The Analysis of Theatral Performance

8/13/2019 The Analysis of Theatral Performance

1/19

The Analysis of Theatrical Performance: The State of the ArtAuthor(s): Wilfried Passow and R. StraussSource: Poetics Today, Vol. 2, No. 3, Drama, Theater, Performance: A Semiotic Perspective(Spring, 1981), pp. 237-254Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772474

Accessed: 14/04/2010 09:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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].

Duke University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772474?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1772474?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/19

THE ANALYSIS OF THEATRICALPERFORMANCEThe State of the Art*

WILFRIED PASSOWTheater Studies, Munich

For several years now theater studies have been in a state of change. Itsrepresentativeshad previously endeavored almost exclusively to explain in detailand in general the origin, nature and development of theater. The structuralconstruction of a staging and the communicative process were largely ignored.Theater studies received a new impetus from the insight that a performancemustbe considered as collaboration between actors and audience. This had alreadybeen formulated by Goethe: "The stage and the auditorium, the actors and thespectators together constitute the whole" (Regeln fur Schauspieler [Rules foractors] ? 82). Only recently, however, have theater theoreticians concentratedonthe function of the audience in the theatrical event.Using the theory of information as a point of departure,the two Polish scholarsEdward Balcerzan and Zbigniew Osinski, for example, distinguishbetween twoensembles in a theatricalpresentation:the "A-ensemble" agents) - the "creators

of the performance" and the "P-ensemble"(percipients) - the audience. Themessage in the theater is not only what the theater staff (i.e., director, stagedesigner, actors and all stage hands, etc.) transmits to the spectators, but"reactions of the P-ensemble such as cries, whistles, laughter, applause,demonstrations, etc., also belong to those elements which co-operate in thecreation of the message" (1966: 68). Thus the message is "the result of the co-operation of both ensembles"(1966: 73).The authors still limitedthemselvesto clarifyingthe perceptibleparticipationofthe spectators in the form of external reactions to the total message. Later, theinterest of the experts was focused almost entirely on co-authorship as theimaginativework of the spectator. DietrichSteinbeck states that "theaterdoes notexist as a 'thing'with a fixed locus, but ratheras a progressionwith the character*Translatedby R. Strauss.

? Poetics Today, Vol. 2:3 (1981),237-254.


3/19

WILFRIED PASSOWof an event. Theater is dependent on the spectator and his presence and inten-tional collaboration" (1970: 1). For Arno Paul, "that which is specificallytheatrical [. ..] is not to be found in drama. Neither does it result through'staging',but only when this 'staging'meets with an audiencewhich is preparedtoconsider it as such, for that is what reallycounts. However much is 'played'on theone side of the stage, if, on the other side, no-one correspondingly'joins in', thensuch a thing as theaterhas neverexisted"(1972: 34). The most extremeview takenis that of Manfred Wekewerth, for whom "theprimary player in theater [. . .] isnot the actor but the spectator"(1972: 48).Klaus Lazarowicz has recently made the mutual dependence of the productiveforces involved in theatervery clear, as a "triadiccollusion":"Actors,authorsandplaygoers all participate in their own way in creating the fictional world on thestage. The author drafts a unique system of literary signs, namelya play, which isnot addressedto readers,but to playgoersand actors. The actors, normallyunderthe guidance and supervisionof a director, transposethis system of literary signsinto a system of theater-signs, which comprise verbal and non-verbal elements.The playgoers' activity however, consists in their observing the dramaticinformation in an attitude of 'external concentration' (Moritz Geiger), ofapperceiving and structuring it, in understanding, experiencing and finallymaking it part of their personal fund of aesthetic knowledge. Such sensory,imaginative and rational playgoing activities are an essential part of whatconstitutes theater. They are understood as a specific manifestation of 'work inprogress'.That is, a triadic collusion" (1978: 58).Of this triad, drama and more recentlyalso the role of the spectatorhave bothbeen analyzed (even if not thoroughly). However, the analysis of the structuralconstruction of the performanceand the signs used, as opposed to the analysisofthe literary text, is still lacking. The reasons for this are obvious. A theaterperformancecovers a longer period of time and is highlycomplex in construction.A great variety of means of expression (such as speech, mime, gesture, stagedesign, light, sound, etc.) are combined into a message. These can complement,contradict or strengtheneach other. Each individual realization (= performance)of a staging may differ in detail, from the previous and future realizationsof thesame staging, because man is acting and man is participatingas a spectator. Thecharacterof the work makes it impossible to examine it in exactly the same formas often as one likes, and to pick out particulardetails to study it more accurately.Filming or tape-recordingdoes permit this, but considerablequalitative changesmust be accepted.All these difficulties do not, however, relievetheater research of its duty to tryevery conceivable approach to analyze presentation. In this case semiotics haspresented and still presents itself as a basis for systematic investigation.Already since the thirties, theater has been explainedand conceived as a systemof signs (see Kowzan, 1975). Nevertheless questions dealing with the theory ofcognition are usually in the foreground. Frequently the literary text alone isconsidered, it being presumed that the presentation is already completely con-tained and specified in drama. The means of expression, which in fact constitutes

238


4/19

ANALYSISOF THEATRICALPERFORMANCEtheater, is thereby mostly put aside. Generally speaking, Umberto Eco's recentcharacterization of the literature on the semiotics of theater is most apt: "Youmight be overwhelmedby the abundanceof witty remarks,of skillful analyses ofavant-gardepieces, but you might lack essential definition"(1977: 108). There isno consensus as to the methodological approach, which most of the authorshardly even explain, and there is neither clarity nor agreement as to the actualsubject of analysis.The following thoughts are not based on any particularsemiotic model. Someexistingworks on the semiotics of theater are consideredpurelybecausethey seemuseful to the analysis of presentation. It is hoped that the detailed exposition ofproblems which arise in this context will render the dialogue between semioticsand theater research more factual and more fruitful.

