Steven Anthony Hall

Student number: 4273266, sah542@uowmail.edu.au

Changes in Theatre Aesthetics from Postclassical Times to the
Present for Tragedy
During Classical times theatre was entrenched in a tradition of
text-based composition. Classical theatre was bounded by the unities
of time, place and action and also upheld the concepts of
verisimilitude and poetic justice (Budzowska, 2012: 151-157).
Arguably, these Classical ideas have been forged under the guidance
of theory proposed in Aristotles Poetics. Over the last century,
dramatic theatre and its role have been questioned by practitioners.
For example, Brecht and the Berliner Ensemble, Pina Bausch and
Peter Brook have all examined traditional forms of theatre and their
relevance through practice. In his text Postdramatic Theatre,
Lehmann points out that from postclassical times to the present,
theatre has gone through a series of transformations that assert the
right of the disparate, partial, absurd and ugly against the postulates
of unity, wholeness, reconciliation and sense (2006: 44). The shift in
theatre aesthetics Lehmann identifies is possibly, partly due to a
theatrical practice that is driven by concept and performance.
Lehmanns idea suggests that not only has there been a shift in
theatrical practice, but that both the content and form of theatre in
the present day have challenged long-held assumptions of theatre
aesthetics. For the Classical model of theatre, logic and causality are
essential (Lehmann, 1997a: 56). Aristotle identified structural
elements that made tragedy successful. What was seen as logical was
also considered beautiful. There was no room for illogical events.
Unlike theatre in the present day, all events had to be plausible within
the fictional cosmos of the play. Aristotle was concerned with
complete actions that were self-contained (Heath, 1996: xxxiii). That

is, actions that could be understood only within the realms of the text.
Whether this concept also occurs in many types of contemporary
theatre is arguably unlikely. It is no longer necessarily the case that
scenes must be understood in a set order. Rather, scenes may be
placed in isolation and not necessarily given context. Furthermore,
Hegel argues that tragic texts must attain resolution as part of the
Classical theatre aesthetic (Kruger, 2000: 545). The practice
discussed by Lehmann in Postdramatic Theatre appears less
interested in resolving action, and involved in exploring concepts
through a multi-modal form (Lehmann, 2006).
Two practitioners in particular that exemplify Lehmanns idea in
their theatrical practice are Societas Raffaello Sanzio (SRS) and
Robert Wilson. Although both practitioners have used text to form
their ideas, their work predominantly attains meaning through
performance. It has been identified that SRS have used their own
theoretical texts to inform their work, which challenges traditional
theatrical language in favour of a sensorial performance-based
language (Novati, 2009: 51). In their work Tragedia Endoginidia
(2002-2004) for example, SRS do not present a narrative, but rather a
series of images and events that emphasise sound and visuals. Robert
Wilson has also begun with text in some of his work. An instance of
this practice, Wilsons Hamlet: A Monologue (1995), appropriates the
canonical text Hamlet into a single performer show. Hamilton argues
Wilson separates his source material from a demarcated origin and
the body of character, and, in doing so, resists a central aim or the
telos of Aristotelian thought (2011: 159). For Wilson, a visual and
sound-based dramaturgy is the foundation for meaning and practice.
Although a number of works by these practitioners demonstrate
Lehmanns idea, I will restrict this argument primarily to SRS episode
of Tragedia Endoginidia titled BR.#04 (2003) and Wilsons Hamlet: A
Monologue.

Societas Raffaello Sanzios work BR.#04 is not whole in an

Aristotelian sense. Nor does it adhere to the Classical notion of unity.
The episode begins with a man on a bed in a marble cavern, blood
smeared on the floor of an unknown origin. The floor is later cleaned
by a coloured woman. A child sits alone in the space, and is uttered
what are perhaps the letters of the alphabet by a robotic voice. In a
later scene, a man pours fake blood over himself before being brutally
bashed by performers in police uniforms. The Attic tragedy is used as
a basis for the dramatic structure of Tragedia Endoginidia (Castellucci
et al. 2007: 31). However some Aristotelian elements of tragedy such
as plot and character in BR.#04 are sacrificed in favour of spectacle.
In Poetics, a tragedy is deemed to be whole if it possesses a
beginning, middle and an end (Heath, 1996: 13). In BR.#04 there is
no such thing. Instead, we observe the partial: moments in time and
an unknown space with no context within the performance. Moments
are often extended, exploring the intricacies of simple sounds, visuals
and actions. The moments do not flow into each other cleanly, from
one to the other. Rather, meaning from these moments is understood
from our own experiences as spectators. Tresize argues that SRS use
images and sound to access both cultural and corporeal memory
(Tresize, 2012). For example, the image of the man being bashed by
men in police uniforms may have spectators reminisce about police
brutality seen in the media. And although a spectator may have never
been bashed, our bodies possess memories of actions: our body
knows how it feels to be beaten and hence spectatorship of beating
may elicit a response. We understand the performance through our
own experience rather than the Classical unities of time, place and
action.
BR.#04 does not aim to create an aesthetic through logic and
sense. The performance does not craft a fictional universe to be
observed. SRS are interested in the facts, for what they are. This is a

