Performing Theory

Author(s): Mria Minich Brewer

Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, "Theory" (Mar., 1985), pp. 12-30
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3207182
Accessed: 11-06-2015 13:12 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3207182?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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 support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PerformingTheory
Mairia Minich Brewer
Theatre in Theory
have come to supplementthe
Withremarkableinsistence,figuresof theatricality
modelsoflanguageand textthathave dominatedthestudyof thehumansciencesand
theartsover thepast twentyyears.Metaphorsof thetheatresuch as mise-en-scene,
staging,performance,
production,play, and act pervadethemajordiscoursesof contemporarytheory. Despite their differences,the discourses of psychoanalysis,
semiologyof thearts,sociology,philosophy,receptionaesthetics,speechact theory,
and deconstruction
have all had recourseto a valorizationof theatricalnotionsin
elaboratingtheirtheories.The larvatusprodeo, the mask thatpointsto itself,long
featureofmodernaestheticpractices,also characterizes
recognizedas theself-reflexive
a broad spectrumof contemporaryspeculative thoughtand theory. Whereas
theatricalmetaphorsmay seem to be marginaland essentiallydecorative,such selfneedto groundtheconcepdesignating
gesturespointto contemporary
epistemology's
tual objects it producesin the act of interpretation
thatproducesthem.Figuresof
theatrepertainnot so much to specifictextsor aestheticobjectsas to the reflexive
theinterpretive
momentin whichtheoryconfronts
act itself.ForHerbertBlau, theory
ofthought"
in a
involveinterpreters
appearsto behaveliketheatrewhenits"restagings
thereal onlyas thetheatrecan, by producingmeantaskthat"transforms
signifying
is thusa privilegedmeans by which
ingsin the act of performance."'Theatricality
interpretation,
explicitlyor not, designatesand framesits own practiceas performance.

at theUniversity
Frenchliterature
and literary
MadriaMinichBrewerteaches
ofMinnesota,Twin Cities.Her
theory
Frenchnovelto a feminist
ofnarration.
theory
fromreadings
ofthemodern
publications
range

'HerbertBlau, "Ideologyand Performance,"

TheatreJournal35 (December1983), 457. Whilerecognizing the subversivepotentialof performance,Blau, p. 459, is markedlyambivalentabout the "current
and meta-performance,
perubiquityof performancein the social fabricof our lives, real performance
formanceon thestage and on thepage, in therapy,fashion,politics,thewhole panoplyof postureand
See also ElizabethBruss,BeautifulTheories:The Specplay, confusingtheboundariesof performance."
tacle of Discourse in ContemporaryCriticism(Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress, 1982), and
New LiteraryHistory12 (Autumn1980), 167-76.
Regis Durand, "The Anxietyof Performance,"

13

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12

TI, March1985

MR,
M,
..............
N.T,
............
......
"
......
RR
To
.....
T
.I.
.
.....
7/71"
...
......
.......
........
.........
.
.
.
....
......
..
.
.......
.............
....
.....
..........
....
....
......
...........
.........
. ...
.......
......
..... .. .. ....
............
.......
.....
...........
.....
......
....
.......
......
........
............. ....
.......
.
.....
.........
..
.......
........
....
...
..
...
........
....
. ....
. .......
........
.........
......
.....
............
.....
...........
.
.
.....
.....
....
.
.
..
..........
..
.....
...
.
......
..
.
.......
...
.
.
..
..........
..
......
........
...
...
.
......
....
-:4
:%
. ...........
......
........
......
......
...
. .......
.....
........
......
.......
...
.......
.......
.......
.....
.......
....
.
..........
......
....:
......
....
..........
......
.....
.......
....
.........
.......
..........
.....
.....
.....
... ........
:%
......
::%..
....
..... ... ......
......
........
....
. ..... ......
....
....... ..... ......
.......
.........
.....
......
......
................
....
.....
.........
.......
.......
.........
.....
.......
......
.....
.......
..........
........
.
.
........
.
.
....
..
.......
....
..
.......
..
...
.........
....
.. ........
......
...
...
.......
.......
........
.......
.....
....
.......
..........
....
........
.....
......
......
....
.
...
..
.....
.......
.
......
.........
eM......
....
...
Mee
...
.....
.......
.....
.
...
.........
......
...
.......
?e_
.
:::
:.
:;
.
I.....
.......
....
...
.......
eee
....
..........
.......
.....
.....
....
............
........
......
......
.........
....
...
........
e...
.....
....
....
...........
........
......
..........
........
....
.......
. .....
..
...
.........
.....
............
.
..
.
........
.....
.........c:.a
......
....
......
UssssZx
.......
:::MM...............
...............
ep
f
............
. .....
........
........
. ..........
......
......
..........
...
.....
...
....
....
...
...
.......
.....
e
din

m
k/
....
.......

e:e

3.......
....
/m
ow

....
......
.......
......
Ai?..........
....
......
.....
....
.........
........
......

?M?

......
.......
......
......
........
.....
---------------------------------------------------------.....
........

.
.......
....
. .....
......
........

.......
......

theKnee-Plays.WalkerArt Center,Minneapolis,1984.

~a
ah~i-iiil
,ri'

: ::iii

iiit,

::

?.. .

"

"

8!:i!ii,:::::,::l:'

:;I:K

::..
?

iB

::

"

. ..:.

..

_
?

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14 / TJ,March1985
that shadows presentday practices,we must
To understandthe theatricality
and
modes at work in theory'spresentationof
the
rhetorical
performative
explore
cannotbe reducedto eithera themeor a featureless
itself.This is becausetheatricality
metalanguage,even thoughtheoryofteninvokes theatreas if it had no specific
or effects.
carrieswithitluresand seductionsthat,if
features,attributes
Theatricality
blindspotoftheory,an automaticreflex,
willcontinueto be a regressive
unexamined,
of
The questionto be addressedto
and misunderstood
and a diffuse
figure modernity.
it
the
theatrical
is
not
figure,but ratherwhat unreflected
theory
why privileges
it ushersin along withthatfigure.Theory'stheatreshave
aestheticpresuppositions
many stages,but what theyhave in commonis that theyare imaginarytheatres,
theatricalfictionsthat are staged as a by-productof or supplementto the stated
imaginary
methodologicalgoals of theory.To discoverwhat such an interpretive
definesas its practice(or its theatre),we mustlook more closelyat the backstage
is founded,and how theyrelateto the
operationson whichthenotionof theatricality
Rather
than
set
theoretical
discourse.
up theatreas the dominantexplicative
given
modelof all theory,I wishto show thefollowing:thattheatricality
occupiesa critical
is a
that
both
modes
which
and
between
theatricality
occupy;
theory
practice,
space
a traditionalaesthetic(whichI will call semiosis)as well as
doublefigurearticulating
(whichI will call performavant-gardepracticesand postmodernexperimentations
to
therelationofinterand
reinscribe
both
to
erase
works
that
and
ance);
theatricality
frames.
and
situational
to
contextual
pretation
In general,when theorycalls upon theatreto providea model thatexplainsits
promotesa particularimageof a
objectas well as its own activity,it also implicitly
text,theatre
particulartypeof theatre.It is as ifsomehow,in a priorand definitive
had beenalreadydefinedas a limitedaestheticand epistemological
object.Butitis not
certainthateveryonewould agreeon whatexactlytheatreis, as thosewho workin or
and production,would surelyattest.The
on theatre,at any level of intervention
affirmed
to theatrecarrieswithitaestheticvalues,whichare notnecessarily
reference
aestheticthatmay notalwaysbe comas such,yetare consonantwithan underlying
can be analyzedby
patiblewiththedeclaredsubjectof theory.Theatricalreference
what
and, further,
asking:what role does theatreplay in theoriesof interpretation,
its own activity?
modelsof theatredoes theoryvalorizein orderto foreground
that
ascribedto theatreis traditionally
ofnarrative,thefunction
In literary
criticism
Booth
For
what
focalization.
and
of foregrounding,
instance,
Wayne
segmentation,
in whichthepointof
offiction,"2
calls "therhetoric
is in facta rhetoricof theatricality
view of "dramatized"and "undramatized"(implied) narrators,observers, and
thedramaticactionand situation.Narrationis a "stagesetheightens
narrator-agents
ting"thatoperatesthroughvariationsin distanceand perspective.The "pleasureof
by thedramatic,implied
seeing,"derivedfromwhatis beingshown,is complemented
dialoguethat,accordingto Booth,existsin any readingexperienceinvolvingauthor,
offictionis a dramaticperand thereader.The rhetoric
narrator,theothercharacters,
formancecenteredon thedesireof thenarrativeconsciousnessto persuadethereader
of certaintruths,to gain the reader'sassent.FromBooth'stheatricalfictionwe can
2WayneBooth, The Rhetoricof Fiction(Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1961).