The constitutive basis of theater is the "contrat theatral"(Klaus Lazarowicz),the cultural agreement which is made tacitly at some time, and repeatedlyconfirmed, that in theater reality is representedor that only a play is actuallybeing shown - real events are not happening. Actors and audience are inagreement that the acting is make-believe (als ob).In accordance with this agreement, almost all scholars who argue about thephenomenon of theaterconcentrateexclusivelyon the functional relations of the"make-believe world" on the stage and the relations between the stage and theauditorium. Thus normally, one differentiates at most between three aspects ofinteraction (or communication) in the theatrical event. They refer to: "a) theinteraction (or also communication) between actors on stage (scenic interaction),b) to the interaction between actor and audience - i.e., actor-audienceinteraction and c) to the relations of the spectators with each another (spectatorinteraction)"(Kruseand Graumann, 1977: 153).It is overlooked in this and similarmodels that theatricalevents do, and indeedmust, have a real basis. Doubtless, the purpose of this event is the interactionwithin the theater between on the one hand the fictitious stage charactersin theirartificial world, and on the other hand, the apperception, feeling, understandingand experiencing of this "make-believeworld" by the spectator. However theactor on the stage is indeed, "at the same time a part of reality (a person whotreads the stage), and a representationof reality (that is, something other thanwhat he is)" (Wekewerth, 1972:36). That is to say, the actor is not only what hepresents, the character of the play, but he always remainsa creativepersonwho isundertakinga professional job. Frequentlythe nature of his work requiresverbaland non-verbalcommunication with his colleagues on or off stage (e.g., with theprompter). He is even able to argue about private matters with a partnerwhichbear no relationshipto the play or its creation, as Denis Diderot has shown in his"Paradoxsur le Comedien." This type of interactionshould be strictly separatedfrom the performed interaction, in which the actor as a part-player,acts accord-ing to the rules within the framework of the play.The spectator does not only interact with the charactersand the world of theinvented plot. He normally does not, or not completely, forget that an actor isfacing him on the stage. Thus he is able to cheerenthusiasticallythe hero of a play

239


5/19

WILFRIEDPASSOWwhen he has defeated his foe. He will, however, always applaud the actor for asuccessful personification and show his displeasureat an inferior effort.Interaction in the theater must therefore be considered from five aspects: ofconstitutive importance for theater is the theatricalinteraction which divides into(A) scenic interaction within the "make-believe world" (fictitious scenic inter-action) and (B) the interaction of the audience with this "make-believeworld"(audience-stageinteraction in the field of fiction). However there exists further:(C) the interaction of the members of the theater company amongst each other(real interactionon stage), (D) the interactionof the audience with the actors (realaudience-stage interaction) and (E) the interaction within the audience.The division of the various levels based on the "contrat theatral" is shownclearly in the social behavior of the participants. Normally a doctor on the stage(as a role) has not studied medicine, and the injured man in the play is notbleeding. Yet the "doctor" s able to dressthe "wound"professionally(A = make-believe world). A trained doctor in the auditorium, in spite of his professionalduty to offer assistance, will not help the wounded man. He does not act, butratherplays along with the fictitious (B). If however, duringthe performance, theactor is hurt (C = real interaction on stage) or a spectator in the theater fallsunconscious, he takes action (D = real audience-stage interaction or E =spectator interaction).Actors and spectators do not solely communicate with other human beings;they are also in contact with their real environment and its influences. Forexample, the type and construction of a stage and of the buildings on it directlyaffect the work of an actor and can facilitate or hinder it (C). The climaticconditions and the design of the auditorium influence the moods of the spectator(E), yet he recognizes the objects on the stage (and the stage itself) in their realcharacter(D) and is capable of assigningthem to the "make-believeworld"(B). Itwould go too far to describe in detail all the phenomena which can influence thedevelopment and the perceptionof the message, for numerous components fromand within the pre-theatricalframework play a part in this. However, the prob-lematic nature of stratified interaction within the theater itself must be furtherclarified and illustrated.SIGNSON STAGEThe signs which the actors requirefor theirnecessaryoccupational interaction(C)should remainhidden from the audience, even if this is not always the case. Theyare therefore of lesserimportancefor the analysisof presentation.Hence it seemsat firstjustified, when almost all semiologistsconcernedwith theaterpresumethatevery event of the stage is to be regardedas part of the theatricalmessage and canbe decoded as a sign. For example, Umberto Eco is of the opinion that a drunk,broughton to the stage with the externalsigns of his depravityassumespurelyas aresult of this the characterof a sign: "he has lost his originalnatureof 'real'bodyamong real bodies. He is now a sign." The alcoholic "is referringus back to theclass of which he is a member. He standsfor the category he belongs to" (1977:110; italics in the original).

