excerpt from 'towards a poor theatre poor theater', pg. 19-25, grotowski

8/13/2019 Excerpt from 'Towards a Poor Theatre Poor Theater', pg. 19-25, Grotowski

1/4

TOWARDSA POOR THEAIRE

theatre?What is unique about it? What can it do that film andtelevision cannot? Two concrete conceptions crystallized: thepoor theatre, and performanceas an act of transgression.By graduallyeliminatingwhatever proved superfluous,we foundthat theatre can existwithoutmake-up,withoutautonomic ostumeand scenography,without a separate performancearea (stage),without lightingand sound effects, etc. lt cannot exist without theactor-spectator relationship of perceptual, direct, "live" com-munion.This is an ancient theoretical ruth, of course, but whenrigorously ested in practice t underminesmost of our usual deasabout theatre. t challenges he notion of theatre as a synthesisof disparate creative disciplines- literature,sculpture,painting.architecture, ighting,acting (under the direction of a metteur-en-scene). This "synthetic theatre" is the contemporary theatre,which we readilycall the "Rich Theatre" - rich in flaws.The Rich Theatredepends on artistic kleptomania,drawing from


2/4

TOWARDSA POOR THEATRE

Thus, infinite variation of performer-audience elationships ispossible. The actors can play among the spectators, directlycontacting he audienceand giving it a passive role in the drama(e.9.our productionsof Byron'sCain and Kalidasa'sShakuntala).Or the actors may build structuresamong he spectatorsand thusinclude them in the architecture of action, subjecting hem to asense of the pressure and congestion and limitation of space(Wyspianski's Akropolis). Or the actors may play among thespectatorsand ignore hem, ooking hrough hem.The spectatorsmay be separated rom the actors - for example,by a high fence,over which only their heads protrude (The GonstantPrince, ro mCalderon); from this radically slanted perspective, they lookdown on the acto rs as if watching animals in a ring, or likemedical students watching an operation (also, this detached,downward viewing gives the action a sense of moral trans-gression).Or the entire hall is used as a con creteplace: Faustus'"last supper" in a monastery efectory,where Faustusentertainsthe spectators,who are guestsat a baroque east served on hugetables, offering episodes rom his life. The eliminationof stage-auditorium dichotomy is not the important thing - that simplycreates a bare laboratory situation, an appropriate area fo rinvestigation.The essential concern is finding the proper spec-tator-actor elationship or each ype of performanceand embody-ing he decis ion n physicalarrangements.We forsook lighting effects, and this revealed a wide range ofpossibilities for the actor's use of stationary light-sources bydeliberatework with shadows,bright spots, etc. lt is particularlysignificant hat once a spectator s placed n an illuminated one,or in other words becomesvisible,he too begins o play a part inthe performance. t also became evident that the actors, likefigures in El Greco's paintings,can "illuminate" hroughpersonaltechnique, ecominga sourceof "spi r i tual ight ."We abandoned make-up, fake noses, pillow-stuffed bellies -everything that the actor puts on in the dressing room beforeperformance.We found that it was consummately heatrical or20

TOWABDS A POOR THEATRE

the actor to transform from type to type, character to character,silhouette o silhouette while the audiencewatched - in a poormanner,using only his own body and cra ft. The compositionof afixed facial expression by using the actor's own muscles an dinner impulses achieves the effect of a strikingly theatricaltransubstantiation , hile the mask prepared by a make-up artistis only a trick.Similady, a costume with no autono mousvalue, existing only inconnectionwith a particular character and his activities,can betransformed before the audience, contrasted with the actor'sfunctions, etc. Eliminationof plastic elements which have a lifeof their own (i.e., epresentsomething ndependentof the actor'sactivities) ed to the creation by the actor of the most elementaryand obvio us objects. By his controlled use of gesture the actortransforms he floor into a sea,a table nto a confessional, pieceof iron into an animatepartner,etc. Elimination f music (live orrecorded) not produced by the actors enables the performanceitself to become music through the orchest rationof voices andclashingobjects.We know that the text per se is not theatre, hat-it becomes heatre only through the actors' use of it - that is tosay, thanks to intonations, o the associa tionof sounds, to themusicalityof the language.The acceptanceof poverty in thea tre, stripped of all that is no tessential to it, revealed to us not only the backbone of themedium,but also the deep riches which lie in the very nature ofthe art-form.Why are we concernedwith art? To cross our fr ontiers, exceedour l imi tat ions,i l l our empt iness ful f i l ourselves. his is not acondition but a process in which what is dark in us slowly be-comes transparent. n this struggle with one's own truth, thiscffort to peel off the life-mask, he theatre, with its full-fleshedperceptivity,has always seemed to me a place of provocation.

t

2l


3/4

TOWARDS A POOR THEATBE

I t is capableof chal lenging tsel f and i ts audienceby violat ingaccepted stereotypes of vision, feeling, and judgment - morejarr ing because t is imaged n the human organism'sbreath,body, and inner impulses.This def iance of taboo, this trans-gression,provides he shock which rips off the mask,enablingusto give ourselves nakedly to somethingwhich is impossible odefine but which containsEros and Caritas.In my work as a producer, have he refore been empted o makeuse of archaic i tuat ions anct i f ied y t radi t ion, i tuat ions wi thinthe realms of religion and tradit ion) which are taboo. I felt aneed to confront myself with the se values. They fascina tedme,fill ing me with a sense of interior restlessness,while at the sametime I was obeying a temptation o blaspheme: wanted to attackthem, go beyond them, or rather confront them with my ownexperiencewhich is itself determinedby the collectiveexperienceof our time. This elementof our productions has been variouslycalled "collision with the roots," "the dialectics of mockery andapotheosis," r even"rel ig ion xpressedhroughblasphemy;ovespeakingout throughhate."