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

15

/ PERFORMING
THEORY

constructa theatreof representation

presupposinga staticrelationbetweensubject
and object, viewerand viewed, spectatorship(narration,reading)and scene. Nar(of assent)
rative,authorial,and criticalpointsof view existin a mimeticrelationship
thatframesout whateverfallsoutsideof theirperspectival"point"of view. Here the
theatricalapparatusreinsthe textin and excludesmodes of rhetoric,language,and
of a subjectdesiringto dramatize
writingthatcannotbe orderedby theintentionality
its own consciousness.
In morerecenttheoriesof narrative,thenotionsof pointof view (or focalization),
thetext.3Thesemetaphorsrefernot to a
scene,and perspectivestillserveto structure
of theliterary
butratherto a theatricalized
text,thetextas representation,
pictoriality
text. When Roland Bartheswritesin S/Z that representational
codes are being
explodedin favorof a multiplespace whose modelcan no longerbe thepainting(the
tableau)but is insteadthetheatre(thescene),he pointsup thecurrentshiftin literary
and writing.4
The critiqueof thetraditheorytowardscenicmetaphorsfortextuality
tionof mimeticrepresentation
thathas takenplace duringthepast two decadescould
not have occurredwithouta corresponding
displacementof pictorialmetaphorsby
scenicones. The theatricalapparatusworksto frameelementsof a textthatdisrupt
traditionalnarrativecodes, such as narrativediscontinuity,
and overlaid
fragmented
of
and
most
the
absence
of
spaces
description,
important
any teleological(endallows interpreters
to segment
oriented)narrativedevelopment.Scenic delimitation
textsas wellas to displaythe"polyphonic"
ofwritingand language.The
textualeffects
scenicfigureis thuspoised on theimaginarythresholdseparatingwhatis "in"thetext
and what is "in"its reading.
also possessesa conservative
However,theatricalization
power,foritis an effective
means to curb the radical disruptionsof meaningin textualexperimentations.
The
reasonforthisliesnotso muchin theatreperse, butratherin theorderofrepresentation attributedto theatre.For instance,when literarycriticismsignals the ways
modernwritingdesignatesitsown writing,itsnarrativeprocessor structure,
thatis,
its self-reflexivity
or mise-en-abime,
theseare taken to be very "modern"ways of
or staginga text.The notion of self-reflexivity
foregrounding
invariablyintersects
withthatof theatricality.s
Yet theimaginarytheatrethattheorysetsup to accountfor
mise-en-abime
or its equivalent,mise-en-schne,
is a surprisingly
conventionaland
one
of
textual
that
is
at
odds
with
thechallengeto
unproblematic
self-representation
in contemporary
narrativerepresentation
Two
writing.
incompatibleaestheticsclash
in
the
of
the
theatre.
precisely
figure
A similarconflicthas occurredin the contemporaryre-readingsof Freudian
thatare partof a moregeneralcritiqueof representation
psychoanalysis,
re-readings
3 Frangoisevan Rossum-Guyon,Critiquedu roman(Paris: Gallimard,1970); Mieke Bal, Narratologie:
Les instancesdu recit(Paris: Klincksieck,1977); Gerard Genette,NarrativeDiscourse: An Essay in
Method, trans.JaneE. Lewin (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UniversityPress, 1980), chapterson "Mode" and
"Voice."
4
Roland Barthes,S/Z, trans.RichardMiller(New York: Hill and Wang, 1974), p. 56.
SJeanRicardou, Pour une theoriedu nouveau roman (Paris: Seuil, 1971) and Le Nouveau roman
(Paris: Seuil, 1973); Lucien Dillenbach, Le Recitspeculaire(Paris: Seuil, 1977).

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16

TJ,March1985

and of theunifiedsubjectof consciousnessin both philosophyand psychoanalysis.

have been called upon to carryout this critique.Michel
Figuresof theatricality
of
Gilles
notas thought
Foucault,writing
Deleuze, claimsthathisworkis "philosophy
but as theatre:a theatreof mimewithmultiple,fugitive,and instantaneousscenes
where gestures,withoutbeing seen, become signals [or signal to one another]."6
Theatreallows philosophicaldiscourseto shiftfromthoughtas seeingand knowing,
in thesubjectalone,to themanydecentered
and stagoriginating
processesofframing
that
but
ing
representation
requires dissimulates.In "The Scene of Writing,"
Jacques
DerridaemphasizesthatFreud'snotionof theDarstellungof thepsychesignifies
not
but also "visualfiguration"
as wellas "theatrical
onlyrepresentation
representation."'
goes on to pointout "thevalue ofmodelor evenmatrixthat
PhilippeLacoue-Labarthe
sinceFreudhas been recognizedas thetheatricality
of theconstitution
of analysis."8
even
as
of
But, curiouslyenough,
philosophicalreadings Freud soughtto use the
of the "other scene" as a means to articulatethe theatricality
of
theatricality
of Freudarose. The debate centerednot on
philosophy,conflicting
interpretations
whetherthe theatricalmodel could adequatelyaccountfortheunconscious,but on
whetherhis model of theatreand art, rooted in nineteenth-century
aesthetics,had
forceofmodernart,as AntonEhrenzweig
preventedhimfromrealizingthedisruptive
forpsychoanalysisas well. For
claims,and hencethe implicationsof mise-en-scene
of the relation
Jean-FranCois
Lyotard,mise-en-scene
requiresa radical rethinking
betweenunconsciousdesireand thediscourseof interpretation
thatseeksto speak its
thatcan"message"as a "legibletext,"and in theprocessexcludesdrivesand intensities
not be represented
as discoursealone.9
Much remainsto be said about theatricality
as a generalizednotionin theorytoday.
One way to understandit betteris to considerthe theatricalphenomenonas it has
been elaboratedby semioticsand contemporary
theatre.
Limiting Theatricality
"a privilegedsemiological
ForBarthes,theatreis a "densityof signs"thatconstitutes
its
since
is
object
system apparentlyoriginal(polyphonic)in relationto that of
that
he definesas the"theatre-minus-text,"
language(whichis linear)."10Theatricality
of
artifice
sensuous
gesture,tone, distance, substance,
"ecumenicalperception
light."11In his laterwork,however,Barthescomplicatedhis notionof theatricality,
6Michel Foucault,"Theatrumphilosophicum,"Critique282 (November1970), 908.
7JacquesDerrida, "The Scene of Writing,"in Writingand Difference,trans. Alan Bass (Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press,1978), p. 201. See also his two essays on Artaud,"The Theaterof Cruelty
and "La Parole souffl'e,"in thesame collection.
and the Closure of Representation"
8 PhilippeLacoue-Labarthe,Le Sujet de la philosophie(Paris: Aubier-Flammarion,
1979), p. 188.
9Anton Ehrenzweig,The Hidden Order of Art: A Study in the Psychologyof ArtisticImagination
Lyotard,"Par-delala representation,"
(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1969) and
Jean-Francois
in Performance
prefaceto theFrenchtranslationofEhrenzweig,and "The Unconsciousas mise-en-scene,"
in PostmodernCulture, ed. Michel Benamou (Milwaukee: Center for Twentieth-Century
Studies,
"La scene est
1977), pp. 87-98; PhilippeLacoue-Labarthe,op
Universityof Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
cit..
primitive,"
pp. 187-216.
10Roland Barthes,"Literature
in CriticalEssays,trans.RichardHoward (Evanston:
and Signification,"
Northwestern
UniversityPress,1972), pp. 261-62.
11Ibid.,"Baudelaire'sTheatre,"p. 26.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