240


6/19

ANALYSISOFTHEATRICALPERFORMANCEDoes everybody lose their real identity on the stage and become a sign?Manfred Wekwertbelieveshe has provedthis in an experiment.In a dramaschoolhe let a pupil simply do an exercise in concentration during a lesson in whichnormally etudes were practised.The classmatesin the auditorium were not awareof this. The young actor stood "on the stage and did nothing; he made noexpression, said nothing and did not move, certainlyhe had an empty expression,yet nothing extraordinary,rathersuch as one often sees in absent-mindedpeople.Thus one could not say he represented 'nothing';there really was nothing there."The uninformed spectators were subsequently asked what their classmate hadbeen representing."Theresultwas amazing,"wrote Wekwerth."Theyhad seen animmense amount: indeed a great variety of spectatorshad seen a great variety ofthings" (1972: 46). Wekwerth concludes from this experiment that the "primary

player in the theater . . . is not the actor but rather the spectator"(1972: 48).Wekwerth'sexperimentseems to confirm Eco's ideas. The mere appearanceofa person on the stage, in their opinion, leads the spectators to consider him as asign. Neither of them are disturbedby the ambiguity, which Eco recognizeswellenough, of the supposed signs. At first he qualifies his statementabout the drunk:"hestandsfor the category he belongs to," and declares:"apparentlythis drunkstands for the equivalentexpression'There is a drunkenman'."However, he men-tions numerous further possible meanings; to find them out "in one or anothersense is a matter of convention." Finally he states: "at the point we are, our tipsysign is open to any interpretation" 1977: 110). Eco is not apparentlydisturbedbythis ambiguity. He presumably proceeds from conventions of interpretationaccording to which "naturalphenomena are received as symptoms by a humanrecipient"(1972: 30). However, these conventions are usually based on the exactknowledge of the relationshipbetween symptom and cause. Thus certainchangesin his body would certainly be apparent to a layman. However, they do not tellhim whetherthese are the symptoms of a disease, or benign skin-spots or normalsigns of old age. A doctor, on the other hand, initiated to the convention ofinterpretation, 'reads' the symptoms as intentionally produced signs.Eco is aware of this, although he seems to wish to grant every individual totalfreedom of conventionalization in theater, without regardto any particularcauseor to the intentions of a transmitter. However it cannot really be the purpose oftheater to put the spectator into the position of a person puzzling over bodilysymptoms, without being able to fathom their meaning. What is fatal for a reallysick person - if in fact he misjudgesthe symptoms of his illnessand consequentlytreatshimself incorrectly - is also dangerousfor the theater.The decoding puzzleleads to fatigue and impedes communication between the stage and the audi-torium. A sign which is too inaccurate will promptly be given up by the normaltheatergoer. Neither Eco's drunk nor Wekwerth's "exercise in concentration"provide sufficient features for construction of signs. The spectator may wait inconfusion or boredom for furtheraids for interpretationof the events. For Ecoadmits: "a more sophisticated theatrical performance would establish thisconvention by means of other semiotic media"(1977: 110).The theatergoeris accustomed to encountering phenomena on the stage which

241


7/19

WILFRIEDPASSOWdo not (yet) belong to the play or which he cannot (yet) easily fit into the contextof the play. He knows, for example, that actors can be on the stage before theactual play has begun. He is also preparedto wait until, with the help of furtherinformation, he can put particlesof realitywhose interpretationhe cannot fathominto a clear relationshipof signs. "Worldobjects"are always on the stage, so thateach object at first can remain a "world object among world objects." As Ecostates, it must not lose its "originalnature of 'real'body among realbodies"(1977:110), but is ratherreplaced in a different context of reality.Certainly, in a stage setting, appearances on stage seem more important thannormal. They are also more suitable for semantic charging and can be easilyintroduced into sign relations. Max Frisch notes in his diaryin 1946:"There s animmense difference between the space which lies within a framework,andspace ingeneral which is infinite." However, this difference does not imply "that every-thing, simply because it takes place withina framework, receivesthe meaningof asign; but it receives, whether it wishes so or not, a claim to such meaning" (1965:51). The stage is not fundamentally Bedeutungsraum(a space for meaning -Peter Handke), in which all events become a sign or a play. The frameworkarouses interest in what it encloses, focuses attention on details which wouldotherwise not be noticed in the complex environmental experience. Theimportance which is thereby achieved should not be confused with meaning.On the basis of a convention of habit, the theatergoer may presume that he isalways seeing signs in the theater. This assumption is incorrect. The "contrattheatral"is the vital point, and again and again it must be confirmed anew foreach individual case. It is not valid on principle for all occurrences in the stagearea, for this contract is made in the midst of realityand the means of expressionis part of this reality. It is lifted out of the real sphere into the "make-believeworld." For this to happen a new contract is requiredbetween the stage and theauditoriumagain and again, or ratherthe establishmentof new sign conventions.Thus theater is - among other things - to be understood as the constant processof the conventionalization of signs, which may apply often for a mere instant orfor a whole evening. The simultaneity and correspondence of reality and play,material and sign must be more closely elucidated.First, we must consider the function of inanimate objects. What meaningdoes a chair on an empty stage have, with no particularattributes which couldperhapsgive a lead as to the time and location of the "make-believeworld"?JanKott, endeavoring as does Umberto Eco to explain all stage events as signs,invents the concept of "literalsigns" (buchstabliches Zeichen): "A chair is a literalsign within normal theatrical proceedings" (1972: 56). Tadeusz Kowzan in asimilar context talks of "objet-signes"(1975: 75). It seems to me that this is aninadmissableusage of the term "sign."The chair on stage is, and remains,a chair,even if it is used purely functionally in the plot. It may attractparticularattentionthrough emphasis within the framework;it does not, however, convey a meaning.Such objects can only be interpretedas a sign for a class of objects - as doesUmberto Eco with the example of a drunk - by applying a subtlety neitherattributableto nor reasonably demanded from the normal theatergoer.

