "there is no space without motion and no motion without space", changing it into an actual physical/risky relationship between the two categories. A similar relationship can be seen in the performance Tatovi mokrih robčkov (The Wet Hanky Thieves), in which a sloped plate is the dramaturgical and conceptual constant which the moving bodies climb, within which they exist, and from which they originate. At the end of the section on the physical relationship, we can say that it is precisely the relationship between space and the body which creates the meanings and dramaturgy of the performance. This means that the physical relationship between space and body brings about the narrative and semiotic context, since such a relationship merges the practical and symbolic functions of space and the physical and semiotic functions of the body. In a theatrical performance, the everyday experiential limitations of the body and space establish themselves as a peculiar form of aesthetic expression through a physical contact limited, but precisely because of this essentially liberated movement.
CONCLUSION
Through the multi-layered relationship between theatrical space and the theatrical body, we can actually see how the autonomy of individual categories occurred in the history of the modern theatre, and what effect this autonomy had on the very concept of theatrical performance. The demand for autonomy of stage space causes a change in the very essence of certain aesthetic components of the performance; it forces them to find for themselves a new aesthetics. We have described some of the basic types of relationship between space and body which can be found in contemporary Slovenian theatre, but which at the same time are general enough to be applied to recent developments in foreign theatres. In all these performances, the relationship is structurally and semantically integrated in the performance itself, so that an analysis of the relationship type can reveal the dramaturgy of the production, its conceptual basis, and its narrative framework. Space and the body therefore work in a flexible relationship which originates precisely in the constant conceptual awareness of their autonomy and the possibilities arising from such autonomous (co)operation for the theatrical performance. Through the interaction between space and body, an infinite palette of new worlds opens.
ENDNOTES:
- Jose Gil: The Abstract Body, Maska, IV/3-5, 1994.
- Vladimir Repnik's performances can be seen as examples of two different concepts of the space-body relationship. Whereas, for example, Brigade lepote (Brigades of Beauty) and Helios established space as a conceptual construct, in which the body, as in Zivadinov's performances, functions as an apologist for space and in which the relationship is also combined with the changed position of the audience, in Gertrude Stein, Repnik gives up the construct and fits his performance into a typical Italian box set, transforming it with the autonomous category of time.
- In this context, it is interesting to examine the performances of the director Marko Peljhan, who uses intelligent technology to disclose space and upgrade it with pre-recorded worlds constructed on an intelligent machine. The relationship can still be described as a conceptual construct, even though it is precisely the intelligent technology which, at certain points, negates its a-priori autonomy and domination. Here we are dealing with a somewhat undefined synthesis of the rationally contemplative body and intelligent technology which will at some time probably define and form the status of the body.
- In fact, approximation to the physical relationship between space and the body is becoming characteristic of certain dance performances which break with modernistic minimalism and the abstract dance gesture.