17

/ PERFORMING
THEORY

thatit is whatin factundoesthesemiologicalprojectas wellas any limited

suggesting
of theatre.In Bartheson Barthes,reflecting
definition
on his work he writes:
oftheentire
Atthecrossroads
theTheatre:
isnota singleoneofhis
there
oeuvre,perhaps
and spectacle
is theuniversal
texts,in fact,whichfailsto deal witha certaintheatre,
inwhoseaspecttheworldisseen.Thetheatre
relates
toalltheapparently
category
special
whichpassandreturn
themes
inwhathewrites:
theimage
connotation,
fiction,
hysteria,
thescene,grace,theorient,
(whichBacononce
violence,
repertoire
(imaginaire),
ideology
calleda "phantom
oftheatre").
Whathasattracted
himis lessthesignthanthesignal,the
was nota semiology
buta signaletics.12
poster:thesciencehe desired
In thisretrospective
glanceat hiswork,Barthesfindsin "Theatre"theunifying
figure
of his writingon linguistics,
culturalcriticism,
psychoanalysis,
narratology,etc. No
longerfoundedon a separationof genresand disciplines,theatrehas to do withthe
imaginaireof which individualsystemsare but the symbolicinscription.Here the
challengeto theatreas a limitedobjectis two-fold:theatreprovides,on theone hand,
a vast integrative
forinterpretation
frameof reference
and, on theother,it narrows
the fieldto the place of the desiringsubjectwithinthoseinterpretive
frames.As a
whichhe
generalfigure,theatrefunctionsforBarthesas a symptomof modernity,
a traditionhe claims is continuedby
opposes to the traditionof representation,
he definesas "whennothingemerges,when nothingleaps
semiotics.Representation
out of theframe:of thepainting,thebook, thescreen."13His annexationoftheatrein
general stands as a critiqueof "the great semiologicalmythof the 'versus,'"the
elaborationof stable conceptualoppositions.His critiquedovetailswith Derrida's
deconstruction
of the metaphysicaloppositionsof westernthought:signifierand
the materialand the
signified,formand content,the sensibleand the intelligible,
and interiority,
spiritual,exteriority
writingand speech.14Bartheswritesthat"what
mattersis notthediscovery,in a readingof theworldand of theself,ofcertainoppositionsbut of encroachments,
overflows,leaks, skids,shifts,slips."1i
of theanalogicalrelation
SemiologistsreadilyacceptedBarthes'searlyaffirmation
betweentheatreand semiology.They have not, however,followedup on his later
thattheatricality
inhabitsand framesall hisprojects(essentially
thetopoi
recognition
of contemporary
which
cannot
be
within
a
thought),
grasped
semiologicalanalysis.
The historyof theatresemiologysincethePragueSchool has beena seriesofattempts
to definethe specificity
of theatreby delimitingthe theatricalobject. While that
has
remained
theseattemptshave revealedthattheatricality
is a
elusive,
specificity
mobile,historicalnotionthatis displacedalong withaestheticand epistemological
mutationsin thenotionof representation
and theplace ofthesubjectin itseconomy.
The diversity
in semiologicalinvestigation
cannotbe reducedto one unifiedproject,
forit has appliedtheconceptsof structural
and Peirceanlinguistics
(icon,index,and
symbol),speechact theory,Greimas'stheoryoftheactant,and themodeloflinguistic
12Barthes, Roland Barthesby Roland Barthes,trans. RichardHoward (London: MacMillan, 1977),
p. 177.
13Barthes,The Pleasure of the Text,trans.RichardMiller(New York: Hill and Wang, 1975), p. 57.
14JacquesDerrida,"Structure,Sign, and Play," in Writingand Difference.
15Roland Barthesby Roland Barthes,p. 69.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18

TJ,March1985

communication.16
More recently,
have focusedon theatrical
semiologists
performance
Yet thereexistsan a prioriin all suchanalysesthat
and thedimensionof reception.17
constitutes
thefoundinggestureof theatrical
semiosis.WhenKeirElam,forexample,
asks whatthespatialand temporalboundsoftheperformance
consideredas a textare
to be, his question turnsinto the more generalone of the limitsand bounds of
He answersthat"whatconvertsobjects,people,and actionintosignson
theatricality.
the stage . . is the removalof the performance
frompraxis."18Upon thisact of
and
severance
rests
the
entire
edifice
of theatricalsemiosis. For Jifi
separation
in
of
is
to
the
action
transcend
thesignsthatconstitute
Veltrusky, practicallife, goal
in
while
in
the
is
"its
theatre
action
an
end
itself
and
it,
purposeis a semiological
As Elamrightly
the
distinction
made
matter."19
by thePragueSchool semipointsout,
oticiansbetweenpraxisand performance
was based on thatof theRussianformalists
of dailylanguageand itsforegrounded,
betweentheinstrumentality
poeticfunction,
of textuality
and rhetorichave thoroughlyquescalled literarity.
theories
Current
tionedtheidea thatliterarity
can simplybe removedfromtherealmof instrumentaloflanguagecan be separatedfromitsuse value. Yet no
or
the
value
ity, that exchange
be
discerned
in theatresemiology,whichcontinueson theassumpsuchcritiquecan
semiosis
tion that praxis and
stand opposed. The distinctionbetweenpraxis and
performance(semiosis),an apparentlysensible one, is the basis for semiology's
elaborateparadigmsof oppositions.The semioticideal is a space of real action or
or intraextra-theatrical
existingseparatelyfroma space of representation
signifieds
has to do withframing,
autonomizatheatrical
signifiers.
Theatricality
foregrounding,
theclosingoffofsemiosisfromeffective
action.In thetheatrethat
tion,and ultimately
its imaginarytheatre,the bordersbetweentheatreand daily
semiologyconstructs,
life,aestheticsand sociality,art and ideologyremainimpermeable.So long as this
of theatrewas not challengedby avant-gardepracticesand theory,in
representation
Brechtand Artaudforinstance,it was possibleto thinkthataestheticclosurewas a
giventhatsemiologymerelysoughtto describe.This is no longerthecase, and it is
now necessaryto ask whetherthetheorythatso decisivelyseparatesaestheticpseudoto
as a partof praxis(extrinsic
actionsfromreal ones considersits own intervention
to it).
theatre)or partof aesthetics(intrinsic
all
raisedas to whethersemiologyis capable of integrating
The problemfrequently
thesignsystemsitdescribesmaywellbe a falseone. Withthefirstinterpretive
gesture
16KeirElam, The Semioticsof Theaterand Drama (London: Methuen,1980); PatricePavis, Problemes
du Quebec, 1976); AndreHelbo, ed. Semiologie
de se'miologiethdatrale(Montreal:Pressesde I'Universite
de la representation
(Brussels:EditionsComplexe,1975); Anne Ubersfeld,Lirele theatre(Paris: Editions
Sociales, 1977).
17PatricePavis, Languagesof theStage: Essaysin theSemiologyoftheTheater(New York: Performing
ArtsJournalPublications,1982); Anne Ubersfeld,L'Ecole du spectateur(Paris: EditionsSociales, 1981);
Regis Durand, ed. La Relation the'atrale(Lille: Presses de l'Universitede Lille, 1980); four issues on
Essais d'etudessemiologiques,"
"Semiologiedu spectacle,"Degres 29-32 (1982); "Theatreet
theitralit'.
Etudeslitt'raires13 (December1980); Modern Drama 25 (March 1982).
18KeirElam, "Languagein theTheater,"Sub-stance18-19 (1977), 142, 144.
"Man and Object in the Theater,"(1940) in A Prague School Reader intEsthetics,
19Jiji VeltruskVr,
and Style,ed. and trans.Paul L. Garvin(Georgetown:GeorgetownUniversity
Press,
LiteraryStructure,
1964), p. 83.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