242


8/19

ANALYSISOF THEATRICALPERFORMANCEFor the purposes of terminological and factual accuracy it is suggested thatsuch objects introducedwith a specific intention be termed "presentations"Pra-sentate). These are "phenomenalunits (in the context of communication), whichare valued explicitly as that which they basically are"(Alseleben, 1973: 338).Naturally "presentations"can be placed into sign relations. In this case one istalking of sign construction through "ostention." The basic materialappearance"has not been actively produced (as one produces a word or draws an image); ithas been picked up among existing physical bodies, and it has been shown orostended. It is the result of a particularmode of sign production"(Eco, 1977: 110;italics in the original). The object is intentionally chosen to representsomethingelse. In order to make this clear further aids are necessary.This can come about, as happens in reality, by virtueof the situational context.

In the desert, when a traveler sees a chair it raises his hopes of meeting humanbeings. He recognizes in the chair a symptom of their proximity. On the stage, achair can signify that the following scene takes place in a house; but only then, ifthe spectator is aware that the staging is working with very spartan means ofexpression. At the start of the performancethe chair on the empty stage will be,and remain, a chair. A spectator who is a connoisseur of furniture (that is oneinitiated into the interpretive convention) can deduce from the stylistic char-acteristics of a piece of furniture the epoch in which the play takes place. Thisopportunity for interpretation is ruined if, for example, the stage designrepresentsa rubbish dump. Any type of stool can also be interpreted,with theaid of other signs, as a specialrepresentativeof the category "seatingfurniture"-as a throne or perhapsan electricchair. Yet a chair can also representa mountain.From this example one can appreciatein how many different sign relationsanobject which has been picked up can be presented, depending on the situationand/or conventionalization by other signs. Thus Balcerzanand Osiniskigive anaccount of Wyspiariski's taging of the "Acropolis,""wherea normal bath tub -with the aid of various subcodes (gestures, scenic movements and speech) whichimparted new semantic values to the scenery - became in turn, a coffin, aconfessional, a bed, and a burdenwhich an Auschwitz inmate carried" 1966: 79).

The Munich proT (Prozessionstheater) staged a very revealingand fascinatingplay with material and signs, Alexej Sagerer's "Bergcomics":A wooden cross isbeing bound together by actors using two tree trunks, on the summit of animaginarymountain. Another actor takes down from the wall two black ragstiedtogether. These had alreadybeen hanging on the wall before the performance.Hethen holds the rags like a little child in his arms. At the same time he says: "Like adead little child." A little later, the cross is erected and the materialis nailed on tothe cross as an image of Christ ("Where s your Lord? Careful Don't breakany-thing "). Even though the rag has now also been introduced as a sign of thecrucifixion, it stillretainsthe meaning"deadchild."Again, "likea dead littlechild"is repeated and at the dramatic climax of the scene, the meaning changes onceagain. The material, as a sign-vehicle of two sign relations which refer back todead objects, now suddenly represents a living being. "B. grabs the black rags,tearsthem from the cross, and pressesthem to herbosom as she leaps up: 'It is my

243


9/19

WILFRIEDPASSOWchild [. . .] it isn't dead at all It's alive '." This swiftly made sign convention ispromptly terminated and the material of the sign is returnedto its material sub-stance. The "mother" shows the "child" to all concerned: "Look, see how itmoves, how it laughs " One of the bystanders, however, "takesthe rags at firstwith two fingers and lifts them up a little. 'Come on, don't be crazy, look Thisisn't a little child It's rubbish '"He throws the rags to one side, these then being"spotlighted once again" (and thus appearing quite clearly as rags), until theyfinally are removed from the play. Even the most imaginative of spectators, onseeing the material in the scenery, can find no meaning for it. Still, he is preparedto place it into the most diverse sign references.Hence it is possible to find objects on the stage which do not yet (or any longer)have a sign relation. They can be used duringthe play in theirreal function - forexample, as a chair - without acquiringindividual importance. It is also possiblethat at first they are only material, as was the case with Wyspiariski'sbath tub andproT'srags. Only duringthe course of the plot do they receivetheirmeaning(s).Acollection of different objects in particular proportion may possibly create atheatrical sign (as for example a particularroom can be portrayedwith variouspieces of furniture), but each and every piece, taken as it is, is and remainsmeaningless. All objects existing in the human environment also retain their realcharacter on the stage, whether they are connected in sign relationshipsor not.Thus the spectator has a double contact with these objects. He recognizes them,on the level of the real spectator-stageinteraction (D), as elements of his realitywith which he is familiar. He is also able, under certain conditions, to considerthem as belonging to the "make-believeworld" and/or constitutingit. He therebyinteracts (simultaneously)within the field of fiction (B).It must be added that not absolutely all objects used in theater must actuallyappearon the stage as objects to be found in reality. From antiquityup to the endof the 19th century, and often even today, the opposite was and is the case. Theworld was not broughton to the stage directly, but ratherrepresentedby artificialsigns. The painted decoration dominated; there is hardlya single stage-propthatwould have been able to fulfill in daily life the function it represented.The situation with regardto the actor is similar to that of "found"objects fromthe environment, but more complicated. The person on stage must not alwaysrepresenta different, invented character. He can also, as a stage-hand, alter thescenery on the open stage, i.e., carry out a purely functional job in the workingprocess. If, even before the start of the actual play, the actor is presentdressedinjeans and pullover, or if, in a contemporarypiece, he enters dressedin a normal,everydaysuit, it can be deducedwhich parthe is meant to be playingat most froma perusal of the program. Thus a sign relation is possible only with an additionalreference which does not belong to the play. Within the events on the stage, theactor must at first be considered as a "presentation";he remains on the level ofreality. Only with the help of further scenic signs is the public informed whichfictitious characterhe represents.An actor, like any other person, has certain invariant attributes, such as age,

