Hegel and the Theatre

The editors of the special issue “Drama, Theatre, and Philosophy” of the journal Anglia1 call Hegel’s aesthetics a suitable starting point for their collection of essays. To this they quote Hegel’s formula of drama as the “the highest stage of poetry and of art generally” 2. This formula is occasionally distorted and related to the theatre instead of drama 3. The editors of the special issue of Anglia, of course, quote correctly, and add Hegel’s suggestion that drama, “therefore demands a complete scenic production in order to give real life to the whole work of art.” 4.
However, they do not mention that Hegel demands the subordination of all elements of the scenic performance to the spoken word. Thus he writes about the art of acting:

“In principle, it consists in calling on the aid of gestures, action, declamation, music, dancing, and scenery, but in giving overwhelming preponderance to speech and its poetic expression. ” 5

Of „the art of the theatre more independently of poetry” 6 he has no good opinion. Either the actor makes himself independent of the poet, but only the “insignificant and in fact downright bad productions” 7 of German playwrights give him opportunity for that, or it is opera, „whose visible magnificence (always a sign, it is true, of the already growing decadence of genuine art) there corresponds, as the most appropriate subject-matter, what is utterly devoid of any intel­ligible connection“,8 or it is ballet, where „we threaten to see more and more disappearing from modern ballet what alone could lift it into the free realm of art. 9.
If one wanted to take Hegel as a starting point for a discussion of the relationship between philosophy and the theatre, one would also have to accept Hegel’s definition of the purpose of art:

“All art aims at the identity, produced by the spirit, in which eternal things, God, and absolute truth are revealed in real appearance and shape to our contemplation, to our hearts and minds.”10.

Theatre as a form of art is the revelation of truth to our hearts and minds for our contemplation, – that would be a Hegelian definition of the theatre. 11

  1. David Kornhaber / Martin Middeke, “Drama, Theatre, and Philosophy: An Introduction”. in: Anglia. Journal of English Philology. Journal of English Philology. Special Issue Drama, Theatre, and Philosophy. Vol.136 (2018), 1, pp.1-10
  2. G.W.F. Hegel, Aesthetics. Lectures on Fine Art. Volume II. Translated by T.M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975, p. 1158; all quotations from Hegel refer to this edition. available on the internet
  3. Acting school Athanor (Passau): “The theatre {sic!}, because it forms its contents as well as its form to the most perfect totality, must be regarded as the highest level of poetry and art in general.“ https://www.athanor.de. (transl. G.P.)
  4. p. 1158
  5. p. 1185f
  6. p. 1190
  7. p. 1190
  8. p. 1191
  9. p. 1192
  10. p. 1236
  11. see also my comment “With Hegel in the theatre” https://theatermarginalien.com/en/2021/05/10/with-hegel-in-the-theatre/(öffnet in neuem Tab)

Who owns the theatre? How C.P. von Maldeghem once was offered to become artistic director of Schauspiel Cologne and resigned

Suddenly everything is over again. On February 1, Carl Philip von Maldeghem announced by press release that he would not take up the directorship of the Schauspiel Köln, for which he had been chosen by the city administration 1. What remains is the discrediting of the city administration of Cologne, in particular of its head of cultural affairs, Susanne Laugwitz-Aulbach, who had still defended the election of Maldeghem on 31. 1. with the argument that he stood “for a free and innovative concept of culture”. 2. Maldeghem summarizes the way his plans were criticized in Cologne as follows: “A ‘theatre of participation’, which caters ‘without aesthetic and artistic scissors in mind to the widest possible audience’ does not seem to have been wanted in Cologne.” 3. The following commentary was essentially written before Maldeghem’s withdrawal.

The decision to establish Carl Philip von Maldeghem, previously artistic director of the Landestheater Salzburg, as future artistic director of Schauspiel Köln from the season 2021/22 on is not as surprising as most commentators think. It joins a series of decisions by the city administration to appoint directors from smaller theatres to Cologne, like Klaus Pierwoß (1985-1990 who came from Tübingen) and Marc Günther (2001-2006 who came from Bolzano). Pierwoß had an outstanding team of dramaturgs (including Joachim Lux, later to become head of Thalia Theater Hamburg), he managed to keep the audience stable, but he achieved little national attention. The employment of Frank Castorf for his first production in the West was an achievement only in retrospect. Although Marc Günther could come up with a bunch of interesting young directors, they all delivered their worst work in Cologne and disappeared again. And in directing his own productions, Günther failed catastrophically.

Probably the interest of the city administration, which after all was advised by the well-experienced Rolf Bolwin (former director of Deutscher Bühnenverein, the association of all German theatres), was less directed to the director than to the solid organizer and administrator Maldeghem. The examples of his predecessors in Cologne show that a non-directing theatre manager must be able to promote a creative and cooperative atmosphere in his house and to achieve this, he must pursue artistic goals himself. As a director, Maldeghem seems above all to have experience in entertainment theatre (Schauspielbühnen in Stuttgart, musical productions in Salzburg). This will be of little use to him in Cologne, where Schauspiel Köln has a more demanding audience.

Maybe Maldeghem would be in better hands in Bonn, where the city is trying to shrink its theatre so that they can – after the model of Salzburg – finance a sumptuous Beethoven festival. From Mozart to Beethoven, that would at least be a chronologically obvious development.

OB Reker’s justification of the election Maldeghem

What is amazing about the choice of Maldeghem above all is the reasoning of the city administration. Mayoress Reker justified her decision for Maldeghem by saying that “the theatre does not belong to politics, and certainly not to the city leaders, but to the people of Cologne.” 4. What kind of criterion for choosing a director is that? Does that mean there are directors who think theatre is owned by politicians? Or rather, are there directors who think the theatre is theirs? What idea of politics is this? What kind of understanding of local self-government? How could politics own something? Or how could a local institution belong to the city’s top politicians? Is not the Mayoress elected by the people of Cologne to act for them?

Negating the populist criticism of representative democracy only promotes its affirmation. The pattern of thinking that politicians own the state is also confirmed in its negation because no other pattern is offered. No one dares to say that the city’s theatre serves the good of all the citizens of the city, even if not everyone goes there. The “belonging”, the concept of property, is completely wrong for determining the relationship between citizen and state. One needs the concepts of representation and delegation of power to characterize this relationship.

A citizens’ stage for Cologne

One of Maldeghem’s few statements about his future plans for Schauspiel Köln is that he wants to set up a citizens’ stage. With such a stage Cologne would only catch up with a development which has evolved in many theatres since Volker Lösch’s staging of Hauptmann’s “Die Weber” in Dresden in 2001. Wilfried Schulz has also established such a citizens’ stage in the neighbouring city of Düsseldorf. Understandably, the theatres want to create audience loyalty with such an opportunity for everyone to play a role in professional theatre, because the Stadttheater is in a crisis of legitimacy and suffers from loss of viewership (which is masked only by overproduction, the increase of projects of the “Fifth Division”) [2nd see. Thomas Schmidt, Theater, Krise und Reform. Eine Kritik des deutschen Theatersystems. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2017, p. 40], but this format also fits in with the social development which leads to populism in politics.

In a society in which the theatre competes with a variety of entertainment and educational media, each of which develops its own marketing strategies, the theatre must also do marketing. Of course, the Stadtheater can use the appeal of playing a role on a professional stage (but then it should also go beyond a therapy for vitalizing pensioners). The fact that there is always an oversupply of actors in the theatre in the face of a lack of viewers is probably due to the deep anthropological roots of the need to play a role before others. Acting was never an understaffed profession. But the justification of these citizens’ stage projects often goes beyond satisfying this need, which originally was catered to by the many amateur theatre groups, and disparages the spectator. In the presentation of the citizens’ stage of Volkstheater Rostock e.g., it states: “The aim is to regard the citizens of a city not only as spectators, but to include them as co-designers and discussion partners at eye level in the artistic work.” The “not only” obviously carries a derogatory meaning, because the “co-designer” of the Bürgerbühne will be honoured as a partner at “eye level”. The spectator does not really look the actor in the eye. The spectator squints,  as is insinuated by this formulation, from a frog’s perspective to the stage as a submissive subject.