19

THEORY
/ PERFORMING

the semiologistalreadyprovidesthatintegration
by elaboratinga systemof stable
involves
the interpreting
subjectpresupoppositions.A far more pressingproblem
who
to
and
is miraculously
exterior
excludedfromthetheatrical
posed by thisgesture,
subrelationitself.The classifying
subjectof semiologyis a curiouslynon-theatrical
ject,untouchedby theplay of thesign,theplay of insideand outsidethatundoesthe
closuresof theframesthatthatsubjectdescribes.In sum, theatresemiologyfailsto
reflecton itsown theatricality,
by whichI meanthatitpurportsto describetheatrical
fromtheoutside,froma pointsomehowbeyondtheimagicodes and theirfunctions
sinceit situateshim
theatrecould not be moreimaginary,
nary.Yet thesemiologist's
ofperformance,
or herat a distance,removedfromtheeffects
and affects
securefrom
the play of limitsand bordersof theatricality
that theatreat its most challenging
engages. Therefore,what in theatresemiologymay seem to be simplya resultof
methodologicalrigor,such as the division between the theatricaland the nonand praxis,turnsout to be what reinstatestherhetoricof a
theatrical,performance
theatreof representation.
The semiologicalstage is constitutedby a systematic,
regulatedseriesof closures.
Fromthepointof view of theatrestudies,thesignificance
of thequestioningof the
theatricalmodel of interpretation
initiatedby JacquesDerrida and Jean-Franlois
bases of
Lyotardstillremainsto be assessed.20Derridahas revealedthemetaphysical
the divisionof the sign into signifier
and signified,whichis the same divisionthat
governsthe oppositionbetweenwritingand speech (logos), theperceptibleand the
intelligible,the materialityof body and the spiritualityof mind, and works to
ofpresencethatis beyondwriting,
thatis, beyondmaterial
privilegetheimmateriality
as
difference
and
The
of
deferral.
exclusion
(either/or)that
inscription
binarylogic
opposes thepresenceof theatricalsignsto theirabsentmeaningbecomesparticularly
problematicwhen semiologyattemptsto accountfortypesof theatrethatdo not fit
into the mold of the classical model of representation.
What happens to semiotic
oppositionswhentheyare challengedby themostdiverseof theatrical
practices?The
can no longersimplybe viewedfromwithina formal,intrinquestionof theatricality
sic understanding
of the sign, for each elementof the generaloppositionbetween
and signified,
frameand content,insideand outside,is questionedby pracsignifier
ticesthatdisplaceany notionof theatricality
as closure.Formalframesgive way to
contextualones, or ratherformalframesare increasingly
beingthoughtof as contexThe undoingof thelimitsofrepresentation
involves
tuallymotivatedand determined.
a shiftin the understanding
of theatricality,
a shiftLyotardhas describedas the
in theatre.Forhim,semiology(as theoryand practendencytowarddesemiotization
an apparatusof nihilismin whichsigns,devalorizedas an illusionof
tice)reinforces
presence, are negated in favor of their absence, which is affirmedas truth.
but that
Desemiotization,
however,does notmean thatsignsare simplytranscended,
the theatrehas become thescene of a semioticcrisis,fromwhichLyotardenvisions
thatan energetictheatreof postmodernpracticescan emerge.
and Jean-Francois
20Jacques Derrida, Writingand Difference,
Lyotard,"The Tooth, The Palm," Substance 15 (1976) and Des dispositifspulsionnels(Paris: U.G.E., 1973).

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20

TJ,March1985

A Semiosis of Waiting
to avoid definition."
Becketthas said of WaitingforGodot thatitis "a play striving
oftermsand limitsas wellas the
It is certainly
a play thatproblematizes
thedefinition
closureof stable symbolicmeaning.The play's evasion or avoidance of definition
of definingGodot so as to represent
him.
appears,forinstance,in theimpossibility
The characters
have receivedthemessage,"wait,"an imperative
the
injunction, speech
who are anxiousto discoverwhatGodot
act ofordering.UnlikeBeckett's
interpreters,
means,Vladimirand Estragon'sanxietystemsfromtheirfearof notresponding
propdiscourseand failingto be presentat theappointed
erlyto thelaw ofhisperformative
not structured
timeand place. The play is therefore
as a progressive
unveilingof the
of
of
for
but
rather
a
and
a
as
meaning Godot,
waitingon a further
process waiting
or
convocation.
injunction
of WaitingforGodot,a
It mayseemparadoxicalto offeryetanotherinterpretation
need to definemeaning.Yet Godot
play that eludes the ruses of interpretation's
ofexpectationthatcharacterizes
a traditionof theatriexposestheluresof a structure
(readersand performers
alike)
cality.Godot continuesto be a void thatinterpreters
attemptto fill.God, Death, Humanity,Crisisof Consciousness,Waiting,Object of
forGodot is as interminable
as Beckett's
Desire- the listof overlappingdefinitions
wait. In a structural
characters'
sense,Godot is theabsentSignifiedof Beckett'splay,
the propername thatlanguagegives to Meaning. All the activitiesand exertions,
games and exchangesbetweenthecharactersare subordinatedto Godot's"coming."
Since theirlanguageand actions cannot be legitimateduntilhis coming,the play
of expectation,a horizonof absencethatdevalorizesthemise-endisplaysa structure
sceneor performance.
It is in thissense thatDerrida'sreadingof Artaudmay be takento articulatethe
representaways in whichBeckettdesignatestheend of a certainhistoryof theatrical
tion."The stageis theological. . . as long as it is dominatedby speech,by a will to
speech,by thedesignsof a primarylogos whichdoes not belongto thetheatricalset
he sugand governsit froma distance."21 Artaudchallengesclassicalrepresentation,
is
to
from
within
it
with
that
a
a
"closedspace,
say space produced
gests,by replacing
himselfand no longerorganizedfromthevantagepointofanotherabsentsite,an illocality,an alibi or invisibleutopia."22The alibiin Beckettis Godot,forhe occupiesthe
absentspace outsideof theperformance
space, organizingit fromafar throughhis
discourseof masteryor theology.In this respect,Beckett'splay is an exemplary
semiotictext,structured
by a clearlyapparentsystemof oppositions:self/other,
/signified.
slave/master, inside/outside,day/night, discourse/meaning, signifier
Godot radically foregroundsthe semiological structureof opposition between
itstagesthesemiological
presenceand absence,signsand theirmeaning;furthermore,
of expectationin whichsignsare markedby theirseparationfroman
as a structure
of these
absentSignified.Yet Beckett'ssemiologygoes beyondthemerepresentation
concepts.He exacerbatesthe very notion of stable oppositionsby exploringthe
in Writingand DifJacquesDerrida,"The Theaterof Crueltyand the Closure of Representation,"
ference,p. 235.
22
Ibid., p. 238.
21

