Theatre Design & Technology - Feb 1971 - 28

Dr. Gunkle's paper was delivered at the 1970 USITT Conference. As a result of editorial difficulties with the taped
transcript of the Conference, it was printed in an altered
form in the October 1970 USITT Journal. We are pleased
to reprint the paper in its entirety.

AESTHETIC DISTANCE
SOME MEANINGS FOR THEATRE

George Gunkle

The phrase, "aesthetic distance," seems
not much used in a theatre context today.
An informal survey of recent materials in
the tradition-books on acting, directing,
design, introduction to the theatre-reveals
almost no appearance of the phrase. At a
slightly earlier time, the phrase enjoyed
considerable popularity and it still reverberates in the oral tradition of the theatre.
However, the elements, characteristics, or
processes to which it might refer have not
always been immediately clear.

doning its literal roots. The metaphorical
use of distance as "relative objectivity" is
in the sense of distance from some peak of
emotional arousal. In this formulation,
"aesthetic distance" is seen as an opposing
force to "empathy," our objectivity is seen
as opposed to an intense emotional state,
and "distance" becomes a matter of degree,
a matter of finding a right balance between
extremes. Bullough, for example, talks about
a man, jealous of his wife, watching a performance of Othello:

There will be no attempt here to give an
exhaustive history of usage. Nor can these
short notes trace through history aesthetic
principles which seem similar to "aesthetic
distance" though masked by the terminology
of different philosophers of art. Instead, the
task will be to piece out from several significant sources a small set of meanings for
"aesthetic distance" that have application
to the theatre.

The jealous spectator of 'Othello' will indeed
appreciate and enter into the play the more
keenly, the greater the resemblance with his
own experience-provided that he succeeds in
keeping the Distance between the action of
the play and his personal feelings: a very difficult performance in the circumstances. 7

An early work, and one that appears to be
seminal, is an essay by Edward Bullough
which appeared in the British Journal of
Psychology in 1912.' In the title appears
the phrase "psychical distance," and it appears in single quotes, which suggests that
Bullough intended to coin a new phrase. In
1920, Herbert Langfeld's book on aesthetics is dominated by this idea,2 and John
Dolman's classic book on play production,
first published in 1928, clearly brings the
idea into the mainstream of the theatre. 3
Dolman credits Langfeld's work as being
"the most helpful single book on aesthetics
for the stage director." 4 At Dolman's hands,
however, "psychical distance" became
"aesthetic distance." Several later pubI ications in the Journal of Aesthetics refer to Bullough and use "psychical distance" 5 (Chaudbury, Longman) or" emotional distance"6 (Pepper). However, perhaps
under the influence of Dolman, "aesthetic
distance" has been the preferred phrase in
the modern tradition in the theatre.

1. "Aesthetic distance" as an attitude of
relative objectivity. The ways in which
"aesthetic distance" is used seem related
on at least one dimension: the notion of
physical distance is moved in metaphorical
directions, usually, but not always, aban-

In this connection, Dolman refers to "the
artistic balance":
I do not insist that empathy and aesthetic
distance offer a complete explanation of our
pleasure in the fine arts, but it seems probable
that they are essential elements of such pleasure. Certainly they strike a balance. In the
theatre it is the director's business to see that
this balance is maintained, and that neither
element is allowed to exclude the other. S

Bertolt Brecht, too, recognized a feeling
somehow opposed to "empathy" and his
lengthy discussions of what he called
"alienation" were clearly trying to describe
a theatrical experience in which the contemplative or critical abilities of the audience
were not dissolved by the potential opposing force of empathy. A graphic description
of this apparently opposing force occurs as
he mentions an audience subjected to the
typical approach:
We see entire rows of human beings transported into a peculiar doped state, wholly
passive, sunk without trace. seeminglv in the
grip of a severe poisoning attack. Their tense
congealed gaze shows that these people are
the helpless and involuntary victims of the
unchecked lurchings of their emotions. 9

This, for Brecht, was empathy; and the attempt to oppose this by production styles
that would help audiences retain a more objective attitude seems to help reveal this
first meaning of "aesthetic distance."
It is worth noting that" aesthetic distance"
here is influenced not only by character-

istics of a spectator but also by aspects of
the art object. For Bullough, art objects tend
naturally to different degrees of abstraction
from reality, since all art for him was "antinaturalistic. "
To say that Art is anti-realistic simply insists upon the fact that Art is not nature,
never pretends to be nature and strongly
resists any confusion with nature,10

The theatre, or indeed any art form that
thrusts the presence of living human beings
before an audience therefore held special
"distancing" problems for Bullough.
The physical presence of living human beings
as vehicles of dramatic art is a difficulty
which no art has to face in the same way"

He almost immediately concedes an even
greater risk in the dance. The risk in his
terms is the "proportionately stronger lure
to under-distancing."'2 To the extent that
sculpture, painting, music and architecture
necessarily involve greater degrees of abstraction from reality, for Bullough these
art forms inherently provoked greater degrees
of "Distance."
Furthermore, Bullough pointed to improper
degrees of "Distance"-what he called
"overdistancing" and "under-distancing"as sometimes in the hands of the individual
spectator but often as a function of the type
of art and characteristics of specific art
objects.
... the verdict in the case of under-distancing is that the work is 'crudely naturalistic:
'harrowing: 'repulsive in its realism: An excess of Distance produces the impression of
improbability, artificiality, emptiness or absurdity.'3

As recently as 1967, Hardie Albright in his
book on acting says almost the same thing:
Intense emotions can be shown on stage
but must always come within the boundary
of audience tolerance. There must be an aesthetic distance between the audience and the
cruelty and ugliness of reality_'4

Brecht, of course, developed elaborate
theories of actor-preparation, actorperformance, and total play production with
the assumption that this relative objectivity
could be achieved in the audiences by influencing the characteristics of the produc-

THEATER DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

FEBRUARY,1971

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Feb 1971