The emancipated  spectators of Cologne

The justification of such concepts of participatory theatre often refers to Jacques Rancière’s essay “The Emancipated Spectator,” because emancipation of the spectator is described there as “the blurring of the boundary between those who act and those who watch” 5. It is overlooked that Rancière does not mean that the audience should become actors. He describes three tendencies of contemporary theatre: 1. the total work of art, 2. the hybridization of the means of art, both lead to “stupidity”. Rancière advocates 3. : the spectator as an “active interpreter”. He wants to equate the theatre stage with “telling a story, reading a book or looking at a picture”. “It takes viewers to play the role of active performers who work out their own translation to appropriate the ‘story’ and make it their own story.” 6. This is perhaps a justification of the theatre of Laurent Chétouane, but not of a civil stage 7.

During the artistic directories of Karin Beier and Stefan Bachmann, the audience of Schauspiel Köln had many opportunities to emancipate themselves in this sense. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

  1. see Nachtkritik, the commentary by Dorothea Marcus, Kölner Stadt Anzeiger, Press Release Salzburg
  2. Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger 1.2.2019
  3. KStA 1.2. 2019
  4. quoted by Andreas Rossmann, in: FAZ, 25.1.2019, p.9; Andreas Wilink quotes Reker with the even flatter version “The theatre belongs to the people”. see nachtkritik.de
  5. Jacques Rancière, Der emanzipierte Zuschauer. Wien: Passagen, 2nd edition 2015, p. 30
  6. p.33
  7. Even Juliane Rebentisch’s statement that Rancière does not want to rehabilitate the “aesthetic fiction” or the “traditional box set” does not change the fact that Rancière’s theory cannot be used as a justification for the concept of the citizens’ stage. Rebentisch believes that aesthetic experience can emerge above all “where participation becomes reflexively thematic through artistic intervention.” (Juliane Rebentisch, Theorien der Gegenwartskunst, Hamburg: Junius, 2013, p. 89) Rebentisch refers to performative practices in which the audience observes the performance while at the same time being part and medium of the performance. But that is not the case with the usual concepts of the Bürgerbühne. Citizens’ stages cannot be justified aesthetically, but only socially, either as therapeutic social work or as a marketing measure of audience building.

An exploratory drilling into the history of theatre – Peter W. Marx on „Hamlet“ in Germany

Peter W. Marx, Hamlets Reise nach Deutschland

Peter W. Marx, Hamlets Reise nach Deutschland. Eine Kulturgeschichte. Berlin: Alexander Verlag, 2018, 435 S. ISBN 978-3-89581-490-7, 35,- €

Theatre as a transient art has a special relationship with memory. Theatre is not only the art form of the absolute present, of the simultaneity of performance and reception, it is also the art form of memory. Without memory no critical discourse of the theatre, without discourse no art. 1. Even the casual chat after a visit to the theatre (“How did you like it?”) requires memory. And theatre criticism is also memory aid. German theatre studies, on the other hand, try rather to run ahead of current theatre practice than to chase the theatre of the past. Theatrical history seems to be something for pensioners. It is all the more astonishing that Peter W. Marx, a professor of theatre studies in Cologne, has come up with a large-scale, readable study of theatrical history: the history of German-language “Hamlet” productions 2.

German nostrification of Hamlet

At the latest since the German translation of Shakespeare by the Romantics August Wilhelm Schlegel and Ludwig Tieck, Germany claims a special relationship to Shakespeare. That he was British is dismissed as an unfortunate coincidence. That he is an author of world fame, does not interest. Shakespeare is ours! In the 19th century, fantasies about Shakespeare’s “Germanic nature” are already in vogue 3. Even in the nationalist turmoil of the First World War, Germans hold fast to the “Nostrification“ of Shakespeare. 4. And Hamlet is the decisive figure because he represents a “call for self-identification” 5. “Hamlet” is a „play of yearning“ for the Germans 6.

Peter W. Marx undertakes an exploratory drilling into German history. With “Hamlet”, which has been present on the German stages since the travelling actor groups of the early 17th century, you can drive a core into the sediments of German mentalities. What does the soil sample show?

One sees how, in the early eighteenth century, the question of the hereafter, the metaphysical “remnant of need” [“Bedürfnisrest“] of the Enlightenment, was fixed on the appearance of the ghost of Hamlet’s father. A few decades later, this question will be answered quite differently: It is no longer about the ghost itself, but about the human being, the authenticity of the actor’s physical reaction to the ghost, the relationship between the inside and the outside of man. In the 19th century, the image of a heroically desperate Hamlet or the yearning for a princely hero prevails. Freiligrath’s mocking bêtise “Germany is Hamlet” suddenly is understood as praise of German heroism, and Hamlet becomes a figure representing the nation’s yearning for a young leader. After the contrasting politicization of the figure in the Weimar Republic (Jessner) and Nazi-Reich (Gründgens), Hamlet becomes the icon of timeless art (still Gründgens), and then come the postheroic Hamlets (Zadek, Heyme), settling the accounts with the generation of their Nazi-fathers. This process leads to Steemann’s Hamlet (Hannover 2001) 7, in which this 68-generation, who were keen on taking revenge on their fathers, are fathers in power themselves and their offspring do not stand any chance to oppose because of their parents’ overarching benevolent understanding. Up to the „To be or not to be“ reciting Youtubers, as examples of the games of the information society, which no longer need spectators, only participants.

Contextualization of „Hamlet“ productions

Marx always places the individual productions in a framework, politically and culturally. Time and again, historical figures flit through the picture: Lichtenberg, Goethe, Nietzsche, Wilhelm II, Göbbels. Again and again, scenes of historic events are briefly set up: the French revolution, World War I, the fall of the Berlin Wall – and torn down again in the next chapter. So the background appears, at least sketchily, to which the productions refer. Marx also casts sideways glances at the changing popularity of other Shakespeare plays: he explains why “Coriolanus” instead of “Hamlet” becomes interesting for the early GDR and “King Lear” for the late Bonn Republic.

Even on productions well-known in the history of theatre, such as Leopold Jessner’s Berlin “Hamlet” production of 1926 8 Marx can shed new light by placing them in a wide social and intellectual context. Fritz Kortner’s blonde wig, which was mocked at in a theatre review as an „idiot’s roof” 9 caused such indignation in 1926 because it fitted into the scheme of the deceiving Jew. Marx quotes Oskar Panizza, Friedrich Nietzsche and Arnold Zweig in support of his view and refers to the insults of the Polish-Jewish Hamlet-actor Bogumil Dawison. The assimilated Jew was the worst Jew for the anti-Semites of the Weimar Republic because he was seen as a liar.

Derivations of the Hamlet cult

Not only the highlights are mentioned, but also almost forgotten versions like Felicitas von Vestvali’s female Hamlet (1913), a strangely modernized film version “The Rest is Silence” from 1959 or Heyme / Vostell’s Media-„Hamlet” in Cologne (1977). Epiphenomena of the Hamlet cult are also included, such as Gerhart Hauptmann’s annotated text edition (1928), published together with Edward Gordon Craig, Harald Schmidt’s talk show “Hamlet” (2001) or Katie Mitchell’s performance “Ophelia’s Room” (2015). While the purely text-oriented productions of the last decades (Grüber Berlin 1982 10, Steckel Bochum, 1995 11, Gosch Düsseldorf 2001 12, Bachmann Cologne 2016 13) are passed over.

Marx also opens up new sources, such as Heyme’s notes to his “Hamlet” in Cologne. Already 40 years ago, Heyme noted: “that historically fixed art or theatre work can only be experienced as filtered through the media. Everything else is a lie. Whereby this truth is, in consequence, a deadly and fatalistic one – completely un-utopian, and our yearning can of course only be aimed at […], THEATER AGAINST the media which are clinging to us and of which we consist in part.“ 14 There is nothing to add to that today.


The difficulty of every historiographical enterprise lies in the contradiction between the individuality of the productions, which one has to do justice to, and the great zigzag line, for which one undertakes all the historical mining work. Marx is guided by Hans Blumenberg’s concept of “reshuffling” [„Umbesetzung“]. He wants to show how “different statements“ can be understood „as answers to identical questions” 15. Marx thinks that “Hamlet” can be understood as a “metaphor“, in the sense of Blumenberg. That provides a field for the “trial and error process” 16 and offers answers to an underlying question. For Marx, this question which provides continuity is that of the collective identity of Germans. “Hamlet” productions are not themselves the answers, but metaphors that provide the material for testing and discarding answers to this question.