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

21

/ PERFORMING
THEORY

underlying
systemto whichtheybelong.The semiologicalalibi,figuredallegorically
by Godot as Signified,is revealedto be sharedby both a theatricalaestheticand a
of domination,thatis, thetheatricalas thesceneof mastery.The question
structure
remains,however,as to whetherBeckett's
playenactsonlythemomentofa semiological crisis,whichis also a crisisofvalues and beliefs,or whetheritalso stagestheaftermath of such a radical turninginsideout of the systemof representation?
In other
has been exposed?Is
words,what is leftto do once themachineryof representation
the answerEstragon's"nothingto be done,"the openingwordsof theplay?
Godot involvesthespectatorsin a processof waitingthatdoublesand repeatsthe
of expectation,
waitingof the charactersthemselves.In otherwords, thestructures
and
are
the
same
alibi
spectatorship, semiology governedby
(figuredby Godot) that
their
Beckett
on
the
limits
of a metaphysicsof
grounds
theatricality.
plays
very
to
the
the
that
it.
absence, bringing
stage
oppositions
ground Characters'bodies,
minds,and possessionsare involvedin a seriesof impairments;
signsdegenerateand
fallapartin space and timebecause theirsignification,
whichis assignedto Godot, is
lacking.Beckettuses everyelementof thetheatreto distendto thebreakingpointthe
ofthesignifier
forwhichit
and theabsentsignified
oppositionbetweenthemateriality
stands.
In
the
the
brands
its
element
with
the
supposedly
process, play
every
figureof
its materiality.The dialogue between charactersfails to assure communication
because its language, instead of allowingpassage fromword to meaning,hovers
betweenliteraland metaphoricalmeaning.Godot'sabsenceis theabsenceof a center
(a signified)thatwould guaranteethata character'sspeechcould coincidewiththe
actionshe performs.Beckett'sstagedirectionsas well as hisperformance
notesinsist
on thedisjunctionbetweenactionand speech.23The effectis to underminethetraditionalhierarchy
betweenspeechand gesture,materializing
thembothjustas theplay
as a whole driftstowardmateriality.
WhenPozzo is asked formoney,whathe offers
insteadis Lucky'sperformance."Pozzo: What do you prefer?Shall we have him
in a seriesofperdance, or sing,or recite,or think,or -." 24Pozzo includesthinking
- dance, song, recitation.His words equate theseperformances
formances
withthe
act of thinking,
out
the
distinction
between
the
material
and
the
flattening
spiritual,
the physicaland the cognitive.By makingthinkingyet anothertheatricalgesture
involvingthebody and thevoice,he deprivesit ofitsmetaphysical
privilegeas cognition.Voiced thinking,
as
an
as
act, thinking recitation,
thinking
thinking
qualifiedas
all
make
theatrical.
to
Drawn
the
of
side
the
performance,
thoughtessentially
signifier
ratherthan the signified(thoughtas immaterialmeaning),the hybrid"thoughtbreaksdown thedistinction
betweenwordsand theirmeaning.The disperformance"
between
actions
and
their
characters'
junction
speechis hererepeatedin thedisjunctionbetweendiscourseas a performance
and itscognitivecontent.
The breakdownof Lucky'ssyntax,togetherwithhis disruptivesemioticconfusion
of thebody and themind,theperceptible
and theintelligible,
provesto be unbearable
fortheothercharacters.They seek to silenceLucky'sperformance
because in exacerbatingtheirown discursivedilemmait driveshomethefactthatthey,too, are on the
23Ruby Cohen, JustPlay: Beckett'sTheater (Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1980),
pp. 231ff.
24
Samuel Beckett,Waitingfor Godot (New York: Grove Press, 1954), p. 26.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22 / TJ,March1985
brinkof "losingit."His speechundermines
sinceit lacks
languageas communication
theminimalsignsof identity(I/You) thatgroundthesituationof utterance.(I occurs
and as citationin "I resume,"or as an anonymouswe.) Luckyhas
onlyas repetition
been dispossessedof his freedomand humanity,he has also been dispossessedof his
capacityto situatehimselfas an "I," a linguisticsubjectin a dialogicalrelationto a
whichpresumesthatthe speakingsubjectis
"you."Thus, the semioticrelationship,
of thesignsystem,has beendoublydecentered.
The
presentto controlthefunctioning
signifiedis linkedto the stabilityof the subjectof
coherencyof the transcendental
discourse.When the speakingsubjecthas "lost it," as in Lucky'scase, the entire
withcollapse.
is threatened
machineryof representation
Beckett'scharacterswait forthescriptthatwill definetheirroles. In themeantime,
in a bricolagethatassemblesdifhowever,theycreatetheirown varied repertoire
ferenttypesof theatrical
and
genres,cultural,philosophicaland religiousreferences,
modes of languageplay. Thus, on the one hand, Becketthas indeed pushed the
of theatreto its limits,and on theotherhe has
semiologicalor theologicalstructure
how it can be
also shown how the overall semiologicalframemay malfunction,
to
how
the
characters
invent
and
the
and
undo
and
subverted,
games
plays
authority
of
of
of
frames
The
medium
effect
such
inventheatre's
limiting
meaning.
principal
tionsis language,thesamelanguagethatis assignedto semiologicalends.Yet it is "the
paradoxicalBeckettianattackon languagethroughtheuse of language"25 thatallows
fortheremarkablenumberand varietyof plays and linguisticinventionsto be performed.Repetition,contradiction,
phatic refrains,rhythms,slippages,and wordformsand syntax,are extraordinarily
rich
series- theplay withsoundsand rhythms,
in theirdiversity,despitethe edge of ironywhichis thereto remindus thatthese
devalorizedby Godot's absence. Desire
language games have been irretrievably
markedby thelack ofitsObjectis combinedin Beckettwithwhatdesirepresupposes,
thatis, plays and performances
enactedfortheirown sake. Jean-Franlois
Lyotard,
of
to
in
the
desire
modern
art,writes"itwas no longera questionoffulreferring
place
it methodically
by exposingits
fillingdesireby entrappingit, but of disappointing
26
is
of
desire
indeed
turned
inside
outin Godot,
The
theatrical
machinery
machinery."
of desireas lack.
of thestructure
whichexploresthesemioticunderpinnings
Vladimirand Estragonattemptto understandthemetaphoricaltiethatbindsthem
to each otherand to Godot. Theirbondageis literalizedin theropewithwhichPozzo
binds Luckyand his otherpossessionsto himself.Belongingto a figuralchain that
includestherope thatVladimirand Estragonwantso as to hangthemselves,
and the
as
hisentrapment,
thesereferences
function
"Net,"thenameof Lucky'sdancefiguring
therope(or umbilicalcord)that,withLuckyand Pozzo's everyentranceand exit,ties
the stagespace to the off-stage
and narrativespace.27Extendingbeyondthevisible
25Angela Moorjani, Abysmal Games in the Novels of Samuel Beckett(Chapel Hill: NorthCarolina
in
Studiesin RomanceLanguagesand Literatures,
1982), p. 38. See also Dina Sherzer."De-construction
Waitingfor Godot," in The ReversibleWorld: Symbolic Inversionin Art and Society, ed. Barbara
Babcock (Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversityPress,1978), pp. 129-46.
Lyotard,Des dispositifspulsionnels,p. 76.
26Jean-Franqois
27 Michael Issacharoff
in
analyzes"mimetic"
space (stage)and "diegetic"space (narrativeand off-stage)
"Space and Referencein Drama," Poetics Today 2 (Spring1981), 211-24. I am gratefulto Sarah BryantBertailforpointingout thattherope servesto tie the spaces together.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

23

PERFORMING THEORY

In,,
op:

..... . .. .