244


10/19


11/19


12/19

ANALYSIS OF THEATRICAL PERFORMANCEexperience and the behavior of a person could be fruitfully used in a stageperformance. Lessing begins with an actor without feeling, who has "for longenough done nothing other than ape." He maintains that a great number of pettyrules have been accumulatedwithin him, accordingto which he himself begins toact. In observingthese rules(accordingto the rulethat those verymodifications ofthe soul which produce certain changes in the body will, on the other hand,themselves be brought about by these physical changes), the actor achieves a typeof feeling which is lacking in the enduranceor fervor of those who proceed fromthe soul. Yet, it is strong enough at the right moments in the performance tocreate something of the involuntary physical changes from whose presence wealmost exlusively believe we are able to reliablydeduce inner feeling (1963: 15).Konstantin S. Stanislavskij's"method"of constructinga role, which influencedthe trainingof actors all over the world, as no other method has, is based on thesame lines. This "methodconsists in combining internaland external events and increating feeling for the part through the physical activity of the human body"(1958: 37; italics in the original in this and following quotations from Stanislav-skij). Through the external execution of expressive movements emotions arecreated and controlled, which otherwise largely elude cognitive control. "Thebody can be felt materially, it can be influenced through orders,habits,discipline,and exercises; one can more easily cope with the body than with intangible,capricious, and fluctuating emotion, which vanishes so easily" (1958: 56). Onlythe inner bond of the interior and the exterior within the actor and their mutualrelativity results in a convincing performance of a fictitious character: "theexternalact and the physicalexistencereceivemeaningand warmth from the innerexperience, and inner experience finds its external embodiment in physicalexistence"(1958: 57).The complex relationships, outlined above, in the application of theperformer'sphysical, spiritualand personal disposition to the construction of arole can hardly be perceived through external consideration of the events. It isprobably unimportant for the spectator how the actor presentshis emotions. Hecannot, in most cases, tell whether he has before him on the stage the symptomsof genuine and/or manipulated emotions, or the purely artificial iconic sign ofsuch a symptom. From the point of view of a spectator, the differentiation herebetween "so-called natural and artificial signs" (Eco, 1977:111)s almost impos-sible, which is why Eco considers it also unnecessary. At least from theproduction side, for the theoretical solution of the performance process itcertainlyis necessary.Furthermorethis distinctionis deemed of great importance,as can be seen in the analysis of the quoted examples from Diderot, Lessing,Stanislavskijand Craig.The close bond betweennatureand art in theateralso inducesTadeuszKowzanto insist on a clear distinction between natural and artificial signs: "Wehave justsaid that all the signs utilized by theatrical art are artificial. This does not excludethe existence of naturalsigns in theatricalpresentation."However he justifies thisstatementverygenerally. "Themeans and techniquesof the theaterare too deeplyrooted in life to let the naturalsigns be completelyeliminated. In an actor's diction

247


13/19

WILFRIEDPASSOWand mime the strictly personal habits go with the voluntarily created shades ofmeaning, the conscious gestures are intermingledwith reflexes"(1968:60).The theatricalsigns should be artificial signs, yet the private, real existence ofthe actor penetratesagain and again into the fictitious existence of the part. Thus,through intentional introduction or control, this privateexistence can become anintegral part of the characterbeing acted; yet it is also possible for it to remainintact, so to speak, as a material residue outside the "make-believeworld."Within the sign relation, the actor is to be considered the material which formsthe concrete appearanceof the sign. This material is not completely neutral andopen, but ratherdeterminedby the personalityof the performer.The spectatorasrecipientis not only suppliedwith the abstractmeaningof the sign, he also has anexperiential relationship with the material. He interacts simultaneously on twolevels. The characterof the material consequently plays an important part in thetheater. Otherwise one might well join in with Lessing and ask why "is a theaterbuilt, man and woman dressed up, memory tortured, the whole town invitedtogether? If, with my work and its performance, I wish to create nothing mortthan a few of those emotions which a good story readat home by anybody wouldalso near enough produce"(1963:313).

Language, that highlydeveloped or even the highestdeveloped system of signs,also conveys meaning. Why replace or supplement language, with the help ofwhich information can be conveyed relatively unequivocally, clearly, andconveniently, with such an involved instrumentas theater?To begin with, humancommunication does not only take place in reality through language. On thecontrary,as KlausSch6rercomments "Birdwhistell ...] has pointed out that manoccupies a very small percentage of the time used for interaction with otherhumans in vocalization [... ] non-verbal, or better said, 'non-vocal'behavior has,in contrast, a constant character and can acquire communicative value for anobserver at any time" (1973:42). Insofar as theater also transmits its messagethrough non-verbalchannels, it thus complies with the normal receptivehabits ofthe spectator.Through the introductionof non-verbalmeans of expression, as opposed to thewritten, fixed, verbalstatement, theater also gains a dimension of communicationwhich is also important in everydaylife. The evaluation of a spoken statement isnamely dependent, to a great degree, on the behavior of the person making it.For, "taking into account the more limited possibilities for consciouslyinfluencing non-verbal behavior, the recipientof contradictoryinformation will,first and foremost, believe the information conveyed through non-verbalchannels"(Sch6rer,1973:6).When the actor portraysthe manipulatedexpressionof the inner experience, he is able to strengthen, refine, negate, etc. verbalmessages.The producer basically has the opportunity, which for example a writer doesnot have, of a choice between very varied means of expression, not only fromthose which are dependent on the actor (=man). Almost all conventional signsystems are at the disposal of the stage, which can also use the spectator'saware-ness of the connection between certain symptoms and their causes and accord-

248


14/19

ANALYSISOF THEATRICALPERFORMANCEingly employ symptoms as indications for the causes or reproducethem as signs.In all cases, a selection is made from set repertoiresof signs and symptoms. Inaddition, as already mentioned, new sign conventions can be made. Theproducer's decisions are primarily concerned with conveying a particular,rationally decodable meaning in as optimal a way as possible.Theatricalsigns, on the other hand, cannot be exclusivelyanalyzed as abstractrelations; neither are they selected according to the criterion of pure cognitiveintelligibility.The material substance of these signs - whetherit is an object or aperson or an energetic signal - preserves, as it were, its original character.Through the sign-vehicleparticularconnotations are suggested;its attributescan,as simple stimuli, produce reactions in the recipient not or hardly subject torational control (for example, when the actress's legs eroticize the spectator).