theatre that refuses representation.... This is an iconoclastic theatre:

its about throwing down every image by adhering to the only
fundamental reality: the anti-cosmic Irreal, everything which is not
thought (Catellucci, C in Ridout, 2006: 178). In Poetics, Aristotle
proposes that the pleasure of tragedy is a result of structure and that
artistically, the best tragedies possess particular elements such as
reversal (a change to the opposite in actions being performed) and
recognition (a change from ignorance to knowledge). This concept
lends itself towards a text-based dramaturgy. The aim of Classical
theatre was to imitate. In BR.#04, tragedy takes the form of violence
and death. However, these are not imitated. It is made clear to the
spectators that the images are performance. The man pours fake
blood over himself prior to being beaten the audience is not drawn
into a suspended reality. The sound of the beating is real, amplified by
audio devices in real time. For Aristotle, there should be a unity of
action in tragedy, where a true action turns one situation into another
(Wiles, 2007: 97). There is a lack of Aristotelian action in BR.#04 and
consequently, also an absence of plot. The concepts of reversal and
recognition are almost entirely absent. By Aristotles theory, tragedy
is equally pleasurable without being staged, only the logic of the play
is required (Lehmann, 2006: 41). SRS are not interested in adhering to
Classical aesthetics of logic. In BR.#04, logic does not imply beauty.
What the audience is exposed to in BR.#04 is a multi-faceted
approach the performance that can only be experienced in the
moment. There is no single meaning, no conclusions are definitive. As
discussed, the lack of linear narrative in BR.#04 and removal of plot
reduces the play to a series is disjoint moments. The role of the
audience debatably becomes much more significant than in a
Classical play. As Kelleher points out in regards to Postdramatic
Theatre, at issue is the spectators capacity to make a decision about
the theatres materials. Is everything that happens on the stage

significant or acceptable...? (2007: 19). In BR.#04 tragic elements

are observable only through visuals and sound. Throughout the entire
performance, the audience is given no indication of where the events
are or how they link together. The job of the chorus was to explain
the facts, comment upon them and judge them; it followed a moral,
educative purpose. In Tragedia Endogonidia there are only the facts,
without any chorus (Castellucci et al. 2007: 31). Although spectators
do appear in BR.#04, they do not make commentary. The audience is
left to their own devices to construe meaning. The resolution of the
performance is unimportant and individual scenes of the performance
can be observed in isolation. The observers in BR.#04 may imply
tragedy can be a spectacle in modern times a painful, often violent
event observed by others.
A further research question that may be asked in regards to
Lehmanns idea is what drives theatre practitioners in the present to
explore the disparate, ugly, partial and absurd? There may be many
explanations for this. A simple explanation in the case of Tragedia
Endogonidia by SRS, but inadequate, is that their performances are
concept-driven. They begin with the Attic texts; however their
practice researches what a tragedy is in the present day. Anonymity,
nocturnal darkness, the privation of words, alphabetic and microbial
invasion in league with the law, these are the initial conditions of our
tragedy (Castellucci et al. 2007: 29). To engage with such concepts,
perhaps the dramatic model of theatre falls short for this practitioner.
What is required is a form that is less bound by tradition.
Wilsons Hamlet: A Monologue adapts Shakespeares original
tragedy into a show featuring only Wilson himself, who also directed.
Although the original text does appear in the performance, it is not
necessarily the emphasis. The show begins at the end of
Shakespeares Hamlet moments before the titular characters death
and recounts events of the scripted play as a flashback. The scripted

texts of characters of the play are all communicated through Wilson.