WaitingforGodot. StratfordFestival,Ontario, 1984. Photo: David Cooper.

ofdrawingtheoutsidespace
stagespace,bothon and offstage,theropehas theeffect
into the inside space, and vice-versa.An importantinstanceof Beckett'sturning
insideout, the rope is a concretescenicfigureforegrounding
the link
theatricality
betweeninsideand outside,betweensignsand theirabsentmeaning.Godot'sspace is
situatedin theoutside,narrativespace,butthescenicimageoftheropeworksto undo
anypurelysymbolicrelationbetweenthematerialsignand itsabstractmeaning.Once
thetiethatbindsis renderedas a visualmetaphoron thestage,thefigural"bonding"
of

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24

TI, March1985

charactersto Godot also undergoesa certaindetachment.Forgetting,

repetitions,
and breaksin theexchangesbetweencharacters
succeedin suspending
discontinuities,
of any singularsemioticstructure
ofwaitingfor.Whilethey
thepowerand authority
wait (thesense of theFrenchtitleEn attendantGodot), theyproceedto experiment
with the whole gamut of language games and performances.Their words and
and movementsare notanchoredin anyabsentSignified.The passgestures,rhythms
of
the
ing time,
passingaround of hats, thepassingaround of words,all theseare
to
mark
timeby speech,gesture,and abortednarratives.Time in Beckett's
designed
no
play
longerobeys the pull of a linear,continuousnarrativewhose telosor narThe timeofplay,as repetirativeend would residein Godot and all thathe signifies.
is invented.
tionand difference,
withthemfor
Beckett'scharactersinventplays and performances,
experimenting
themselvesand for each otheras spectators.For example,Vladimirtells Godot's
messenger
boy,'"Youmusttellhimyou saw us,"and Pozzo makescertainhe has spec"Areyou looking?"The play does notseekto transcendthe
tatorsbeforehe performs,
therelationofperlimitbetweenstageactsand spectatorship.
Instead,it disseminates
it in everyact, gesture,and verbalgame. In otherwords,
formanceby reinscribing
Godot no longeroccupiestheprivileged
positionofGrandSpectatorto whomall performancesare directed,to whomall speechis addressed.That positionis fragmented
in a varietyofperformance
situationswhich
and distributed
amongall thecharacters,
the play stages.WhereasGodot's demandfor the characters'presenceframestheir
cannotbe reducedto beinga programmed
acts, theirperformances
responseto that
demand.
Beckett'swork tellsus a greatdeal about the tensionin presentday experimental
theatrebetweenan exacerbationof any closedsemioticorganizationand theproducart.Recentdiscussionofperformance
tionofnewformsoftheatrecalledperformance
artrevealsa strongtendencyto equatewhatI have calledsemioticdivisionwitha conditionof theatricality
fromwhichperformance
seeksto escape. Althoughtheirdefinibetweentheatricality,
tionsremainslippery,a new oppositionappearsto be emerging
understoodsemiologically,and performance,consideredas an infra-or suprato productionsno longergovernedby a
semioticthatopenstheatreand spectatorship
of
to
The intensities
subordinated
of
languageas meaning.28
hierarchy representation
of
bodies
themselves
in
and
sound,figures performers'
transforming
rhythm language
seeks to
in space and time,echo Artaud'snotionof "poetryin space." Performance
and
of
aesthetics
a
traditional
illusion,
narrative,
exploring
representation,
escape
instead previouslyexcluded dimensionsof words, sounds, and images. Robert
thetensionbetweenthedemands
Wilson'sworkis especiallyhelpfulin understanding
His March 1984 productionof the Knee
and thoseof performance.
of theatricality
28Chantal Pontbriand,"The eye findsno fixedpointon which to rest... ," and JosetteFeral,"Perin ModernDrama 25 (March 1982), 154-62, and
formanceand Theatricality:The SubjectDemystified,"
13 (December
170-81 respectively;Regis Durand, "La Voix et le dispositiftheatral,"Etudes litteraires
1980), 387-96; PatricePavis, "Avant-GardeTheaterand Semiology:A Few Practicesand theTheory
ArtsJournal5, No. 3 (1981), reprintedin Languagesof the Stage; Michael
BehindThem,"Performing
Fried,"Artand Objecthood,"MinimalArt:A CriticalAnthology,ed. GregoryBattcock(New York: E. P.
Dutton, 1968), pp. 116-47.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

25

/ PERFORMING
THEORY

Plays at theWalkerArtCenterin Minneapolisrecaststhattension,framingthespectator'sdesireforformsof semioticfinalityor closureand radicallydiverting

it to the
of
intensities
changing
performance.
(Dis)articulations
RobertWilson'sKnee Plays, designedto be performed
on theapron betweenthe
of
his
international
the
CIVIL
are
warS,
major plays
opera,
accordingto him"likea
that
is
woven
the
of
the
CIVIL
warS.
Each play servesas
sub-story
through tapestry
an introduction
to thelongerscenethatfollows.theCIVIL warS has a subtitle,'a tree
is best measuredwhen it is down.' This is an old AmericanfolksayingwhichCarl
Sandbergused for the titleof his chapteron the death of Abraham Lincoln."29
Measureis elaboratedin a varietyof ways in theKnee Plays. Subtitleand sub-story
to theGreeksophistProtagoras,"man
bringobliquelyintoplay thedictumattributed
is the measure of all things."The tree of life, symbol of man's aspirationfor
transcendence
is figuredhereas havingbeen felledso thatitsexactmeasurements
can
be taken.The notionof horizontality,
withthatof measurement,
introduces
together
theperformance's
particularemphasison space and time.The term,"measure"(Gk.
carries
a
metron)
varietyofmeaningshavingto do withthedivisionor markingoffof
meterin prosody,cadence and rhythmin musicalduration,and scales of measurement in space. Metaphorically,the measure of thingsdeals with boundariesand
limits,economyand balance. For instance,a binarymeasureis establishedby the
contrapuntal
fadingin and out of thetwo hornsofDavid Byrne'sdixielandband. The
titleengagesthenotionof play as an action (to play), a game, and a performance,
includingas well theidea of a loosenessor room formovement,as in theplay of a
machine. These word-playsrelate to the performers'
movementsand the musical
thatdespitetheirremarkableprecisionalways allow fora certainfreedomof
rhythms
Whereasmeasuringimpliesthe fixingof limits,play works to
play or difference.
them.
transgress
The kneeis the"joint,"an articulation
or link;as a pivot,itjoins in orderto permit
movementor play. Yet thesethirteenshortplays, whichwere designedto be performedbetweenthelongerpartsof theopera, also implya verydifferent
notionof
partto whole. Sinceall theparts,includingtheKnee Plays and the CIVIL warS, are
our conceptions
composedin such a way thattheycan be performed
independently,
of thepartsubordinatedto a totalityare challenged.Paradoxically,the"joints"of the
opera can be performed
apartfromit (all thewhiledesignating
it),whereastheentire
opera, because its productionis supposed to be situatedin different
countries,with
different
at different
times,has not been shown or seen in its entirety.
performers,
Such paradoxesare consistent
withtheabsenceof closurethatcharacterizes
theKnee
Plays on a varietyof levels.The "tree"bestmeasuredwhendown is one whosemultiand extensionscan neverbe totallymeasuredby anyoneor any one set
ple branchings
of co-ordinatesin space and time.
notesfortheKnee Plays, ed. RobertStearns(Minneapolis:WalkerArtCenter,1984),
29Text/program
p. 12. The programreproducesWilson'sgraphitesketcheswhichprecededand followedupon performances.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