Tadeusz Kowzan also confirms at the conclusion of his book "that the signswhich theater uses, like those which elsewhere are manifested in all the otherartisticdomains, are far from satisfied with their informative function. The signsor their combinations most frequentlypossess an aesthetic value and an emotive(or affective) value. Their role is thus not only to communicate information, butalso to transmit to the public these supplementary values." Since, however,Kowzan is only speaking about semiotics in the theater, he does not elaborate onthis problem. Still he does state "that the aesthetic or emotive function canconstitute the principal, if not the only raison d'etre of certain signs conveyedduring a performance" (1975:212). Thus, analysis of presentation should notrestrict itself to the analysis of signs in abstract relations.The different possibilities for the stage presentations of an "object" aredemonstrated here once again with an example. In order to portray a baby, theproducercan bring a real child into the theater. It is not able, however, to play apart, but does what it is alwaysaccustomedto doing. At first, the spectatorthinksthe child is "nice"or "sweet"or "touching."A doll could replacethe child as aniconic sign. As with dolls, with which children play, one can move further andfurther unto the abstract, away from the exact representation to the piece ofmaterial which the actress carriesin proT. At the same time, a connection betweenthe verbal statement and/or the context of movement is necessary. Yet it is alsopossible for the behavior alone of the mother to infer that she is holding a baby inher arms, without the actual existence of an object. A different solution is foundin Peter Stein's staging of Edward Bond's piece "Saved." From an empty pramissued the sounds of a baby: as "rockers" hrewstones into the pram, many of thetheatergoers(particularly women) left the theater.There is, as yet, no clear knowledge as to what special character the individualmaterials have. It seems certain that they possess an intrinsic value. This isparticularly true for sounds, music, light, and colors. Acoustic and opticalphenomenahave a purely physical effect on humans, as is well known. Of course,they retain this effect as well if they jointly or singly form the materialfor a sign.Thus psycho-physical devices can be used both as material for signs, andwithout meaning, to influence the audience emotionally. Antonin Artaud, forexample, wished to work in this direction with his "Theatreet la Cruaute,"which

249


15/19

WILFRIED PASSOW"aims at the organism using precise devices" (1969:88): "There is continualbackgroundnoise in this play: the sounds, noises, and cries are firstly selected fortheir vibrational qualities and secondly for that which they represent [sic]. Thelighting then joins in with these refined devices, light which is not only there tocolor or illuminate, but which also bears within itself, power and influence andsuggestiveness" 1969:87).In a different passage he talks of "thephysicaleffect oflight which can cause a man to shudder"(1969:100).Artaud's ideas exerted a great influence in the Sixties on experimentaltheaterwork. Amongst other things, he placed a much stronger emphasis on directsensory perception of means of expression in current theater. Not only does"theaterwhich entrances, as do the dances of the dervishes"(Artaud 1969:88),which "lets no possible suggestion [... ] be missed"(1969:66), appeal to the vitalcapacity of the audience. Almost any production does this. Certain forms oftheater always appeal more to the emotions of the audience than to theirrationality, or even aim at sensual amusements, as do farce or a great manymusical comedies and shows.Such productions are, rightly, mostly rejected as being to a great extent orcompletely uncreative. They cannot, however, simply be banned from theater;theater is to be considered as a representationalform within which poetic workscan also be created. The distinction here, as in fine art or literature, is based onaesthetic values. Moritz Geiger's reflections on "the superficial and profoundinfluences of art" can contribute to the elucidation of these questions and also tothe establishment of the relationship between "conscious perception andunconscious experience in the reception of art"(1976:190-194).Geiger maintainsthat "profound artistic effect [...] is never a reaction to stimulation. It requiresratherthat the artistic value of the object should be consciously comprehended."Accordingly "those works which merely appeal to the surface of the ego, to itsvital side, are eliminated from the field of art."One does not deny them, thereby,any meaning in human life. They are "pleasurablestimuli" on par with "thepleasuresof a game, or hunting or gossip":"There s nothing to be said againsttheamusement of a farce nor against the excitement aroused by a detective story."

Geiger also points out that in theater, it is quite wrong always to assume "thatprofound artistic effect is to be experienced."It should be added that the claimthat the theater must always be art is also false. "The confusion between super-ficial effect, external to art, and profound, artistic effect is in these cases muchcloser at hand, because farce and artistic drama, detective story and novella, allhave the same form of presentation. No-one would confuse these when thisexternal artistic form is lacking" (Geiger, 1976).The erroneous view that theateris to be equated with art (or the wish to equateit with art) is also made manifest in that nearly all definitions of theater do notrefer to the form of presentation. Ideological goals which theater should strive toattain are always quoted. Thus, amongst other things, it is described as a "moralinstitution"(Schiller), which must "be active in the propagation of good taste, inthe refinement of morals" (Kaiser Joseph II of Austria) or should have anenlightening function (Lessing, Brecht, etc.). The resultant exalted estimation of