The performance was staged amongst a mass of rocks that were
gradually removed throughout. Despite there being only a single
performer in the show, there was a strong focus on visuals and sound.
Lavender notes that the performance required about three hundred
and twenty five cues for lighting, three hundred and seventy lighting
units and an eight channel sound system used with a dedicated sound
engineer (2002). As will be discussed, Wilsons practice places
emphasis on a visual dramaturgy, rather than being text-based.
Wilsons adaptation of Hamlet deconstructs the text into
discontinuous elements. Furthermore, his creative process
emphasises his unique, individualistic response to the original text.
Although soliloquies in Hamlet are often thought to represent the
thoughts of characters, as Hirsh argues, previous to the seventeenth
century, soliloquies simply represented speeches of characters that
may be overheard (1997). Wilsons adaptation exaggerates the
psychological aspects of the character Hamlet. The entire text
becomes a monologue or perhaps more appropriately, an extended
soliloquy using our current understanding of the term. Like thoughts
in the mind, his text does not necessarily progress linearly. Only
certain scenes have been selected and do not necessarily appear in
order. In addition to this, classical notions of wholeness are violated
by Wilsons flashback structure. This structure is perhaps a result of
Wilsons creative process. Wilson deemed the text unimportant to the
production, and instead worked from a storyboard that he created
(Lavender, 2002). The storyboard provides the scenes and basic
structural elements of the stage design. Wilson demonstrates the
creation of his delivery of the text in The Making of a Monologue:
Robert Wilsons Hamlet (1995), which involves filming improvised sets
of gestures and movements in response to the written text. His

delivery does not focus on the dramatic elements of the text but
instead, seems to explore the humanness of the character.
The exploration of Hamlet that Wilson presents does not aim to
resolve tension, nor is it concerned with notions of verisimilitude. As
previously noted, by Classical aesthetics, beauty and logic are deeply
intertwined in tragedy (Lehmann, 2006). Wilsons performance does
not revolve around a defining action like the original text. In
Shakespeares text, the play begins and ends with concern over the
fate of the Kingdom of Denmark. As Hegel points out, in Hamlet, the
fate of the Kingdom of Denmark is always a subordinate interest, but
it is noticed with the entry of Fortinbras, and its outcome at the end is
satisfying (1975: 1167). The satisfaction derived from Fortinbras
inheritance of the kingdom is likely linked to the completeness of the
action. In Wilsons Hamlet, there is no such reconciliation. His
performance delves into the psychology of Hamlet, which provides no
reference to guide the audience. His gesture-based dramaturgy and
focus on both sound and visuals is non-conclusive.
The meaning interpreted by the performance is individual and
by no means black-and-white. Instead, the audience is bombarded
with sensations that need not be immediately interpreted as in
Classical theatre. There is no interest in telling a story: the events of
Shakespeares play have already occurred at the beginning of
Wilsons piece. It stages repetition and retrospection, and in the
process on-stages the play itself (Lavender, 2002). As a result, the
play may question previous productions of Hamlet and their value. A
key question is why an audience would be interested in viewing a
tragedy if the story is already known. Lehmann suggests that it is the
temporal sequence of the story (1997: 31). It may be then, that
Wilsons use of the flashback device is a manipulation of what
Lehmann refers to as the aesthetics of theatrical time (1997b: 33).
There is no sense, or logic, to the world that Wilsons performance

crafts as it exists in a brief, extended moment: the final moment

before Hamlets death.
Returning to Lehmanns quote at the beginning of this
argument, a similar conclusion in regards to SRS Tragedia
Endogonidia may also be derived for Wilsons Hamlet: A Monologue.
Like Tragedia Endogonidia, it is Wilsons concept that may motivate
his performance towards composition unconcerned with Classical
theatre aesthetics. Wilson appears to be interested in exploring
visuals and gestures as a response to the text, rather than
representing the text itself. A comparison of both Wilson and SRS
work also demonstrates that it is not necessarily the absence of text
that causes practitioners to explore the ugly, disparate, partial and
absurd, as voiced text occurs throughout Wilsons performance.
Another possible explanation for Lehmanns idea is that there is an
emphasis on performance in present day theatre. Both Tragedia
Endogonidia and Hamlet: A monologue focus on theatricality. In
Aristotelian terms, they place emphasis on the opsis, or staging rather
than plot. Unlike traditional forms of theatre, the meaning within the
two pieces that have been discussed is unavailable simply by reading
the text. The meaning requires observation of the performance, which
exists only at a particular place and time.
Lehmanns Postdramatic Theatre (2006) has arguably become a
seminal text in theatre and performance studies. Lehmanns
suggestion that theatre has gone through a transition in aesthetics
since Postclassical times to the present (2006: 44) is evident in many
works in the discipline. It is not necessarily the case nowadays where
theatre can be understood without performance. This is contrary to
Aristotles theory in Poetics where he argues that tragedy is
disengaged with actually viewing the performance (Turner, 2013:
403). It may be argued that the shift Lehmann points out is in part
due to theatrical practices that are driven by concepts and