26

TI, March1985

The circularnarrativeof theplays,describedand designedin theprogramnotes,is

minimalist:
1: A tree,a man,and a lion. The man climbsdown butis chasedback up
the
thetreefalls,logsbecomea cabin.3:
The manreadsa book. 2: Lightning,
lion.
by
A boat hullis builtaroundthecabin and launched.4: A largebird,boat withpeople,
on it.
theboat takesa manand fliesaway. 5: The boat is beached,peoplewritegraffiti
6: The boat sails on, a cannonis loaded, theboat is hitand breaksup. The hullsinks
and thecabinfloatson. 7: The cabinlands in Japan,whereAdmiralPerryprovidesa
puppet show for a fisherman.8: The boat hull sinks. 9: A Japanesebasket seller
enters,thebasketsdance. 10: Snowynightscene,theCivil War, people pull thehull
fromthesea. 11: A tropicaljungle,peoplediscoverthehulland read thewritingfrom
whichtheyassemblea book. 12: A mansittingin a libraryclimbsa ladderand takesa
book fromtheshelf.13: A treegrowsout fromthebook.
The narrativeshowsa seriesofcombinationsthatsuggestformand image-making,
intowritingand images.Since thedevelopmentfrom
and transformation
textuality,
of materials,music,and movement,the
play to play takesplace as a recombination
It is based on a rhythmic
narrativeline itselfis developedin discontinuity.
taking
driftin and out of
apartand puttingtogether(or, as David Byrne'stexthas it,"things
or reinscription
fromone mediuminto
focus").Imagesare in constanttransformation
another,fromone forminto another.Dancing,lighting,
design,music,and objects
are involvedin a relayin whichimagesneverquite take forminto fullfiguresor
tableaux,but are involvedin a processof open-endedplay. The word opera,used to
qualifythe CIVIL warS, may be understoodpreciselyin its etymologicalsense of
ofthe
work.However,ratherthancombineand co-ordinateelementsintoa hierarchy
Wilsonallows each elementto work or operate
operaticarts,or Gesamtkunstwerk,
fashion.The narrating,
actingvoice of opera is absent,for
freelyin non-hierarchical
David Byrne,who directsthebrassband in his
are silentthroughout.
theperformers
compositions,at timesrecitesin monotonea textwithonlya tenuousnarrativeand
thematiclinkto thedance of theperformers.
movementsthat,whilestressing
The groupof dancersobeys tightlysynchronized
theircollectivegrouping,allow fornuancesof articulationin the ways performers
combine traditionalJapanese stylizationwith postmodernchoreography.The
formsand pure in
acrobaticmovementsof theperformers,
angularin theirshifting
theirpreciselines,exhibitanotherformof thenotionofmeasurethatinhabitstheperare stagedas techniciansof theirart: white
formanceas a whole. The performers
white
shoes
recalltheoutfitsof laboratorytechnicians
and
tennis
white
coats,
pants,
in some high-technology
overall
Their
industry.
appearance,togetherwithsome of
theirposes and movements,call to mindGeorgeSegal'swhiteplastercast sculptured
the
are shown to be at work,in theprocessof reorganizing
figures.The performers
blocksare shownbeingbuiltup, taken
materialstheyhave at hand. Large,frame-like
intodifferent
forms.Large,hand-heldpuppets(ofa manand
apart,and reconstructed
sticksand strings,are manipulatedby
a bird),revealingall theirbare articulations,
masked puppeteersin the Bunrakutradition,althoughmost of themwear white.
elements(thejointsagain), in whichlittle
The processofcombiningand recombining
occupiesthestageby fiatbut muchby facture,bringstogetherobjects,performers,
sounds,and imagesin movement.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

27

/ PERFORMING
THEORY

The play'sthemeof thefoundobjector textfromwhichanotheris made,recursin

themixtureofgenresfromwhichtheplaysare derivedin part.Theatricaltraditions
of
both ancientand modern(by
west and east (Kabuki, N6, Bunraku),choreography
SuzushiHanayagi),dixielandand blues music,video artprojectionon thewhiterear
thatgoes into
wall - theseare someoftheelementsofthepatchworkor intertextuality
For instance,in theplay wherethreedancerstracegraffiti
on the
the performance.
in a previousplay, theirinscriptions
are at firstsuggestedby handboat constructed
held coloredlights,but are also projectedas coloredpatchesor rectangleson therear
wall of thestage.The patchesof coloredlightrepeatthenotionof theoverallpatchworkarrangement
of theplays.The play involvingthebasketcarrier,itselfderivedin
from
an
1890
part
Japanesephotograph,in which the basketsthemselvesbegin to
threadsand intertexts
dance,providesa figureforthe"text"oftheplaywhosedifferent
are interwovenin movement.Recurring
as
such
the
stageobjects,
manyopen-framed
blocks theperformers
workwith(rearranging
or movingthemintoa tree,a boat, a
essentialelementsoftheplay'swork(opera)on
library,a book, a tree),are themselves
or patchwork.
theframe,its frame-work
The play's frame-work,
however,is not used to make theplay'srhythmic
images
uniformor to limitthem.Here thepatchworkis shown in progress,as a processof
makingand unmakingfiguresthatare producedby the multiplesensoryeffectsof
light,motion,gesture,graphicline, sound, and rhythm.A "theatreof images,"30
Wilson'sminimalism
is richin itspower to generaterhythmic
images,thatis, images
forms
of rhythmand imagesin rhythm.Yet theyneverquite freezeinto figurative
withan assignablemeaning,forhis compositionsneverquitebecomefullypresentas
The relationof words to musicto stageactionsis infinitely
variable
representation.
sinceWilson,Byrne,and theperformers
have notallowedany one formalsystem,art
or mediumto dominatethewhole. Whileformalanalogiesdo existbetweenthetext,
music, dance, props, and performers,
theyare never resolvedinto a hierarchyof
formsor a focusedsystemofmeaning.Forinstance,analogiesmay be foundbetween
theangularmovementsofelbows,knees,fingers,
thepreciseharmoniesof themusic,
the shapes of the props and puppets,and the clippedwords and bare syntactical
arrangementof the text.But analogies such as theseare producedby interwoven
ratherthanby overcodedmeanings.Here again thenotionof horizontality
rhythms
and "joints"comes intoplay. We are offerednot a "semioticdensity"(Barthes)which
(as is the case with
presupposesa verticaloverlappingof codes to be interpreted
inwhichthehermeneutic
Beckett'sGodot),butrathera networkarrangement
impulse
of performersand spectatorsalike is blocked by a horizontaldriftof images.
Theatricalelementsare allowed to developfreelywithoutbeingboundby or directed
to representation.
This is because no one system,be it linguistic,graphic,scenic,
musical,or gestural,is allowed to imposeits specificorderon the others.The open
measuresof the Knee Plays produce a space-timethatis perceivedas polygraphic,
polymorphous,and polyphonic.
30BonnieMarranca, ed., with introductory
essays, The Theaterof Images (New York: Drama Book
of desire"in theimagesof thespectacle,see Leo Bersani,
Specialists,1977). On Wilson's"collectivization
A FutureforAstyanax(Boston: Little,Brown and Company, 1969), pp. 273-85.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

28

TJ,March1985

Ow
......
low
....
.....
...........
.....