250


16/19

ANALYSISOF THEATRICALPERFORMANCEthe institution leads the theatergoers, even at purely theatrical entertainment, tobelieve that they are enjoying art. On the other hand, theaters which wish to servesimply as "pleasurablestimuli" are often denied the right of existence. Suchattitudes often go together with agitation against all representations of vitalhuman life. Representativesof such views ban from the stage the buffoon, as didJohann Christoph Gottsched in 1737, advocate scenic purity, consider theaterindeed exclusively as an institution for the impartingof literarytexts, or wish nomatter what to allow only those stagingsto count as artisticworks which appeal intheir symbolism purely to the rationality of man.Here once can object, as does Geiger, that "there is no profound artisticeffectin which vital influences are not interwoven, indeed must be interwoven." Hepoints out that it is wrong to assume that vital influences in a piece of art "alwayssignify a penetrationof that which is external to art into the artistic sphere,"andthat "theircreation should be avoided by the artist if possible."Thus the gauge ofart is not the degree of rational comprehension, for "on no account, should onebelieve, that - because autocracy of vital elements is externalto art - within artitself fewer vital elements should signify the exalted summit of art. Rather, themoment these vital influences appearin connection with profound influencestheybecome something else, something new; they are no longer superficial effects,they gain a fundamentally new meaning." Later Geiger emphasizes this again:"Whereonly profundity without vitality is to be found there exists the danger ofacademicism, the danger of falling into that genre ennuyeux, which Voltaire sohated; just as, on the other hand, mere vitality leads to superficial art"(1976:190-194).These statements by an aestheticianon the simultaneityof the various fields ofexperience are confirmed by a statement from the practical side: "We make thespectatorjudge and argue. That is one of the naturesof the theater: it stimulatesthe brain. There is however another which includes the emotional aspect. Thespectatorwandersthrough a complicated labyrinthof emotions, if he absorbs theforces influencing him"(Meyerhold, 1930:121).Thus "alldevices which are at thedisposal of the other artsmust be used as an organic fusion to affect the audience"(1930:126).Here one is neitherpreachingirrationality n theater, nor theaterwhichonly aims to satisfy carnal desires. Wsevolod Meyerhold, from whom thisstatement originates, always understood theater as an artifact. Thus, usingEugeniyVakhtangov'swords he calls "aproductiontheatrical, i.e., fit for theater,if the spectator does not forget for a moment that he is in the theater, and if hedoes not for a second cease to experiencethe actor as a master of his professionwho is playing a part"(1922:354).This referencealso confirms once again that thespectator interacts in two ways with the actor.However, it is not possible to construct a very simple equation according towhich, on the one hand, superficial effects are conveyed exclusively by stimuliderived from material, and on the other hand, all signs aim at profound effectsbecause they are rationally decodable. Purely superficial effects can also beproduced with signs (as is shown by the example of the detective story). Thearrangementin obedience to certain rules of acoustic phenomena, which exerts a

251


17/19

WILFRIEDPASSOWstimulatory influence on a listener, constitutes, for example, a musical work ofart. Amongst other things, the fundamental criterionfor the aesthetic value of awork is its syntactic and structural construction. Even if numerous analyses ofdrama have supplied important knowledge in this area, the structureof the actualtheatrical event still has not been comprehended. The basic explanation withaesthetic criteria and possible rules of compositional arrangement of staging isstill largely lacking.Before an analysis of presentationcan attempt an aesthetic evaluation, it mustfirst try to clarify purely descriptivelythe structure of theatricalcommunication.It is of no concern, in the first instance, whether the performance aims atsuperficialor profound effects, or whetherit achieves these. What is being soughtare the means of expressionand principlesof production in the form representedby theaterin general. The materialused on stage with its own particulareffects inthe sphere of vital experience obviously plays a leading role, apart from its useand construction of signs. From an aesthetic point of view, the relationship ofmaterial to sign in simultaneity, mutual permeation, and mutual dependenceandthe basic system then become important.Since signs can be constructed with the most varied sign vehicles and thesevehicles also have an intrinsicvalue, and furthermore since numerousdevices areused without meaning merely because of their particularstimuli, the selection ofmaterial has become a central problem of artistic production in theater (as in artin general). "Inart it is alwaysa question of arrangementof the material"declaresWsevolod Meyerhold (1922:101),and from the standpoint of the aesthetics ofinformation Frieder Nake confirms that "withoutdoubt, artisticproduction is not(only) the manipulationof signs (abstractrelations ), but also - and perhapsfirstand foremost - the arrangement of material and substance, that is themanipulationof the materialof signsand not of the sign themselves" 1974:29-30).Accordingly, the point of departurefor the analysis of presentationshould bethe designation of material. As a basis for this, a catalogue of the usable andalready employed sign and material repertoireswould be useful. For even if itseems that nearlyall the phenomena of the environmentcan be used on the stage,there do exist actual limits as a result of the constitutive requirementsof theaterand the restrictionsof theatricalcommunication. It would go beyond the limits ofthis article to go into furtherdetails here. In principleit could still be meaningfulto distinguish, in a rough framework, between energetic appearances (such aslight, color, noise, sound, smell, temperature), naturally created phenomena(such as rocks, plants, creatures and their behavior, the weather) and productsmade by men (such as buildings, objects, machines, codes, fashions).To define the artificially constructed "make-believeworld"one must establishin which function, which materials (or signs) contribute to its construction ormerely possess a functional role. The level of actual theatrical interaction isthereby separated from the real interaction of the spectator with the particles ofreality, necessaryor superfluous (yet not without effect), presenton the stage butnot included in the plot. It should be clear from the previous analysis that a

252


18/19

ANALYSIS OF THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE

perfectly clear distinction is not always possible here, yet it should still beattempted.Finally the relation between material and sign should be exactly defined. Themethod with which materialas a sign vehicle is presentedin sign relations is to beclarified; that is, how new sign conventions are made in theater on the basis ofwell-known codes. However it is not a question of merely communicatingmeanings. Therefore, it is imperative to analyze the affective and emotionaleffects of those materials integratedinto the "make-believeworld" - no matterhow they are used - and to analyze their co-operation with the rationallycomprehensiblemessages.

