Chance of The Theatre in Post-Modern Age/ MODERN SONRASI ÇAGDA TIYATRONUN SANSI

It has been long said that theatre, which is the most arcaic means of communication, has died. Could this statement be true? Sure, it could be. In the natural course of life, death should be accepted as a reality like life itself. It’s for sure that something is being born and something is dying. So, what is dying? What is said to be dead is not the "theatre" but "High-School Drama Performance" ( = from now on HSDP), the term which we prefer using instead. After finding out what is dead, it is necessary to name what is born. The reborn is called "theatre" just like in the myth of its origin.We are debating without common conceptions and nuances. I would like to remind a very well- known joke. Pope John II flies to New York. As he is getting off the plane a group of reporters welcome him and ask "Are you going to visit the brothel?" Pope replies surprisedly: "Is there a brothel in New York?" The headlines on next dayís newspapers and TV is: The first question Pope asked in his arrival to New York "Is there a brothel in New York?"We are now in a new era. The civilization has created a "mass spirit" by over-emphasizing the social aspect of mankind that has already been a social being for thousand of years. Unfortunately this "mass spirit" occurred in fascist ideologies which divides mankind into races, colours and religions in a similar way to the socialist thought which finds the salvation of the human-being in collective struggle of people in opposition to its yearnings. Even though its not possible to generalize this opinion it can be said that a lot of people mistook the principles of equality and sharing in a way that would harm the principles themselves and the diversity of life, perceived this way and reacted accordingly. That’s why when the need for equality was mentioned the result was monotonious and tasteless. In the "unity" and "equality" discourse of the modern age the purpose was similar. For the sake of the welfare of a god known as "state" all colours and personal differences were neglected and everything was brought down to an absolute abstraction. It can be said that all these attempts were made in order to understand -and make people understand- the social facts and phenomenons. But unfortunately these attempts spread to the lifeitself which is a living organism. So, where did all these derive from? The main drawback was narrow-mindedness. The origin of this syndrom was a period of rationalisation. It was a categorized, classified rationalization process or system occured in its margins of the modernist thinking which was considered to be scientific. For hundreds of years what we understood from science was, unfortunately, nothing more than a high- school riddle we were taught as "thesis-antithesis-synthesis". The science was starting with the concrete data borrowed from the life itself, analyzing these and then making abstractions from these analysis. There was no problem with this process. But then it - the restricted system of intellect which we baptist as the science- wanted to apply these abstractions and formulas directly into our lives. The science was abstract, theoritical and dull, but the life was concrete, practical and dynamic. The totalitarism which we called "science" wanted to rule out all areas of the man’s life and destroy the life while trying to beautify it. In brief, the fertilizers which were scientificly processed in order to beautify flowers were in long term either made them all alike or cause them all to dry.Why am I talking about all these strange things about "science" in an article on theatre? Because, we have to understand why theatre, or "HSDP" is dead. In the middle of this dessicated era of ours when Friedrich Nietzsche made a detailed study on theatre, he found out that theatre is derivated from an eternal duality -Appoloniare and Dionysiac- but the dionsyiacaspect of theatre was dead for long since Euripides started using Sokrates’ tongue. Neither Nietzsche nor his followers can be said to have introduced a proper solution to this diagnosis. Nietzsche, who came out in an age of corruption similar to ours, put the correct diagnosis and found the solution in mysticism and a national movement. On the other hand George Fuchs and Meyerhold exalted the mass spirit also serving to totalitarism by their approaches like "theatre of masses" and "emphaty". As Nietzsche pointed out in his study, the theatre art finds its sources in an endless conflict, a never-ending duality just like man and life. To kill one side of this duality means to kill the theatre, too. Actually, we have to admit that most of what we are taught as the history of theatre or we experience as theatre are nothing but the "HSDP". So, what is the distinction between the "High-School Drama Performance" and the "Theatre" ?To avoid acting narrow-mindedly, I’m not going to make classifications; but I have to make some definitions for