Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1987 - 13

determined time, the time of a performance in which
they will participate in different ways. It is a place of
exchange.
What is involved here: There is a playing space, the
area in ,,·hich one is seen. There is a space from ,,·hich
one watches (no matter how the playing area and the
house themselves are arranged I. And, there is the relationship that exists between them, an organized physical relationship that, in combination wi th the production itself, establishes a certain psycho-physiological
rapport between the watcher and the watched.
Of course, theatre space, though it is banal to re tate
it, is nOt merely the "theatre" that we are accustOmed to;
it can be simply a public place where a temporary Stage
is erected, around which a crowd gathers. It can be a
cathedral square, a stadium, a platform propped against
a wall, a park, a factOry, a courtyard, a large hall, a gym,
or a "wasteland." In a traditional theatre building, the
dramatic work simply fulfills the function of the space;
in all other places, it is the dramatic work itself that
gives the space its theatrical character.
Although this definition is valid for us tOday, it could
nOt have been at the end of the last century when, in a
society of strict rules and inflexible segregation, the
theatre remained dedicated to its official buildings, from
the poor neighborhood playhouse to the prestigious 1'\ationa I Theatre.
If we wish to define theatre space schematically, what
is it composed of? In geometric terms, it extends in
height, length, width, in forms and volumes. If, as Appia
says (echoing Protagorasl, "Man is the measure of all
things," 1 any theatre space worthy of its name must
respect the human scale. Be it an undefined space or a
constructed one, the theatre space ei ther combines or
opposes zones (spectatOrs, actOrs) which are more or less
separated or merged - everything from opposi tion to copenetration, or even confu ion. At the same time that it
implies scale, the space imposes distance, from the
nearly tOuching to the nearly vanishing, a distance that
bears directly on physical (visual and auditOryl and psychological perception. The theatrical event implies a
subtle interplay of bringing nearer and rendering more
distant - of tension. Thea tre is a re lationa I phenomenon.
And while spatial relationships can be extremely supple, mobile, and informal, they can also be fixed definitively in concrete, bOth literally and metaphorically.
The problems of pace in the t,,·entieth century are
part and parcel of a veritable cultural revolution, a renaissance that links conflict and even refusal, renewal,
and invention to the point of utOpia-a revolution valid
not only for the theatre, but for the other arts as well.
But let us begin at the beginning.
1875. It is precisely at the moment when the Italianate, proscenium-style theatre attains its state of absolute perfection in the Paris Opera Iwhere the stage/auditOrium separation has never been so brutal!, that it is
most violently questioned. In I '76, one year after the
inauguration of the Paris Opera, Wagner's Festspielhaus
opens at Bayreuth. Although reactionary in terms of the
stage, whose frame is optically reinforced by the perspective of lateral columns which line the auditOrium
and join the stage, it is profoundly revolutionary in
terms of the auditOrium itself: its amphithe,ltre-style
structure, inspired by the Greco-Roman thcatre, manifests a new democratic will (equal visibility, Ctc.) But

Bayreuth looms as a symbol, cautioning us to prudence
in any interpretation of theatre space in our century: the
solution at Bayreuth is a solution of compromise. i\lany
such compromises mark thc cvolution of theatre space
in the twentieth century. Furthermore, the democratic
spirit at Bayreuth arose from a certain ideology: equality
was created solely for the class which was in fact able to
frequent the Festspielhaus. The interpretation of theatre
history must be carefully filtered.
evertheless, Bayreuth was the beginning, the point
from which the process was set in mOtion- the battle
ag,linst Italianate theatre as much for social as for esthetic reasons.
Inside the traditional theatre building, twO worlds
confront each other: the auditOrium and the stage. The
auditOrium unfolds its strictly hierarchical structure in
horseshoe shape - orchestra, balconies, boxes, and amphitheatre. Richly gilded and resplendent with reds, it is
the salon where the bourgeoisie g,lthers as much to be
seen as to see: the box itself no more than a miniscule
social cell. To each according to his means: the nouveau
riche install themselves in the place of the prince while
the ordinary folk climb to the galleries by some hidden
staircase. lIt is interesting to nOte that it is often these
spectators who are the most enthusiastic, the most vociferous in their applause; a curious phenomenon of
perception, one that has not yet been analyzed to my
know ledge, that the audience farthest from the stage
often shows the most marked response even though its
perception is supposedly diminished.1 And facing the
house is a stage hidden at first behind a richly decorated
curtain. As the curtain rises, the audience discovers the

The Hall of Mirrors at the Paris Opera.

TD&T

FALL 1987

1 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1987