As soo n as my practicalawarenessbecameconsciousand whenexperiment ed to a method, was compelled o take a fresh lookat the history of theatre in relation o other branchesof know-ledge,especiallypsychologyand culturalanthropology.A rationalreview of the problem of myth was called for. Then I clear ly sawthat myth was both a primeval situation, and a complex modelwith an independent xistence n the psychologyof socialgroups,inspiringgroup behaviorand tendencies.The heatre,when it was still part of religion,was already heatre:it liberated he spiritual energy of the congregationor tribe byincorporatingmyth and profaningor rather transcending t. Thespectator hus had a renewed awarenessof his personal ruth inthe truth of the myth,and hrough right and a senseof the sacred22

TOWAROS A POOR THEATRE

he came to ca tharsis. t was not by chanc e hat the Middle Agesproduced he idea of "sacral parody."But today's situation s much different. As social groupingsar eless and less defined by re ligion, ra ditionalmythic forms are influx, disappearingand being reincarnated.The spectators ar emore and more individuated n their relation to the myth ascorporate truth or group model, and belief is often a matter ofintellectual onviction.This means hat it is much more difficult oelicit the sort of shock needed to get at those psychic layersbehind he life-mask.Group dentificationwith myth the equationof personal, individual truth with universal truth - is virtuallyimpossible oday.What is possible? First, confrontation with myth rather thanidentification. n other words, while retaining our private ex -periences,we can attempt to incarnate myth, putting on its ill-fitting skin to perceive he relativity of our problems, heir con-nection to the "roots," and the relativity of the "roots" in thelight of today's experience. f the situation s brutal, if we stripourselvesand touch an extraordinarily ntimate ayer, exposing t,the life-maskcracks and falls away.Secondly,evenwith the loss of a "commonsky" of belie f and th eloss of impregnableboundaries, he perceptivity of the humanorganism emains.Only myth - incarnate n the fact of the actor,in his living organism can function as a taboo. The violation ofthe living organism, he exposure carried to outrageousexcess,returns us to a concrete mythical situation, an experience ofcommon human ruth.

Again, the rational sources of our terminology cannot be citedt)rocisely. I am often asked about Artaud when I speak of"r:ruelty," although his formulations were based on differenttrremisesand took a different ack. Artaud was an extraordinary

{ '

, l li l lilr

23


4/4

TOWARDS A POOR THEATRE

visionary, ut his writ ingshave it t lemethodological eaningbe -cause they are not the product of long-termpractical nvestiga-t ions.They are an astounding rophecy,not a program.When Ispeakof "roots" or "mythical oul," am askedaboutNietzsche;i f I ca l l i t "group imagination,"Durkheimcomes up; i f I ca l l i t"archetypes," Jung. But my formulations are not derived fromhumanistic isciplines,hough may use hem or analysis.WhenI speak of the actor's expression of signs, I am asked aboutoriental heatre,particularlyclassicalChinese heatre (especiallywhen t is known hat I studied here).But the hieroglyphic ignsof the oriental heatre are inflexible, ike an alphabet,whereas hesigns we use are the skeletal orms of human action,a crystalli-zationof a role, an articulation f the particularpsycho-physiologyof the actor.I do not claim that everything we do is entirely new' We arebound, consciouslyor unconsciously,o be influencedby thetraditions,scienceand art, even by the superstitionsand presenti-ments peculiar o the civil isati onwhich has mouldedus, ust aswe breathe he air of the particularcontinentwhich has given usl i fe . Al l th is inf luencesour undertaking, hough sometimeswemay deny it. Even when we arrive at certain theoretic formulasand compare our ideas with those of our predecessorswhich Ihave already mentioned,we are forced to resoft to certainretrospective corrections which themselves enable us to seemore clearly he possibil it ies penedup beforeus .When we confront he general raditionof the Great Reformof thetheatre rom Stanislavski o Dullin and from Meyerhold o Artaud,we?ealize hat we have not started rom scratchbut are operatingin a defined and special atmosphere.When our investigationreveals and confirms someone else's flash of intuition,we arefilled with humility.we realize hat theatre has certain objectivelaws and that fulfillment is possible only within them, or, asThomas Mann said, through a kind of "higher obedience," owhichwe give our "dignif iedattention."I hold a peculiar posit ion of leadership n the Polish Theatre24

TOWARDS A POOR I}IEAINE

Laboratory. am not simply he director or produceror "spiritualinstructor." n the first place,my relation o the work i s certainlynot one-way or didactic. f my suggestionsare reflected in thespatialcompositionsof our architectGurawski, t must be under-stood that my vision has been formed by years of collaborationwith him.

There is something ncomparably ntimateand productive n thework with the actor entrusted o me. He must be attentive andconfidentand free, for our labor is to explore his possibilities othe utmost.His growth is attendedby observation,astonishment,and desire o help; my growth is projectedonto him, or, rather, sfound in him - and our common growth becomes evelation.Thisis not instructionof a pupil but utter opening o another person,in which the phenomenonof "shared or double birth" becomespossible.The actor s reborn not only as an actor but as a man-and with him, I am reborn. t is a clumsyway of expressing t, bu twhat is achieved s a total acceptanceof one human being byanother.

25

excerpt from 'towards a poor theatre poor theater', pg. 19-25, grotowski

Documents