the sake of the argument. The "HSDP" regards life as a caos to be settled down, while regarding itself as a moral school in charge of settling the caos down or as a temple for confession. The "HSDP" is the theatre of the "science-age" which we’ve mentioned above. That’s why it can classify and analyse everything and find an absolute solution or a conclusion. The "HSDP" puts the director, the player, and the playwright into a scientist’s place. The audience will have to only perceive the scientific/artistic truth or assertion which is introduced by the playwright, the player or the director and judge it. In the "HSDP" there’s no organic bound with the vivid, dynamic and surprising aspects of life. The "HSDP" is a concentration of life which is prepared, abstracted and over-simplified in laboratory conditions artificially , ready-to-be-served to the "slow/awkward" audience. The audience of the "HSDP" is an "addressee" . He/She is the one who needs this "message" in order to put his/her life in an order, to get his/her social life organised, and to pull himself/herself together. And the "addressers" are the "elite" members of this society or the "artists" as they call themselves. The "HSDP" is not an art, but only a craftmanship. There are hypothetical formulations about the making-up phase of the "HSDP". These formulations are necessary in both rehearsal phase and performance phase. For example, the defination and the qualitty of the "audience" is always the same ñwith a number of exceptions- no matter if it is the city, country, small-town, east or west. The play is prepared according to this pre-defined audience; his limits of perception are calculated and questioned.Another theatrical trend which was introduced during the evolution from modernity to post-modernity is the "show". We should state that, this trend has derived from the "entertaining" characteristic of the theatre.The "show" has become very popular in our day and will gain more and more popularity, -as well depravity- inthe future. Athough it is not our subject, we should also remark that the "show" is a trend, which despite having originated from the theatre will turn into only an entertainment business in the course of time. It is a "show business" and that’s why this trend is called an "industry".Iíve mentioned that we argue without common concepts and without nuances. We’re saying: "Theatre is dead!" We have to know what has died. It is not the "real theatre" that has died. Just like the limited and totaliter sum of man-made-data which we’ve been referring as "science", the real one that has died is not the "theatre" itself, but the vulgarised clone of it which I prefer calling "HSDP" . What modernity defines as a temple or a moral school has died. It is essential to question how the "HSDP" came forth, and on which conjecture and what kind of a historical moment it derived from. There is an age which has come to an end and another one which has just begun. The dominant conception of the ended age was called "modernity", and the transitory position which we’re in now is called "post-modernity" or "post-modern state". The post-modern state is not a praise or a defence of isolation, alienation, eclecticism, nihilism and anti-utopianism; it is, as Lyotard also emphasized, a structural analysis and a criticism of isolation. In his essay called "Modernism and Revolution" published in New Left Review, in 1984, Perry Anderson states that modernity has three distinguishing coordinates. The first one is: "institutional academism put under a system among the aristocrat regimes during the pre-first world war era." Second is: "major technological innovations ofindustrial revolution" and the third one is: "an intuitional imminence of a forthcoming revolution" The first one of these has brought the academic positivism or "the limited and totaliter sum of man-made-data"with my terms, the second brought a phenomenon which is called pedagological institutionalism. There is no need to talk about the first one. But the latter one or namely, the pedagological institutionalism- according to Fouccault and Derida, is a direct demand for knowledge and the sum of all pedagological domination forms. The theatre of our age, which we prefer calling "HSDP" derives from this mentality of the modernity. Post-modernity is the manifestation or the admittance of the collapse of this mentality of modernism.The basic trend of the new age is eliminating the pedagological-academic power and getting rid of the represantation , i.e. the "HSPD", which is incapable of representing life. The third dimension of modernism, which Anderson has also stated out, or "the intuitional imminence of a forthcoming revolution" has become the thrust of the renewal or a new-beginning for the evolution of modernism in cultural and artistic fields. The socialist projects and approaches which claim to be utopist or progressive have reinforced the narrow-minded, authoritarian and dominating pedagological