performance, rather than stressing the value of a written text. That is

not to say that the written text has no place in contemporary theatre,
however the role of text within theatre has definitely changed
throughout time.

Word Count: 2561 Words (not including title or bibliography)

Bibliography
Aristotle 1996, Poetics, trans. M. Heath, Penguin, London
Budzowska, M 2012, Racine and the Monograph of Love, in Cross
Roads, Volume 1: Phaedra Ehtics of Emotions in the Tragedies of
Euripides, Seneca and Racine, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp.151157
Carlson, M 1984, Seventeenth Century France, in Theories of
Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey from Greeks to the Present,
Cornell University Press, New York, pp.90-111
Castellucci, R, Castellucci, C, Guidi, C, Kelleher, J, Ridout, N 2007, The
Theatre of Societas Raffaello Sanzio, Routledge, London and New York
de Grazia, M 2007, Modern Hamlet, in Hamlet without Hamlet,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.7-22
Hamilton, M 2011, Transfigured Stages: Major Practitioners And
Theatre Aesthetics in Australia, Rodopi, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
pp.159-160
Hegel, GWF 1975, Dramatic Poetry, in Hegels Aesthetics: Lectures
on Fine Art, vol.II, tans. TM Knox, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp.11581237.
Hirsh, J 1997, Shakespeare and the History of the Soliloquies,
Modern Language Quarterly, vol.58, no. 1, pp.1-26
9

Kedney, JS 1885, Dramatic poetry, in Hegel's Aesthetics: A critical

exposition (2nd ed.), S C Griggs and Company, Chicago, IL, US, pp.
287-302
Kelleher, J 2007, Its so beautiful here. Come, you come too, in
Theater, vol.37, no.3, pp.17 25
Kottman PA 2013, Duel, in HS Turner (ed.), Early Modern
Theatricality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.403-422
Kruger, L 2000, Making Sense of Sensation: Enlightenment,
Embodiment, and the End(s) of Modern Drama, Modern Drama,
vol.43, no.4, pp.543-566
Lehmann, H-T 1997a, From logos to landscape: text in contemporary
dramaturgy, Performance Research, vol.2, no.1, pp.55-60
Lehmann, H-T 1997b, Time Structures/Time Sculptures: On Some
Theatrical Forms at the End of the Twentieth Century, Theatrescrift,
no.12, pp.29-47
Lehmann, H-T 2006, Postdramatic Theatre, trans. K Jrs-Munby,
London, Routledge
Novati, GC 2009, Language under Attack: The Iconoclastic Theatre of
SocietasRaffaelloSanzio, Theatre Research International, vol. 34, no.
1, pp50-65
Ridout, N 2007, Make-believe: SocietasRaffasahelloSanzio de
theatre, in J Kelleher and N Ridout (eds.), Contemporary Theatres in
Europe: A Critical Companion, London and New York, Routledge,
pp.175-187
Shakespeare, W 2008, Hamlet, Macmillan, Houndmills
The Making of a Monologue: Robert Wilsons Hamlet 1995, film,
Caddell and Conwell Foundation for the Arts

10

Tresize, B 2012, Spectatorship that Hurts: SocietasRaffaelloSanzio as

Meta-affective Theatre of Memory, Theatre Research International,
vol. 37, no. 3, pp.205-220.
Wiles, D 2007, Aristotles poetics and ancient dramatic theory, in M
McDonald and JM Walton (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek
and Roman Theatre, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.92107
Wilson, R (dir.) 1995, Hamlet: A Monologue, by R Wilson, theatre
performance, premiered 24 May 1995, Alley Theatre, Houston, Texas
Wilson, R 2001, Hamlet: A monologue, in A Lavender (ed.), Hamlet in
Pieces, Shakespeare Reworked: Peter Brook, Robert Lepage, Robert
Wilson, 1st Continuum edn, Continuum, New York, pp.153-194

11