REFERENCESARTAUD,ANTONIN, 969.Das Theaterund sein Double (Frankfurt: Fischer).ALSLEBEN, URD,1973. "Informationstheorie und Asthetik," in: Hans-Georg Gadamer & PaulVogler, eds., Neue Anthropologie, Vol. 5 'Kulturanthropologie'(Stuttgart: Thieme), 321-356.BALCERZAN,DWARD ND OSINSKI,BGNIEW,1966."Die heatralischechaustellungmLichtederInformationstheorie," in: Zagadnienia Rodzaj6w Literackich, Tom VIII, zeszyt 2 (15) (L6di),65-88.CRAIG,EDWARDGORDON,962.On the Art of the Theatre(London: Mercury Books).DIDEROT, ENIS,1964. Paradox uber den Schauspieler (Frankfurt: Insel).Eco, UMBERTO,972. Einfuhrung in die Semiotik (Uni-Taschenbiicher 105) (Miinchen: Fink).1977 "Semiotics of Theatrical Performance," The Drama Review, 107-117.FRISCH,MAX,1965. Tagebuch 1946-1949(Miinchen-Ziirich: Droemer-Knaur).GEIGER,MORITZ,976. Die Bedeutung der Kunst (Miinchen: Fink).GOETHE,JOHANNWOLFGANG ON, 1950. WilhelmMeisters theatralischeSendung (Berlin: Henschel).HERZ, JOACHIM,1977. "Contents of Theatrical Communication," in: James F. Arnott, JoelleChariau, Heinrich Huesmann, Tom Lawrenson and RainerTheobald, eds., TheatreSpace [DerRaum des Theaters] (Miinchen), 135-141.KLEIST,HEINRICHON,1967. "Uber das Marionettentheater," in: Helmut Semdner, ed., KleistsAufsatz uber das Marionettentheater (Berlin: Schmidt), 9-16.KOTT, AN, 1972. "In welchen Zeichen spricht das Theater," in: Spektakel-Spektakel (Miinchen:Piper).KOWZAN,TADEUSZ,1968. "The Sign in the Theatre," Diogenes 61, 52-80.

1975 Litterature et spectacle (La Haye-Paris: Mouton).KRUSE, LENELIS NDGRAUMANNARLF., 1977. "The Theatre as Interaction and as InteractionSpace," in: James F. Arnott, Joelle Chariau, Heinrich Huesmann, Tom Lawrenson and RainerTheobald, eds., Theatre Space [Der Raum des Theaters] (Miinchen), 149-157.LAZAROWICZ,KLAUS, 1977. "Triadische Kollusion," in: Das Theater und sein Publikum (Wien:OsterreichischeAkademie der Wissenschaften).LESSING,GOTTHOLDPHRAIM, 963. HamburgischeDramaturgie,Otto Mann, ed. (Stuttgart:Kroner).MEYERHOLD,WSEWOLOD,922. "Der Schauspieler der Zukunft" in: Ludwig Hoffman and DieterWardetzky, eds., Wsewolod E. Meyerhold, Alexander I. Tairow, Jewgeni B. Wachtangow.Theateroktober (Frankfurt: Roderberg).1930 "Rekonstruktion des Theaters," in: Ludwig Hoffmann and Dieter Wardetzky, eds.,Wsewolod E. Meyerhold, Alexander I. Tairow, Jewgeni B. Wachtangow. Theateroktober(Frankfurt: Roderberg).NAKE, FRIEDER,1974. Asthetik als Informationsverarbeitung (Wein-New York: Springer).

253


19/19

254 WILFRIED PASSOW

PAUL,ARNO,1972. "Theaterwissenschaftals Lehre vom theatralischen Handeln," Kolner Zeitschriftfur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 23, 55-77.ROTSCHER,EINRICHHEODOR,864. Die Kunst der dramatischen Darstellung (Leipzig: Wigand).

SAGERER,LEXEJ.EineheiBe Sommernacht im lindgrunenHochwald - Bergcomics" (manuscript).SCHERER,KLAUS,1973. Non-verbale Kommunikation (Forschungsberichte des Instituts furKommunikationsforschung und Phonetik der Universitat Bonn, 35) (Hamburg: Buske).

STANISLAVSKIJ,ONSTANTIN., 1958. Theater, Regie und Schauspieler (Rowohlts DeutscheEnzyclopadie, 68) (Hamburg: Rowohlt).

STEINBECK, DIETRICH, 1970. Einleitung in die Theorie und Systematik der Theaterwissenschaft(Berlin: de Gruyter).WAKHTANGOV,UGENIB., 1922. "Uber das Theatralische," in: Ludwig Hoffman and DieterWardetzky, eds., Wsewolod Meyerhold, Alexander I. Tairow, Jewgeni B. Wachtangow.Theateroktober (Frankfurt: Roderberg).

WEKWERTH,ANFRED,972. Theater und Wissenschaft (Deutsche Akademie der Kunstezu Berlin:Arbeitshefte 3) (Berlin: Henschel).

Documents

The Analysis of Theatral Performance