institutionalism of modernity.The situation of the theatre today which we call "HSDP" is the reflection of this mentality. We have to see that it is over and is defeated. But, what comes after? What will the forthcoming theatre be like with regards of the time and mentality it derives from? It is a truth that post-modernity led to a number of important changes in architecture, art, science and in way of life. Well, can it be claimed that this new vawe which surmounted all the institutionalisms, paradigms, models and ideologies of our day is totally a positive one? Of course not! We observe that in the caotic athmosphere that came out after all the institutionalisms were defeated, a baseless eclectic approach emerged and it spread to the fields of modernity what we call "HSDP" and "Show".Different approaches have taken place in post-modernity, so as in the existentialism or expressionism. One of them is the "conservative post-modernity" which acts in a modernist way against the concepts ways of life introduced by post-modernity. The second one is a real "anarchist post-modernity". And the third one is the "resistance post-modernity" or "revolutionist post-modernity" which refuses ìtomorrowî and fights for a change "now and here". Of course due to the nature of life, the progressive aspect of post-modernity is this third approach no matter how much its mentality has changed.The art of theatre did not emerge thousands of years ago as an "art" form as we consider it today. It shouldered the burden of religion, authority, morality, entertainment, communication, politics and protection of the social order for quite a long time. Now it is time for the theatre to get rid of all these burdens/functions. The theatre is not a "goal" or a "target", but just a "play". The theatre is no more a "completed art event", but rather a"period-activity-eventî In the course of the theatre history, -especially in the previous century- some confrontations against the traditional theatrical approaches of those days took place under different names. Most of these attempts modified their names with adjectives like "new", "living", "epic", "politic", "anti", "poor" or "total". But none of them was a breakthrough that represents the new age, but rather a "parody of modernity".The art that we call the "theatre" has lost its organic bounds with the life little by little. The crisis turned into a cangren. The theatre people thought that the reason that lies beneath was the lack of education, inaccurate cultural policy of the state, lack of qualified plays, lack of qualified directors, lack of dramaturgic studies and lack of a productional system. But the problem is not in theatre; it is in how the theatre people perceive it and the "HSDP" that they produced. The theatre was first torn apart from the life and made elite, then it was placed to a throne which was higher than life could reach. And the people who did this were not the enemies of the theatre, they were the ones who regarded the theatre as a "moral school" or a "temple".Let us ask it again: What is the chance of the theatre which is the most archaic means of communication of mankind in these very days that weíre experiencing the post-modernist state? What will the forthcoming theatre be like in the future? In this modernist age, it has unfortunately been forgotten the theatre is a "play" which is participated "there and then". The modernist idea regards the theatre as a "product" which is produced in a sterile environment by experts. The theatre was just a "trickery" an "illusion" which was prepared and planned in all details. Maybe not to an extent of a physical participation, which was concluded by a sexual intercourse with the audience, that was proposed by the hippy theatre people of 68; but the theatre ought to be be a mutually participated play or athmosphere at least "emotionally" or "mentally". This aspect ot the theatre has been terminated. The theatre has lost the "chance", "surprise", "change", "risk", "challenge", and "conflict". It has turned into a static, planned, rhetoric, peaceful but absolutely artificial and apathetic thing. In sake of praising or approving some ethical, moral and social behaviours, and scorning/humiliating the ones that it approves; the "HSDP" became a detailedly prepared performance to be presented to a "slow/awkward" audience by a group of elites -the most important criterion of elitism is the education, today-Yes, the theatre still beholds the chance to survive in this post-modern age, as well as the chance to become the art of future. Because post-modernity demands a dual-viewpoint, as Ihab Hassan also states out. Hassan points out that post-modernity prefers "both that and this" to "either that or this". This principle is the main principle that theatre is built on. It shouldn’t be regarded as an opportunist attitude. Life is the conflict of balanced forces; it is not an agreement. Agreement can not be a source of energy to become a thrust. In establishing