1#0

Yak

..........
.ee
.
.
.......
...
...............
.......

?11
N-t

...
......
..........
...........
.......
...
....
......
...

.....
..

.............

theKnee Plays. WalkerArt Center,Minneapolis,1984.

Finally,theplaysdo notcomposea homogeneouswholebecausetheyare radically

of theirsigns. The semiotic
decenteredand desemiotizedthrougha hybridization
because oppositions
apparatusthatwe saw stagedin Beckettis here deconstructed
betweenvisible and invisible,body and mind, materialsign and absent meaning,
insideand outside,have been interwovenor combined.In theprocess,distinctions
forestallsany
betweenthemhave been levelledwiththeresultthattheperformance
thatrestoresthe signto its fullunityand closure,thatis, its relationto
structuring
meaning.The actualstagespace, forinstance,is notseparatedfromtheoffstageand
fictionalspace. It is as iftherewereessennarrativespace,whichis also theimaginary,
tiallyno divisionbetweentheworkofproductionin thewingsprecedingtheperformon thestage.The use of stagespace, time,
ance and theactual workof performance
and actionneverappliesitselfto representing
signsnorresolvesintoa semioticstructure.All thewhile,theplay poses and exposesits intertextual
componentssuch as
theatre,music,and thebare narrativesof tree,voyage,and library.Blockingtheformationof homogeneoussemioticunits,theperformance
creativelydisplaysitsmultiple hybridstrains,so thatat any moment,everyelementis permeatedor runthrough
elementswhichis
withall theothers.In otherwords,thereexistsa relayof theatrical
The Prague
neverarrestedor finalizedintoa semioticcode gearedto representation.
in similartermswhenhe
Schoolsemiotician,
Jindfich
Honzl,conceivedoftheatricality
wrotewithconsiderableinsight,"we are discoveringthatstage 'space' need not be
spatialbut thatsound can be a stageand musiccan be a dramaticeventand scenery

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

29

/ PERFORMING
THEORY

can be a text."31He did not realize,however,thatthesubstitution

of one systemfor
anotherwas not merelya matterof theambiguityof thesign,but thatit could and
would createa radicalchallengeto semiosisby theatricalmeans.
The undoing of the oppositionbetween inside and outside is recapitulatedin
numerousways. The performers
appear to be puresurfaces,operatorsof theirspace
and timeratherthanactorsas repositories
ofexpressivepsychologicalstatesand emotions.Althoughtheperformers
have no hidden,subjectiveinteriority,
theyare by no
meansas uniformas theidenticallab coats theywear mightsuggest.Theirdifferences
and individualities
seemratherto emergefromtheircollectiveactivitiesand common
energiesthan to precede themas expressivestatesof being anchoredin sexual or
culturalidentity.Differences
appear to derivefromstrictlyuniformsynchronyof
and
gestures- or at leastto growout of thecontrastbetweena certainmechanization
individualdifferences.
The buildingblocks,whichare open framesratherthancompletelyclosedcubes,are emblematicof theplay'sundoingof theinside/outsideopposition.Comparingtheseblockswiththosein Beckett's
Act WithoutWordsI, in which
the closed cubes have theiranalogue in the invisibleforce that manipulatesthe
character,propellingand repulsinghim,we see theextentto whichthemetaphysical
notionof hidden"contents"
is removedfromWilson'sframes.
In sum,thefundamental
distinction
betweenformsand theircontentis flattened
out
to displaytheplays'surfacesand supports.As in muchcontemporary
art,thesesupportsare revealedinsteadofbeingdissimulated
by theoppositionbetweenpresenceof
formand absenceofmeaning.Likea child'stoyairplane,beforethebalsa wood frame
and jointsare paperedover to fixitsformirremediably
to itsreferent,
theplay never
hidesitsconstruction
or articulations.
Plastic,musical,and gesturalformsare freeto
be displacedin an open-endedmetonymy
ofcontiguousevolutions.We have onlythe
of theirdisplacements
thatbounce themback and
measures,thesyncopatedrhythms
in everyelement,in everymedium.Wilson'splayshave nothing
forth,to be refracted
to reveal,fortheircomplexityresidesnot in meaningbut in theiroperations.
The questionarisesas to how theplays manageto escape fromtheseriousnessof
theirconstructions,
themeticulousprecisionof theiroperations.In otherwords,how
do theyavoid thetrapof a new formalism
based not on theseparationof formfrom
contentbut on theself-designating
Part of an answer
infoldingof theperformance?
lies in the Knee Plays's open-endedness,
which relieson the spectatorto providea
of a Wilson play
relay for the varietyof performance
images. Since spectatorship
involves an assemblingand reassemblingof rhythmicfiguresand making of
thequestionof meaningis an incongruousone. The
articulations,
intelligible-sensory
and timeinwhichhe or she
playsplungethespectatorintoa specifictheatrical
rhythm
becomes part of the opera's occasion, the makingand unmakingof its imaginary.
does not createa theatricalspace thatcan be recuperated
Wilson'sperformance
by a
of
the
exclusive
semiologyobeying logic mutually
(either/or). Instead,he
possibilities
has produceda work thatis remarkablyinclusiveand open (and/or). In sum, his
work does not implya returnto primitivism,
post-modernist
a nostalgiafora state
31Jindi~ich
Honzl, "Dynamicsof theSign in theTheater,"in SemioticsofArt: PragueSchool Contributions,ed. Ladislav Matejka and IrwinR. Titunik(Cambridge:The MIT Press,1976), p. 76.

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30 / TI, March1985
The play'sworkon
thatis, theatricality.
thatwould precededivisionand difference,
theenablinglimitsof itsframespointsto itselfas emphaticallytheatrical.
in a varietyof fieldsinsistently
call fora returnto a
At a timewhen theoreticians
of
offigures
theirreappropriation
contextual,and situationalepistemology,
historical,
thetheatremayseemat theleasta paradoxicalresponse.Whatis more,theirappeal to
may seem to implythatsuch an epistemologyis out of season forour
theatricality
Foriftheorycan respondto thegeneraldemandforhistoricalunderstandmodernity.
towardits own interpretive
activity,thenone could be led to
ing onlyby gesturing
conclude that the contextualframeof theoryis a rathernarrowand limitedone.
thatpervadetherhetoricof theory'sperHowever,becausethemodesof theatricality
and/as
formanceare preciselythosethatdeal withtheparametersof interpretation
theyprovidean especiallyrelevantopeningontohistoricaland contexperformance,
as I suggestedearlier,need
tual questions.Formalframesin theoryand performance,
to be consideredas contextuallymotivatedand determined.Thereforethe pivotal
framesis
and contextual,situational,and institutional
relationbetweentheatricality
of the power exercisedand the
today of criticalimportanceto our understanding
is a marginon whichour presentlimitsimposedby framesin general.Theatricality
theiractivity- beyondtheopposition
day theoriesand practiceseraseand reinscribe
as practice.In so doing, theyinitiatea
betweenaestheticclosureand performance
radical questioningthat has consequencesnot only for suspendingthe separation
betweentheoryand practiceas different
genresbut,morecrucially,forour abilityto
as the
chartand especiallyto redesignthe morphologyof what is circumscribed
To takeup thechallengesposed by pertheatreoflegitimate
playsand performances.
theorytodayis to engagein theseismicactivitythatradicallyshiftstheconforming
and limitsof thatculturalground.
figuration

This content downloaded from 84.246.29.132 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:12:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions