Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1970 - 23

tions and traditions of his origin. As he begins to mature as an artist, he finds that
the forms which he acquired from the past
lack impact and freshness. Consequently he
searches for new means to express the
changing aspect of the perceived world.
These new forms very quickly begin to lose
their potency in the next generation; new
artists then begin to construct a new
schema. Perhaps not unlike certain radioactive forms, new schemas have a very short
half-life. And at the moment of their bi rth
or conception they immediately begin todisintegrate.
There is one other kind of principle or
law of the arts that seems to have an application in this discussion of aesthetic distance. I would call this law the law of
"technical primacy." (This is not my own
term.) It states that the arts in certain periods and in certain nations fall under the
dominance and technique of one particular
art form. Historically, we can see the operation of this law of dominance in architectural scene design in the 17th century. Or
in the shift of dominance from scene design
to painting in the nineteenth century.
In the past, the theatrical arts have
seldom been in the position of dominance,
largely because of their mass nature and
their need for a mass audience. Scene design, for example, is a better mirror of
middle class taste than is painting. Obviously, a painter can paint in his garret:
His audience can dislike it, and, because
the art object is finished, complete, and
relatively impervious to time, it can be
set aside and he can afford to wait for acceptance.
A scene designer or anyone concerned
with the theatrical arts can't wait because
his art object exists at a specific point in
time. As always, in the past, the old
schema loses its punch and is no longer
capable of expressing a new sense of the
world. Most frightening to us today is the
lightning speed at which change is taking
place. But speed is the very condition of
our time. This very speed of change is the
first quality of the new reality.
In the case of the evolution of the theatrical form, historical study will reveal that
the traditional theatre is well suited to the
expression of a worldview of a time when
man lived in a nearly fixed environment.
Movement took place with the speed of
say, the train that brings Madame Ranyevskaya back to her estate in Russia. Destruction was expressed by the first sounds of
the ax in the cherry orchard.
Who today is not uneasy at the rush of
the freeway or at the thought of man spinning around the earth at unbelievable speeds.
We must all admit that the basic attribute
of our time is its runaway pace. Entire populations are migrating morning and evening
with ever-accelerating rhythms barely within
our control. You have only to walk outside
in New York to get kind of panicky feeling.

ITIITCl THEATER DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

The theatre of environment is certainly
the final step in the realistic tradition. The
theatre of environment has a long past
historically, dating from the Greek theatres
and the Church drama of the Middle Ages.
The effect of the surrounding environment
was certainly properly appraised by a designer such as Norman Bel Geddes at the
ti me he staged The Miracle.
The physical problems of such a new
style seem most difficult because of cost
and the very pressing problems of seeing
and hearing. A step beyond this fixed envi ronmental theatre has also been taken recently. That step brought us to reality. That
final step, that last inch of aesthetic distance, is gone and the audi ence confronts
the actor in his own world.
With the barrier gone between actor and
audience, it is impossible for either to retreat and the question becomes, Who is
dominant in this very personal relationship?"
The actor dominated by the audience cannot
act, and the nature of the human species
makes it unlikely that many people will
wish to place themselves in a subordinate
position to an actor who is essentially a
stranger.
Recently, many people have been attempting to understand the nature of the
human species through a study of man's
sense of space. This is environmental study.
Most studies seem to agree that man has
some three zones of space which surround
him, each of which has its own psychological aspects. The theatre usually presents
social distance. Social distance is the limit
of dominance and is distinguished by its
impersonal nature; in other words, I can't
dominate you and you can't dominate me at
a social distance.
Personal distance is the nextcloserzone,
and it is just beyond easy reach. But where
dominance between any two people is very
quickly apparent, an invasion of the distance
risks personal involvement. I can sit next
to you in an audience and not be personally
involved, but when you meet someone who
is important or dominant, chair arrangements
very quickly become apparent.
And the last sphere of space which surrounds one is that of intimate distance or
physical contact, which, in most cases, calls
for a strong defense against invasion. This
closest zone is that distance which is only
penetrated by those who are so close that
the whole idea of dominance is no longer a
worry. This is the distance of the very
closest friends, of physical cor.tact, of the
most intimate of all human relationships.
To surround the audience with the world of
the protagonist is one matter. But to participate, to feel his body heat, to smell his
perspiration is to take the audience over the
brink of realism, to the reality of personal
confrontation. In the theatre of this new reality, the audience will perforce be very
small and very select.

OCTOBER, 1970

WE NEED A NEW
KIND OF THEATRE
Theodore Hoffman
School of the Arts,
New York University, New York
scholar named Leslie Hotson, while
writing a book on Shakespeare's theatre in the round, became deeply involved
in certain problems concerning the most
essential body part of a member of the
audience-the human ass. We sometimes
forget this, but when we get to talking
about architecture and audiences, that's what
we're dealing with. Mr. Hotson was concerned about a discrepancy figure: How
many people could sit in Elizabethan theatres?

We know that people are, in general,
much larger today. Any short guy who goes
to the Metropolitan Museum and looks at
the ancient armor can say, "1 am bigger
than those guys in King Arthur's court, I
know it. I couldn't get into that armor."
Beyond that, however, Mr. Hotson realized
that the Elizabethans sat in greater proximity, that they squeezed a lot more asses together in the old theatre.
In the nineteenth century theatres, the
gallery was a little strip of wood that accommodated lots of people. We've referred
to studies being done on gesture, roleplaying, interpersonal relationships, and the
new notion of tactile relationships between
audiences and performers. It seems that
we have been overly concerned about such
matters as how wide a seat should be,
what the kneespace should be, and what
the sight lines are.
In the Elizabethan theatre, people didn't
see the whole play, only part of it; they
saw it from odd, crazy angles; they came
in and they went out. The modern notion
that we must sit there and see something
whole has to be revised.
It seems to me that it's already being altered by the interest in performance that
younger talent has today. We are faced
with a revolution. The bright young kids in
school are taking film, not theatre courses.
They don't necessarily come in as dedicated
artists, but they are drawn to this field because it is here that something tremendous
and imaginative and influential is going to
happen.
The bright, energetic people don't want
to do plays. In one very real sense, I agree.
I look at plays in New York, and I see what
is done in our school. The best lighted
show at New York University this year was
a dance program with four naked dancers
for which the lighting consisted of two
candles. The dance was good. The lighting
was perfectly adequate to the occasion. It
made the nakedness far more interesting

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1970