a new theatre, the trust will be complicated situations, moments of crisis and conflicts which we shortly call "dramatic". Because, life itself is a conflict, a paradox and a catastrophe. It can not be over-simplified like modernist approach does. A question may arise at this point: Won’t "a work of art" or to be spesific "the theatre" have a certain regard or an ideology in this new age? We should see it as a question which is a result of our modernist habits. Because a manís viewpoint is a result of his social status and social relations. A man’s behaviour derives from his way of life and how he perceives the world. Every movement of us is an unwilling reflection of our inner world. That’s why, the labarotory attitude of modernism and handling the individuals without regarding their ideology is incorrect. Of course the theatre makers of the new age should reflect their identity, their colours, their smells, looks, dilemmas and hopes to the jobs that they perform.In this new age, theatre will be a moment, an athmosphere or a space for discussion or alteration. It will stand far from powerty even public or individiual. It will be a play but not a megaphone. It won’t be an art of reflecting yesterday or signalling tomorrow but of today that seizes the day and the moment. It wonít attribitute itself a supernaturality, elitism or power. It will never forget the paradoxes and dilemmas of life and the duality which is the fundamental principle of it. It will be a theatre which can realize the duality and the new tragic line that has been introduced in a place called "Global Village" now ruled by new Olympos gods like mass-media, technology and cartelist new world order. It will be an exciting and dynamic play. I intuitionally believe that theatre art may have a chance by taking all trends of this new era into consideration. Otherwise, the present situation of the theatre art is hopeless.The ìshowî and "HSDP" faces of the theatre today looks like an old man who lay dying.Before finishing, I’d like to emphasize the terms -esp. the ones about theatre- that determine this new era. Two important terms introduced in this new age are: changes from "time to space" and "status to situation". Status is definiteness, but situation is indefineteness. It exists thanks to the concept of time and spreads by abstractions in time. It is a pedagogic construction. The social roles produce the social status and the knowledge of it. It creates some kind of institutions like "teacher-learner"; "ruler-ruled"; "addresser-addressee" and legitimates them. It always focuses on past or future. There is no here and now. But if we replace status with situation instead of the space, the time dimension becomes definite. Here and now. Creating different spaces in "now" emphasizes individual or group practice. It is the return of the "now" and "practice". A short look to all political trends of the recent years (like environmentalists, feminists etc.) shows that they also insisted on "now" and "practice". The extreme reflection of these trends in theatre is the "Fringe" theatres. Fringe tells us that a work of art can not contain everything and the relation between "local" and "universal" is absurd. Small is beautiful. Small is big from a different point of view. Theatre has to refuse the false of theatre or an art product has a total, universal meaning. Most totalitarian dimension modernism was dehumanisation and it is natural that an opponent movement would take power from hostility of elitism and opposition to authority. Transition from time to space and from statue to situation is spring for the dramatic arts. Because most important things for the dramatic arts are the terms of "now and here" and "situation" which products indefinity and curiosity. Other terms like ìdualityî means that announce of destroying of a melodramatic life style. Duality, one of the most important keywords of post-modernity equivalent to conflict and dilemmas in drama. It is also positive for theatre that placing situation instead of statue. Because, throughout the years we realized a character as "statue" and "power" and reduced their dynamism, multi- colourness, changeableness to multi- dimensional prototypes. We have to finish this. Main thing is man and his relation to situation. Situation has danger and surprise. New theatre which intends to set up an organic relationship with life needs this kind of a style and content.I want finish by repeating some indentations; we have to understood that level and recent state of modernism and "high-school drama performance" concept which it is realized for theatre is level of Isaac Newton’s science level. If we would not go out from our ivory towers and would not tear off shirt of elitism and power which people gave us we have to wait a bigger thing than an apple four our heads. It is an obligation for theatre people to understood "now" and "here" and like said in a poem we have to "feel big circulation of life" in our blood-vessels.