Hamlet as a collective figure of thought

This embedding of the “Hamlet” productions into the “collective figures of thought“ of their time settles the claim of writing not only a history of theatre that mentions productions for the sake of completeness but a cultural history 17. Gründgens’ post-war productions are discussed against the background of Hannah Arendt’s criticism of the claim of a collective guilt of Germans and Mitscherlich’s analysis of post-war Germany as a fatherless society. Heiner Müller’s “Hamlet” of 1990 is placed in the context of the situation of the intellectual in the GDR and its dissolution.

Peter W. Marx’s narrative model is contextualist, his narrative attitude largely ironic, but in the end, it becomes a story of decay with a warning. The culmination of every analysis of cultural history is their final look at the present. In 2018 Peter W. Marx finds hidden references to the imagery and intellectual tradition of „Hamlet” in such diverse figures as Frank-Walter Steinmeier18, Christian Lindner19, Marc Jongen 20, Simon Strauss21 and Philipp Ruch22: he interprets these references as an “awareness of crisis in a society that is saturated in a wrong way“ 23 as a dangerous self-empowerment to overcome the existing conditions in an “intoxicated desire to act” 24

No knowledge can be gained without memory anyway. If theatre represents a supra-individual consciousness and the history of the theatre a collective memory, then the history of theatre can make us see things that we could not see before, not only in the theatre but in society as a whole.

This review is the extended version of a text that appeared in the December 2018 issue of “Theater heute”.

  1. Marvin Carlson has set this out in a detailed study. „We are able to ‚read’ new works – whether they be plays, paintings, musical compositions, or, for that matter, new signifying structures that make no claim to artistic expression at all – only because we recognize within them elements that have been recycled from other structures of experience that we have experienced earlier. {…} The primary tools for audiences confronted with new paintings, pieces of music, books, or pieces of theatre are previous examples of these various arts they have experienced.“ Marvin Carlson, The Haunted Stage. The Theatre as Memory Machine. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001, pp.4, 5.
  2. Peter W. Marx has already made an encyclopaedic contribution to „Hamlet“-research with the publication of the „Hamlet Handbook“, which goes far beyond the reception in Germany. Some material from the manual has also been included in the monograph. Peter W.Marx, Hamlet Handbuch. Stoffe, Aneignungen, Deutungen. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2014
  3. „urgermanische Natur“, Koberstein 1865, quoted by Marx S. 108
  4. Wilhelm Hortmann, Shakespeare und das deutsche Theater im XX. Jahrhundert. Mit einem Kapitel über Shakespeare auf den Bühnen der DDR von Mark Hamburger. Berlin: Henschel, 2001, p.19
  5. „Aufforderung zur Selbst-Identifikation“ Marx, p. 9
  6. „Sehnsuchtsstück“, Marx, p. 10
  7. see. my short critique in: Berliner Festspiele (ed.), Theatertreffen -Journal 2002, p.29
  8. See Hortmann a.a.O., p.75f; Günther Rühle (Hg.), Theater für die Republik 1917-1933 im Spiegel der Kritik. Frankfurt/M: S.Fischer 1967 p.763-773; Hugo Fetting (Hg.), Von der freien Bühne zum politischen Theater. Drama und Theater im Spiegel der Kritik 1917-1933. Bd. 2. Leipzig: Reclam, 1987 p. 314-332; Günther Rühle, Theater in Deutschland 1887-1945. Seine Ereignisse – seine Menschen. Frankfurt/M: S. Fischer, 2007 p. 503-505
  9. „Idiotendach“, Alfred Polgar cit. at Marx p.130
  10. see Hortmann, op. cit., pp. 321-325
  11. see my review in Theater heute 8 / 1995, pp. 22-25
  12. see my review in Theater heute 7/2001, p.28-30
  13. see my review in Theater heute 11 / 2016, pp. 20-23
  14. „dass historisch-fixierte Kunst bzw. Theaterarbeit schlechthin nurmehr durch Medien gefiltert erfahren werden kann. Alles andere ist Lüge. Wobei diese Wahrheit in Konsequenz eine tödliche und fatalistische – gänzlich unutopische ist, und die Sehnsucht natürlich nur darauf abzielen darf {…}, THEATER GEGEN die uns umklammernden und z.T. ausmachenden Medien zu erfahren.“ quoted by Marx, p.291f
  15. Blumenberg cit. at Marx p.14. See also: „Umbesetzung meint ebenden Prozess der Ersetzung einer epochal nicht länger befriedigenden Antwort durch eine neue. Die Frage fungiert dabei als konstantes, Zeitabschnitte oder Epochen übergreifendes Moment, das die Tiefenstruktur der Umbesetzungsvorgänge bildet. {…} Das ‚Verfahren‘ nimmt seinen Ausgang von einer als Antwort verstandenen Theorieformation, deren zugrunde liegende Frage in regressiver Analyse zu ermitteln ist.“ Herbert Kopp-Oberstebrink, „Umbesetzung“, in: Robert Buch & Daniel Weiden (Hg.), Blumenberg lesen. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2014, p.359
  16. „Prozess des Erprobens und Verwerfens“, Marx p.16
  17. Marx also explicitly refers to Fischer-Lichte, who warns against a “purely chronologically proceeding factography” and postulates “In jedem Fall lässt sich Theatergeschichte nur mit einer problemorientierten Vorgehensweise betreiben.“ Erika Fischer-Lichte, Kurze Geschichte des deutschen Theaters. Tübingen: Francke, 1993, p.8f
  18. President of the Federal Public of Germany
  19. chairman of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the German liberal party
  20. right wing intellectual, member of the German parliament for the Alliance for Germany (AfD)
  21. theatre critic for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  22. founder of the activist group Centre for Political Beauty (Zentrum für politische Schönheit)
  23. „Krisenbewusstsein einer falsch saturierten Gesellschaft“
  24. „rauschhafte Tatensehnsucht“, Marx pp.377, 380f

Theatre and theatre criticism in a society of singularities


In his recent treatise „The society of singularities“1, the sociologist Andreas Reckwitz describes the shift of paradigm from a society of generalities to a society of singularities on all levels. His analysis can easily be applied to the area of theatre2. The following twelve statements only represent an attempt to demonstrate this applicability. They do not assume to be a critical examination of the theory of Reckwitz.

1 The area of theatre is a market of singularities.
Markets of singularities are markets on which unique goods (things, events, places, groups, persons) are traded. Their singularity is not a naturally inherent quality, but something which is assigned to them and which has to be acquired3. Because these are things for which there is no need, but which are believed to be valuable for themselves, without having any particular function, markets of singularities are markets of attention and markets of valorization4. Therefore, every theatrical production which wants to be successful has to be declared to be a singularity and has to find the attention of the public.

2 Theatre criticism is a universe of valorization with the practices of observation, valuation and appropriation.
Theatre criticism is an institution (subsystem of society) for valorisation of theatrical productions. The practices of observation and valuation obviously are part of theatre criticism5. But appropriation is also part of it. Appropriation is not just observation, it is experience, where attention is concentrated on the self, not on the object6. In this universe, theatrical productions are singularized and desingularized (e.g. exposed as fashionable imitations of Castorf or epigones of Martaler).

3 Theatre productions are singularities if they posses self-complexity and interior density.
Goods (events, places, people, groups) are declared to be singularities if they are complex, i.e. they have a diverse cross-linked internal structure, and if they give the impression that they are „dense“, i.e. not completely transparent, opaque, possessing an indissoluble ambiguity7. A theatrical production has self-complexity if its different semantic levels (stage design, movement, costumes, text, facial expressions, music, etc.) have traceable interdependencies. A production is dense, if these interdependencies are not fully comprehensible to the viewer at the moment and cannot be converted into meaning immediately, but are an attraction for the possible formation of meaning8

4 Theatrical productions as singularities may have aesthetic, narrative-hermeneutic or ludic qualities.
The qualities of a singular theatrical production can be either in its sensuous (aesthetic quality) or in the meaningful and narrative attributes (narrative-hermeneutic quality) or in the evaluation of life forms (ethical quality) or in its interactivity or playfulness (ludic quality)9. Theatrical productions usually each focus on one of these qualities. At present, many theatre producers are interested in interactivity, while world-clarifying stories are less fashionable. In productions that aim at ethical qualities, the theatre of singularities is not concerned with the affirmation of universal rules of behavior, but with an offer for the construction of one’s own behavioral maxims10.

5 The theatre sector is a market with overproduction.
The increase in the number of premieres while the number of second performances of new plays is decreasing is such a phenomenon of overproduction on singularity markets, as well as the increasing number of productions, projects and additional events („5th department“) accompanying a steady or decreasing number of viewers of German city theatres. Not everything that wants to be singular is recognized as singular. This leads to wastage of money, time and labor in the theatre, but is inevitable in a singularity market11. This is especially true for the internet12.

6 Theatre criticism is an attention filter.
Because singularity markets are characterized by overproduction, filters are needed that control the audience’s attention by selecting. Theatre criticism is such a filter. Despite the dwindling importance of theatre in relation to other areas of culture, the theatre continues to occupy an important social space due to the general culturalization of all social areas. The art-specific genre of the review spreads to all social areas13. As a result, theatrical criticism gains a rather increasing significance within the area of the theatre. Although it is a remnant of the age of generalities, when it was still the norm to go to the theater, it receives growing attention when it participates in the manifold valorisations, upgradings and downgradings14..

7 Scaled ratings of theatre productions increase the audience’s focus on individual, already successful productions or theatre makers.
Singularities should be valued for their uniqueness and cannot be compared to other entities in similarity relationships. In order to achieve an overview in the confusing market for the consumers, however, judgmental comparisons are nevertheless made15. The majority of prizes and competitions use qualitative-competitive methods of comparison. Singularities are not judged as being un-comparable entities, but are compared according to criteria (remarkable, original, complex). However, the main competitions (Theatertreffen, Mülheim, Heidelberg, Faust) refrain from quantitative scaling and provide qualitative justifications to hint at the incomparability of the singular theatre productions. Rankings that scale in quantity (according to attention rates or the frequency of reviews as in Amazon16), however, increase attention for those who are already receiving attention17. Such forms of evaluation also spread in the theatre sector (Choices, K.West). They reinforce the “invisibility” of the productions not mentioned.

8 The media of theatre criticism have a second-order attention problem.
The attention filters are themselves subject to competition for attention and singularity competence18. The competition between “Theater heute” and “Theater der Zeit“, the competition between “Nachtkritik” and “TheaterMagazin” on the internet, are competitions for attention, but also for competence of judgment. For example: the advertising slogan of Friedrich Theaterverlag: “We recognize art” is the promise of reducing complexity.

9 The singularity competence for theatre criticism diffuses on the internet.
Due to the easy publication possibilities in the internet, the competence for the public assessment of singularities such as theatre productions no longer lies only with experts, but also with laymen, cf. „Nachtkritik“-Kommentare19. And the internet is an affect machine20. That is why these comments are often emotional.

10 The relationship between observation, evaluation and appropriation in theatre criticism is changing because of the internet.
Laypersons rate mainly on the basis of their experience, experts on the basis of analysis by concepts and by comparison21. But experts have to make their judgments in such a way that they are comprehensible to laypersons. Therefore, there is always a rest of appropriation experience in the judgments of experts. The tendency, however, is to expand this proportion, to the point where analytical judgments have to be attested by the emotional effect on the critic. This is due to the fact that judgments of experts (theater reviews) are in competition with lay judgments (comments, audience reviews).

11 Theatre is particularly concerned with authenticity and meta-authenticity.
Authenticity has become a central social requirement. Because authenticity is a demand in society, it is also performed outside of the theatre by people. It is created for an audience, it is not simply a gift of nature or an internal relationship of the self22. This social requirement is also extended to the theatre, also demanded from actors. They should authentically perform themselves or at least embody a role “authentically“. In theatre, however, also an ironic reconstruction of performative authenticity can be created, which gives the actor a meta-authenticity23.

12 City theatres are assets on the singularity market of the cities.
Cities are also competing in a singularity market. City politics is singularity management 24. It has to recognize existing peculiarities, develop them or, if necessary, create new ones. The city theatres are such existing special features. In order to be attractive, they must cultivate or develop a peculiarity appropriate to the city. City politics must take into account both the external impact on visitors and the attractiveness for the residents. Even for small cities there is the possibility of using niches25.

  1. Andreas Reckwitz, Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2017. The page numbers in the annotations refer to this edition.
  2. In the Theatertreffen blog 2018 Dirk Pilz has already tried to present the consequences of Reckwitz’s theory for theatre and theatre criticism. In the yearbook 2018 of “Theater heute“, Andreas Reckwitz, in conversation with Franz Wille and Eva Behrendt, has once again presented the basics of his analysis of society, though without referring to theater directly.
  3. „Die singularistische soziale Praxis nimmt grundsätzlich die Struktur einer Aufführung an, so dass Performativität ihr zentrales Charakteristikum ist. {…} Singularitäten existieren also als Singularitätsperformanzen vor einem sozialen Publikum.“ S.72
  4. „Singularitätsmärkte sind Attraktivitätsmärkte, und diese haben die doppelte Struktur von Aufmerksamkeitsmärkten, die um das Problem der Sichtbarkeit zentriert sind, und Valorisierungsmärkten, die um das Problem der Bewertung der Qualität von kultureller Einzigartigkeit kreisen.“ S.149
  5. S.64-71
  6. „Das Erleben ist ein Wahrnehmen um seiner selbst willen – ein selbstbezügliches Wahrnehmen.“ S.70 Gerhard Schulze explains the concept of experience („Erlebnis“) with “inner orientation” (p.38). The experience is not about reaching a certain external goal, but about putting yourself in a certain state. Gerhard Schulze’s study “Die Erlebnis-Gesellschaft” is the most important forerunner of Reckwitz’s analysis of society in Germany. Gerhard Schulze, Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Frankfurt/New York: Campus, 1992.
  7. „Die Grundlage ist, dass Einheiten des Sozialen im Zuge ihrer Singularisierung als Eigenkomplexitäten mit innerer Dichte begriffen werden. {…} Komplexität bedeutet bekanntlich: Es gibt eine Reihe von Elementen oder Knotenpunkten, zwischen denen Relationen, Verknüpfungen und Wechselwirkungen existieren. Wenn ein solcher Verflechtungszusammenhang gegeben ist, spricht man von Komplexität, deren Beschaffenheit als Dichte bezeichnet werden kann.”
  8. Excursus: Andreas Reckwitz and Nelson Goodman on the criterion of “density”:
    Reckwitz refers to Nelson Goodman in a note to the term “density”:
    „Anm. 43. {…} Das Konzept der Dichte entwickelt Nelson Goodman in Sprachen der Kunst. Entwurf einer Symboltheorie. Frankfurt/M. 1998, S.133ff. Goodman versteht ihn allerdings rein kunsttheoretisch, während ich ihn hier generalisiere.“ Reckwitz p.52
    The difference in the use of the term between Reckwitz and Goodman is not only the difference between theory of art and theory of society, but also between description and evaluation.
    While Reckwitz uses the term without any further definition, Goodman defines it very precisely in the context of his theory of symbols: “A scheme is syntactically dense if it provides for infinitely many characters so ordered that between each two there is a third. {…} In such a dense scheme {…} no mark can be determined to belong to one rather than to many other characters.“ Nelson Goodman, Languages ​​of Art. An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd ed. 1976 p.137. Among the four symptoms of the aesthetic, Goodman associates two with the notion of density: “Three symptoms of the aesthetic may be syntactic density, semantic density, and syntactic repleteness.“ Goodman p.252.
    Goodman expressly opposes the use of his aesthetic symptoms as criteria of aesthetic valuation: “The distinction here drawn between the aesthetic and the nonaesthetic is independent of all considerations of aesthetic value. That is as it should be {…} The symptoms of the aesthetic are not marks of merit; and a characterization of the aesthetic neither requires nor provides a definition of aesthetic excellence.“ Goodman p.255.
    Goodman defends the somewhat old-fashioned view that aesthetic experience is a form of understanding. Therefore, for him, the question of aesthetic valuation is secondary: „Works of art are not race-horses, and picking a winner is not the primary goal. {…} In short, conceiving of aesthetic experience as a form of understanding results both in resolving and devaluing of the question of aesthetic value.“ Goodman p. 262
    But according to Reckwitz, “density” in the society of singularities is a „mark of merit“ that is used to assign singularity to entities. On the other hand, Reckwitz’s entire theory is intended to be descriptive. Reckwitz does not valorize himself, but describes valorization. Should Reckwitz be understood in such a way that the new middle class adopted Goodman’s concept of “density” without knowing it, but instead of using it as a symptom of art, used it as a symptom of singularity and rated these singularities positively?
  9. S.87-92
  10. „Das Ethische wendet sich nicht an alle, sondern kommt als Dimension der Singularisierung in Form von Individualethiken und partikularen Gruppenethiken vor.“ S.90
  11. „Es werden immer sehr viel mehr neuartige Güter mit Besonderheitsanspruch kreiert und auf den Markt gebracht, als schlussendlich vom Publikum mit Interesse wahrgenommen und als Besondere anerkannt werden. Den meisten produzierten Gütern bleibt der Singularitätsanspruch versagt. {…} Verschwendung ist damit für Singularitätsmärkte nicht pathologisch, sondern konstitutiv.“ S.156. „Singularitätsgüter sind im Prinzip ungewisse Güter und kulturelle Märkte Nobody-knows-Märkte.“ S.157
  12. „Die Kulturmaschine bringt ganz generell eine strukturelle Asymmetrie zwischen einer extremen Überproduktion von Kulturformaten (und Informationen) und einer Knappheit der Aufmerksamkeit der Rezipienten hervor.“ S.238
  13.  „Die Ökonomie der Singularitäten läuft gewissermaßen im Modus der Dauerrezension.” S. 168
  14. In 1992 Gerhard Schulze described this in his analysis of “Niveaumilieu” and “Hochkulturschema”: “Auf den großen, aus eigener Kraft kaum zu bewältigenden Bewertungsbedarf des {Niveau-}Milieus antworten die Bewertungsprofessionen, deren Dienstleistung extensiv in Anspruch genommen wird {…} Damit die Welt in Ordnung ist, muss sie hierarchisiert sein.” Gerhard Schulze, a.a.O. S.285
  15. „Gerade für die Spätmoderne sind jedoch {…} Versuche kennzeichnend, zum Zwecke der Komplexitätsreduktion die absoluten Differenzen der Singularitäten in graduelle Differenzen des Allgemein-Besonderen (etwa in Form von Rankings) zu übersetzen.“ S.67
  16. „Genau eine solche Kombination von Ranking und Häufigkeitsverteilung ist charakteristisch für die Bewertung kultureller Güter auf vielen digitalen Plattformen.“ S. 177
  17. Matthew-effect: “Wer Aufmerksamkeit hat, dem wird Aufmerksamkeit gegeben.“ S.162
  18. „Bewertungs- und Aufmerksamkeitsproblem zweiter Ordnung: Welche Bewertungsinstanz ist zuverlässig und verdient es, dass man ihrerseits Aufmerksamkeit schenkt?“ S. 168
  19. „Durch die digitalen Medien {ist} die Kompetenz zur Valorisieren von kulturellen Gütern erheblich diffundiert. Sie hat sich – je nach Perspektive – demokratisiert oder nivelliert.“ S.168
  20. “Das Internet ist zu erheblichen Teilen eine Affektmaschine. Seine zirkulierenden Bestandteile erregen, unterhalten, stimmen freudig, entspannen, hetzen auf oder bewirken, dass man sich angenehm aufgehoben fühlt.“ S.234f
  21. „Der Laie bewertet die Eigenkomplexität des Gutes primär auf der Grundlage seines Erlebens. {… Der Experte}: „Er hält Abstand zur Erlebenskomponente (auch wenn die davon ausgehende Affizierung nie völlig verschwindet) und wählt einen analytischen Zugriff auf die einzelnen Elemente und Relationen, der die Eigenkomplexität und die Andersheit des Gutes herausarbeitet und zwar häufig mit dem Mittel des Vergleichs. {…} Die Kunst des qualitativen Vergleichs besteht darin, die Eigenkomplexität der Singularitäten dabei nicht (übermäßig) zu reduzieren, sondern zu bewahren.“ S.168
  22. {weil „Authentizität eine zentrale soziale Erwartung geworden ist“} „… Subjekte daher gezwungen sind, sich selbst als singulär und authentisch zu performen.“ S.247
  23. „Der Postmoderne Pop-Musiker kann seine Echtheit auf der Bühne ironisch demonstrieren (so die Bewegungen des Anti-Rockismus der 80er Jahre), er gewinnt aber durch dieses souveräne Performativitätsspiel, so es gelingt, selbst eine Authentizität, die man als Metaauthentizität umschreiben kann.“ S.139
  24. S.388
  25. Winner-take-all-Strukturen können durch den long tail relativiert werden, das heißt durch eine Variation von vielen kulturellen Nischen, die jeweils nur eine kleine, aber doch stabile Anhängerschaft um sich versammeln.“ S.393

On personal identity: adaptions of novels about resistance to totalitarian regimes in German theatre

On German stages there has recently been a surge of adaptions of novels which deal with resistance to some totalitarian society. Stage adaptions of Hans Fallada’s „Nightmare in Berlin“ („Jeder stirbt für sich allein“)1, Anna Seghers’ „The Seventh Cross“ 2, Christoph Hein’s „Trutz“3, George Orwell’s „1984“4 can bee seen in many theatres between Hamburg, Stuttgart and Vienna. In the centre, there is always a character who resists the society in which he lives, who holds on to his beliefs, his view of life, and his view of living together in a society, in adverse conditions, even under cruel torture.
It is not surprising that the bases of these productions always are novels. The form of the novel is well suited for the presentation of a central character, who  changes under varying circumstances over a longer period of time or holds on to his fundamental convictions in spite of threatening social conditions. And the latter type of novel ist particularly well suited to be adapted for the stage. On stage, the conflict between a static character and changeable  surroundings can be condensed more easily than the gradual unfolding of a character. These successfully adapted novels are no novels of development but novels of perseverance5

Flexibility or stability?

This trend can be criticised as escapism, because all these plays are set in the past (except Orwell, whose novel is set in a future which now is past). It can be  deplored as a relapse to narrative theatre which sedates a complacent audience with sentimental stories. But if the need of theatre-makers and audiences for stories like these is taken seriously, a different conclusion will be arrived at. Apart from the contemporary relevance of the political systems in which these novels are set (Nazism, Stalinism, surveillance state), another theme seems to be relevant: flexibility or stability of character, dissociation or constitution of self. This theme is what people think about because society forces it upon them.
Even if the belief that a human being remains the same person throughout his or her whole life is indispensable in everyday life and even though this concept of personal identity is of practical necessity6, this idea has nevertheless always been questioned, even in law. Although the accountability of past actions to an identical agent is one of the basic premises of law, even there relaxations of this concept can be found with gradations of accountability and statutory limitation.

Doubts about personal identity

One of the oldest documents of doubts about personal identity comes from Epicharmos, a Sicilian writer of comedies in the 5th century b.C.:
„You and me, we are different pople yesterday and different today and will be different tomorrow, never being identical according to the same law.“7
Two thousand years later, Montaigne takes up this skepticism8. But Montaigne does not only state that we all consist of „motley rags“, but also acknowledges the task to construct some kind of personal identity.
„Someone who ist not able to direct his life as a whole to  one definite aim is not able to act reasonably in his individual actions. (…) It should be considered a truly great achievement if someone always presents himself as one and the same.“9
David Hume is considered to be the principal culprit for the destruction of the idea of personal identity. In his chapter „On personal identity“ in his „Treatise of human nature“ (1738), which he did not include into the later versions of his philosophy, he dissects this idea:
„[We are] are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement.“10
Often it is neglected that this good-humoured bashing of self-identity is derived from Humes skeptical empiricist basic assumptions. Hume makes his statement – as did Kant in his answer to Hume, his transcendental deduction of the pure concepts of reason11 – in the context of theory of knowledge, not in that of psychology.
In theatre, this discussion can be traced to Henrik Ibsen. His Peer Gynt cannot discover any nucleus of his person, only peel after peel, layer on layer, as in an onion. At the end of his life he asks himself wherein his distinctive identity consists. He does not find any answer himself, only his beloved Solveig can comfort him: His uniqueness lies in her faithfulness, her hope, her love12. There is no nucleus of personality, there is only – if we are lucky – the attribution of identity from others.
Accordingly, Julian Pörksen, dramaturg of Stefan Bachmann’s production of „Peer Gynt“ in Cologne in 2017, argues against the „essentialist model“ of personal identity in an essay in the programme of this production referring to recent philosophy of mind:
„A self, a soul does not exist.“13
For Thomas Metzinger, a German philosopher, the „self-model“ is fiction. In his argument, Pörksen, however, mixes up the question of the existence of a soul with the question of how stable our image of ourselves can be. To refute Plato`s proof of the existence of the soul is an easy task after 2,500 years of philosophical history. To answer Peer’s question how he can find unity in his life after all these changeful actions, events and roles he has played is much more difficult. Thomas Metzinger in fact holds the homogeneity of consciousness to be an illusion, but he also acknowledges that the stability of our (illusionary) self-model is a precondition for self-consciousness14.
Characters with a straightforward biography are rare on stage.  Fractured characters are more interesting. One of the many followers of Peer Gynt on stage is e.g. Mary Page Marlowe, the protagonist of Tracy Letts’ play which beares her name and who the author has modeled according the example of his own mother.  The story of her life is stirred up and narrated with wild jumps in chronology. She also comes to the conclusion that she is not herself, that she does not know wherein the nucleus of her personality consists.
„I am not the person I am.“15
At the end of the play there is a symbol: no onion this time but a family quilt, a rag rug with embroidered images, complemented by every generation of the family. That is how this woman understands her life:  “it’s pretty fragile“, (nearly) „disintegrating“, „threadbare“, has „different panels“ and „brown stains“, but still „intact“, „not falling apart“16. It is a precarious unity.
The German band Tocotronic found an apt formula for this modern self-image:
„We are many /each of us – who says ‚me‘ hasn’t said anything … nothing but bla and proliferation / in us and around us / we are the world which comes into existence without understanding / the wind that constantly changes direction.“17

Stability of self-model

The contrary side, the defenders of stability of self, have a much more difficult task, in philosophy as in the theatre. It was Ibsen again, who brought the drama of the dogmatist to the stage with his play „Brand“ written in 1865 even before „Peer Gynt“. This early Ibsen play is rarely performed18. A life-story whose movement is a retreat into the dark cold of northern Norway is much less impressive on stage than Peer Gynt’s extensive tour which encompasses all the colourful tourist attractions of the world. Brand is a Norwegian pastor who leads an uncompromising fight against the tepidity and inconsequence of his christian community19. Ibsen, in fact, shows him being saved in the end by  God’s clemency. But the only German production in the last decades (Frank-Patrick Steckel in Bochum, 1993) sent the unteachable, pigheaded fellow to hell straightaway.
In ancient ethics of virtue, the ability to hold on to oneself, to keep up the unity of one’s self-image, plays only a minor role. The main aim of epicurean and stoic ethics is the ability to endure blows of fate (existential intractabilities), ataraxia, the state of inturbability. In the renaissance, this same ability is discussed under the Latin title of „constantia“20. Stability against destructive uncontrollable intrusions into one’s life from outside is different from the ability  to hold on to one’s convictions in spite of pressures or seductions to adapt. Only if the concept of an autonomous individual has become the social norm this problem arises. Only if aggressions from outside are minimised, only if lack of orientation and incentives to assimilate to others question one’s identity, faithfulness to oneself becomes the emphatically pronounced basis of existentialism: „an identification of being with itself.“21
Recent attempts to reanimate the ethics of virtue, however,  propagate the virtue of faithfulness to oneself only with restraint22. It is always connected with a warning against unteachability, stubbornness and spiritual inertness. Flexibility, openness, mobility and creativity are the qualities which are demanded from modern self today, not constancy23.
Against this background, the end of Anna Seghers’ novel „The seventh cross“ seems to be a relic from the time of existentialist emphasis on faithfulness to oneself:
„We all felt how deeply and horribly the powers from outside can intervene into men, deep into their very core, but we also felt that in the innermost there was something which was unassailable and invulnerable.“24
Anna Seghers again and again has formulated this belief, even in one of her last novellas:
„In the interior of human beings there must be an indestructible core, sometimes hidden by dust, even by mud, but then gleaming in its original brightness. It must be there.“25
Her life exemplifies this conviction and shows its dangers. Even when some of her closest friends (Walter Janka, Franz Dahlem) were convicted in the final period of Stalinism with absurd accusations, she did not relent from her solidarity with the communist party (resp. SED).
Christoph Hein, on the contrary, having experience in the opposition to the regime of the SED in the GDR, endows the hero of his novel „Trutz“ with an overdose of the ability which is decisive for a stable self-model: memory. Faithfulness to oneself presupposes ability to retrospection. Maykl Trutz, the artist of memory and archivist, remains an outsider in an oblivious society.

Stability, flexibility and narrativity

That such characters, who know exactly who they are and who cannot be dissuaded from their self-image, so often find their way onto stage these days probably is due to a subliminal need  of audiences and theatre-makers for such stability of self-image26, precisely because society demands flexibility.
Richard Sennet was one of the first who analysed this contradiction between the needs of people for stability and the demand of society for flexibility:
„Instability is meant to be normal.“ 27
„How do we decide what is lasting value in ourselves in a society which is impatient, which focuses on the immediate moment?“ 28
But Sennet also hints at how this contradiction can be solved for the individual:
„What is missing between the polar opposites of drifting experience and static assertion is a narrative which could organise his conduct.“29
The ability to narrate oneself, to find or construct connections between the actions and phases in one’s life which have become disconnected, divers and arbitrary, is the prerequisite for the reconciliation of requirements of flexibility and needs of stability.
Matthew B. Crawford has shown that this ability of finding autobiographical connections depends on how far one is able to detract attention from influences of the surroundings 30. The commercial competition for the appropriation of our attention by media, adverting, channels of communication etc. endangers this ability31.
The success of these novels of perseverance and resistance on German stages could be explained by this need: construction of a stable self-image in a flexible society with the help of narrativity. Or in Andreas Reckwitz’ terms: These heroes of resistance are authentic subjects, but not interested in „performative self-realization“32 which is required for the new middle-class. They do not lead a „curated life“33. They are no curated selves, they are narrative selves.
On stage, stories are told for us of how you can remain faithful to yourself. And that is possible only with stories, not with fragments, or only with fragments which can be assembled to stories. As our lives can.
  1. e.g. Thalia Theater Hamburg 2012, Schauspiel Bonn 2018
  2. Schauspiel Frankfurt 2017, Theater Oberhausen 2018
  3. Ruhrfestspiele Recklinghausen/ Schauspiel Hannover 2018
  4. Düsseldorfer Schauspielhaus/ Schauspiel Stuttgart 2018, Volkstheater Wien 2017
  5. The other type of novel which theatres like to adapt is that of the coming-of-age-novels. Due to dramaturg Robert Koall from Düsseldorfer Schauspielhaus they often achieve stage maturity already after one year, cf. Wolfgang Herrndorf, Tschick; Fatma Aydemir, Ellbogen; Bov Bjerg, Auerhaus.
  6. The traditional definition of personal identity can be found at John Locke: „To find wherein personal identity consists, we must consider what person stands for, which, I think, is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it: It being impossible for any one to perceive, without perceiving, that he does perceive.“ John Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding. ed. by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. (1689) Chap. XXVII Identity and Diversity, §9 p. 335
  7. (trsl. G.P.) “ὧδὲ νῦν. ὄρη καὶ τός ἀνθρώπους. ὁ μὲν γὰρ αὔξεθ᾽ ὁ δέ γα μὰν φθίνει, ἐν μεταλλαγᾶ δὲ πάντες ἐντὶ πάντα χρόνον. ὁ δὲ μεταλλάσσει κατὰ φύσιν κωὔποκ᾽ἐν τωὐτῶ μένει, ἅτερον εἴη κα τοδὴ τοῦ τοι παρεξεστακότος. καὶ τὺ δὴ κἠγὼ χθὲς ἄλλοι καὶ νὺν ἄλλοι τελέθομες, καὐθις ἄλλο κιοὔτι αὔτοὶ τελεθομες κατ τὸν λύγον.“  Hermann Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Nach der von Walther Kranz herausgegebenen achten Auflage. Mit Einführungen und Bibliographien von Gert Plamböck. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1957. S.33
  8.  „Es ist doch unwahrscheinlich, dass wir fort und fort neue Gefühlseindrücke aufnehmen könnten, wenn keine Veränderung in uns vorginge; was aber Veränderungen unterliegt, bleibt nicht ein und dasselbe; und was nicht ein und dasselbe bleibt, ist auch nicht, denn mit dem Ein-und-dasselbe-Sein gibt es, ständig aus einem anderen zu einem anderen werdend, zugleich sein Sein an sich auf.“„Apologie für Raymond Sebond“, in: Michel de Montaigne, Essays. übers. v. Hans Stilett. Frankfurt/M: Eichborn, 1998. S.300
  9. trsl. from German: G.P. „Über die Wechselhaftigkeit unseres Handelns“, in: Michel de Montaigne, Essays. ibid., S.167-168.  André Comte-Sponville quotes M. Conche’s summary of Montaigne`s attitude: „‚Die Grundlage meines Wesens und meiner Identität ist rein moralisch: sie liegt in der Treue zum Eid, den ich mir selbst geleistet habe. Ich bin nicht wirklich derselbe wie gestern; ich bin nur derselben weil ich mir dasselbe schwöre, weil ich eine bestimmte Vergangenheit als die meine anerkenne, und weil ich vorhabe, auch künftig meine gegenwärtige Verpflichtung als die meine anzuerkennen.’“ André Comte-Sponville, Ermutigung zum unzeitgemäßen Leben. Ein kleines Brevier der Tugenden und Werte. Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1996 (zuerst frz. Petit traité des grandes vertues, 1995), S. 34. (As an instance of the fickleness of human beings Montaigne tells a story of rape which today would be judged quite differently. A woman tried to commit suicide in fear of being raped by soldiers, although she previously had offered herself willingly to them according to the statements of the soldiers.)
  10.  „But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement.“ David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature. ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Second edition by P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978, p. 252.
  11.  „Das stehende und bleibende Ich (der reinen Apperzeption) macht das Correlatum aller unserer Vorstellungen aus, so fern es bloß möglich ist, sich ihrer bewusst zu werden.“ Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Hg.v. W. Weischedel. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1974, S. 178
  12. PEER: „Det var en ustyrtelig Mængde Lag!/ Kommer ikke Kjærnen snart for en Dag? / Nej-Gud om den gjør! Till det inderste indre / er altsammen Lag, – bare mindre og mindre.“ (…) PEER: „Hvor var jeg, som mig selv, som den hele, den sande?/ Hvor var jeg, med Guds Stempel paa min Pande? SOLVEJG: I min Tro, i mit Haab og i min Kjærlighed.“ Ibsen, Peer Gynt
  13. Julian Pörksen, „Selbst-Bilder“, in: Schauspiel Köln, Peer Gynt von Henrik Ibsen. Programmheft zur Inszenierung von Stefan Bachmann 2017, S.29
  14.  „Die Homogenität des phänomenalen Bewußtseins ist eine Illusion, die durch einen niedrigen Auflösungsgrad derjenigen Funktion bedingt ist, die mentale Repräsentate zu bewußten macht.“ S. 149; „Die Erzeugung eines stabilen Selbstmodells ist die Grundlage von Selbstbewußtsein und der zusammen mit ihm entstehenden psychologischen Eigenschaften.“ S. 169. Thomas Metzinger, Subjekt und Selbstmodell. Die Perspektivität phänomenalen Bewußtseins vor dem Hintergrund einer naturalistischen Theorie mentaler Repräsentation. 2. Aufl., Paderborn: mentis, 1999
  15. Tracy Letts, Mary Page Marlowe. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 2016, p.36.
  16. ibid. p.67f
  17. Trsl. G.P.„Wir sind viele / jeder einzelne von uns … wer ich sagt hat noch nichts gesagt … nichts als Quatsch und Wucherung / in uns um uns um uns herum / wir sind die Welt die dumpf entsteht / der Wind der sich beständig dreht.“ Tocotronic, Wir sind viele
  18. Käte Hamburger explains the reason for the preference of „Peer Gynt“ to „Brand“: „dass ein noch dazu liebenswürdiger Immoralismus ein reizvolleres Sujet abgibt als ein strenger Moralismus“. Käte Hamburger, Ibsens Drama in seiner Zeit. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1989 S.59
  19. The crucial dialogue of Brand and an apparition at the end of the play is the following: „SKIKKELSEN: Alle Lys i Natten slukke, /Dagens Solskjær udelukke, /aldrig Livets Frugter plukke, /aldrig løftes lindt af Sange? /O, jeg mindes dog saa mange! ​BRAND: Jeg det maa. Spild ej din Bøn. SKIKKELSEN: Glemmer du din Offerløn?/ Alt dit Løftningshaab bedrog dig; /alle sveg dig, alle slog dig! BRAND: Ej for egen Løn jeg lider; /Ej for egen Sejr jeg strider.“ (literally: „Not for my own reward I suffer /Not for my own victory I fight.“) Ibsen, Brand (Norwegian)
  20.  „Constantiam hic appello, rectum et immotum animi robur, non elati externis aut fortuitis, non depressi. Robur dixi; & intellego firmitudinem insitam animo, non ab opinione, sed a iudicio & recta ratione.“ S.26, 28.Justus Lipsius, De Constantia. Von der Standhaftigkeit. Lateinisch – Deutsch. Übersetzt, kommentiert von Florian Neumann. Mainz: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1998
  21. „Der Kern der Treue liegt in dem Entschluss absoluten Bewusstseins, durch den ein Grund gelegt wurde: eine Identifizierung im Dasein mit sich selbst. Ich ließ mich als ich selbst ein und jetzt ist Treue die Bewahrung meines Selbstseins mit dem Anderen. Sie wird objektiv in Forderungen, die im Ursprung Forderungen meiner selbst an mich sind.“ Karl Jaspers, Philosophie II. Existenzerhellung. München/Zürich: Piper, 1994 (zuerst 1932) S. 137
  22.  „Seelische Trägheit hält einen von einer Revision der eigenen Visionen ab. (…) Treuepunkte werden von Ladenketten vergeben; das Leben vergibt dergleichen Prämien nicht.“ Martin Seel, 111 Tugenden, 111 Laster. Eine philosophische Revue. Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 2011, S.193. Oder: „Die Treue ist die ‚Tugend des Selben‘, sagte Jankélévitch auch; doch in einer Welt, in der sich alles verändert – und das ist die Welt -, gibt es ein Selbes nur durch Erinnern und Wollen.“ André Comte-Sponville, Ermutigung zum unzeitgemäßen Leben. Ein kleines Brevier der Tugenden und Werte. Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1996 (zuerst frz. Petit traité des grandes vertues, 1995), S.33
  23. „Insbesondere das unbewegliche, im weitesten Sinne immobile Subjekt, verstanden als ein Selbst, dem es in seiner Persönlichkeitsstruktur an ‚Offenheit‘ mangelt, bildet hier eine negativ bewertete Gegenfigur zum kreativen Subjekt.“ Andreas Reckwitz, Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2017, S. 344
  24. Transl. G.P. Anna Seghers, Das siebte Kreuz. Berlin und Weimar: Aufbau, 1975 (zuerst Mexiko 1942) S. 423. Lars-Ole Walburg’s adaption for Theater Oberhausen 2017 left out this conclusion astonishingly.
  25. Transl. G.P. Anna Seghers, Überfahrt. Eine Liebesgeschichte. Berlin und Weimar: Aufbau Verlag 1971, S.66. Similar ibid. S.175: „In dieser sich ständig verändernden, weiterstrebenden Welt, in der wir jetzt leben, ist es gut, wenn etwas Festes in einem immer erhalten bleibt, auch wenn das Feste ein unvergessliches Leid ist.“
  26. In psychology, this need is discussed under the headings of resilience, hardiness and sense of coherence. Cf. the bestseller of advice literature: Christina Berndt, Resilienz: Das Geheimnis der psychischen Widerstandskraft. Was uns stark macht gegen Stress, Depressionen und Burn-out. München: dtv, 2015 and the survey of theories and therapies for educational purposes in: Klaus Fröhlich-Gildhoff & Maike Rönnau-Böse, Resilienz. München: Ernst Reinhardt, 2015 (=UTB 3290)
  27. Richard Sennett, The Corrosion of Character. The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W.W.Norton, 1998, p.31
  28. ibid. p.10
  29. ibid. p. 30
  30. „Autobiographical memory arises from suppressing the environment.“ p. 20. „This activity of narrative self-articulation gets under way, developmentally, with the capacity to ignore things.“ p.21. Matthew B. Crawford, The world beyond your head. On becoming an individual in an age of distraction. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015
  31.  „If we are currently facing a culturally and technologically induced trauma to our ability to suppress environmental input, that raises a big question: Is this distinctly human activity of coherence-finding at risk?“ ibid. p.21
  32. Andreas Reckwitz, a.a.O., S. 305
  33. ibid. S.295

Is there a philosophy of theatre? Part 1: Introduction

Review of Tom Stern (ed.), The Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. 209 pages

Tom Stern PTDA Titelbild

Part 1 of 5: Introduction

In Germany there are departments of theatre studies („Theaterwissenschaft“), but there is hardly any philosophy of theatre. Philosophy and theatre – in Germany you think of authors like Simmel 1 and Plessner 2 (or Schiller and Hegel), but rarely of any contemporary authors 3. Theatre studies claims to have incorporated all philosophical thought which might be relevant to theatre. What can philosophy itself still achieve with its „competence to compensate any incompetence“ 4 in view of the progressive differentiation of sciences? Can there still be a philosophy of theatre, or will there only be performance studies or „aisthesis“ 5?

The answer depends on the conception of philosophy, on the way philosophy defines itself. And – in spite of complaints about the anglification of German philosophy, about the usurpation of philosophy chairs by adherents of analytical philosophy 6 – the philosophy of theatre (and there must be something of this kind if even the taste of wine is subject of serious philosophical enquiry 7) is in no danger of such usurpation.

„We bring words back from the metaphysical to their everyday usage … The concept of clear representation is of basic importance for us.“ 8 Of course, these statements (in German) do not come from any German philosopher of theatre, but from the (Austrian) founder of English analytic philosophy, Ludwig Wittgenstein. If it is the task of philosophers to analyse and clarify concepts 9, it is a tall order to do so in respect of German theatre and its theatre studies 10.

Tom Stern, lecturer of philosophy at London’s University College11, has set himself the task of connecting philosophy and theatre. Following his introduction „Philosophy and Theatre“  12, he has now edited a collection of essays with the title „Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting“, which assembles new essays by some of the most important authors in English-speaking philosophy of theatre 13.

Alain Badiou establishes three types of relations between philosophy and art:

  • the didactic concept, according to which art is only a semblance of truth, never truth itself, therefore art is dangerous (Plato).
  • the romantic concept: Only art has access to truth (Heidegger).
  • the classic concept, the compromise: art does not convey any truth, only what is probable, but this is not dangerous (Aristotle).

Badiou believes he can counter these three models with a fourth concept of his own: art produces its own irreducible truths. 14. The authors of Stern’s collection of essays are far from such system-building schematisation. Here, concepts are analysed and clarified, indeed. What do we mean when we speak of participation, attention, masque, focus, fiction etc.?

In his preface, Stern exposes three areas of application for this type of philosophy 15.

  • Initially and surprisingly, the enlightenment of philosophy about itself through the reflection on theatre. Philosophy learns from the theatre what philosophy is.
  • And then there is the contrary: theatre learns from philosophy.
    • On the one hand, philosophy explains to the actors what they are doing.
    • And on the other hand, philosophy explains to the audience how to watch best.

But in this review four questions will be examined with the help of the essays.

  • What is the relation between philosophy and theatre (again and again)? (Part 2)
  • What does theatre (in general not a particular play or a particular production) show us about life (in general) (Part 3)
  • What kind of art is theatre, in particular contemporary theatre? (Part 4)
  • What can theatre criticism learn from the philosophy of theatre? (Part 5)



  1.  Georg Simmel, „Zur Philosophie des Schauspielers“, in: G.S., Das individuelle Gesetz. Philosophische Exkurse. hg. v. Michael Landmann, Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1987, S.75-95. Dies ist ein Text aus dem Nachlass. Zu Lebzeiten veröffentlichte Aufsätze Simmels sind: „Zur Philosophie des Schauspielers“, Der Morgen1908, „Über den Schauspieler. Aus einer Philosophie der Kunst“, Der Tag, 1909, „Der Schauspieler und die Wirklichkeit“ Berliner Tageblatt 1912.
  2.  Helmuth Plessner, „Zur Anthropologie des Schauspielers (1948)“, Gesammelte SchriftenBd. VII Ausdruck und menschliche Natur. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1982
  3.  Of course, there are famous exceptions, e.g. Christoph Menke and Juliane Rebentisch
  4.  Odo Marquard, „Inkompetenzkompensationskompetenz? Über Kompetenz und Inkompetenz der Philosophie“ Vortrag München 1973, in: O.M., Abschied vom Prinzipiellen.Stuttgart: Reclam, 1981 S.23-38
  5.  vgl. Doris Kolesch, „Ästhetik“ in: Erika Fischer-Lichte e.a. (Hg.), Handbuch Theatertheorie. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, 2. Aufl. 2014, S.6-13
  6.  Tobias Rosefeldt, „Wir sollten mit eigenen Worten denken“. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 14.10.2015 on Manfred Frank’s complaint
  7.  Barry C. Smith (ed.), Questions of Taste. The Philosophy of Wine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 and David Edmonds & Nigel Warburton, „Barry Smith über Wein“, in: D.E. & N.W., Philosophy Bites. 25 Philosophen sprechen über 25 große Themen. Stuttgart: Reclam 2013, S. 166-174
  8.  Translation G.P., “Wir führen die Wörter von ihrer metaphysischen wieder auf ihre alltägliche Verwendung zurück. (…) Der Begriff der übersichtlichen Darstellung ist für uns von grundlegender Bedeutung.“ Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1967 (zuerst 1958), S.67, 69
  9.  “Philosophers typically deal in arguments (…). They also analyse and clarify concepts.“ Nigel Warburton, Philosophy. The Basics. London: Routledge, 3rd ed. 1999. p.2
  10.  What is irritating about German theatre studies is the use of the adjective „new“ as an evaluative statement. In philosophy „true“ is the standardised evaluative adjective.
  11. http://sterntom.com
  12.  Tom Stern, Philosophy and Theatre. An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2014
  13.  German theatre studies (Theaterwissenschaft) seem to be a national peculiarity, as German communal theatre (Stadttheater), in spite of its ostentatious internationality. Only those essays which proceed historically refer to German authors: A.W. Schlegel, Hegel and Nietzsche. Only in two essays there are references to works by Erika Fischer-Lichte which have been translated into English. They occur in literature lists or annotations without being integrated into the argumentation of the main text. Marvin Carlson tries to explain in his introduction to the American edition of Fischer-Lichtes “Ästhetik des Performativen“ why in Germany theatre is at the centre of performance studies, whereas in the US all other kinds of public performances, speeches, events, are examined. Carlson points at the cultural differences as the causes for this discrepancy. Even for the theatre aficionado, which is a rare species in the US, a broadway show will be the most prominent example of theatre, whereas in Germany a production of Frank Castorf in Berlin probably will serve as standard example. (Marvin Carlson, „Perspectives on performance: Germany and America“, in: Erika Fischer-Lichte, The transformative power of performance. A new aesthetics.trsl. by Saskia Iris Jain. New York: Routledge, 2008, pp.1-10) In addition, the project of a philosophy of theatre, as its is envisaged by Tom Stern and his co-authors, seems to be pursued independently and perhaps even in competition with American performance studies.
  14.  Alain Badiou, Kleines Handbuch zur Inästhetik, 2. Auflage. übers.v. Karin Schreiner. Wien: Turin + Kant, 2012 (frz. Petit Manuel d’Inesthétique. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1998), S.9-21
  15.  Tom Stern (ed.), The Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. im Folgenden zitiert als PTDA, pp.9-11︎

Is there a philosophy of theatre? Part 2: Theatre and philosophy

Review of Tom Stern (ed.), The Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. 209 pages

Tom Stern PTDA Titelbild

Part 2 of 5: Theatre and philosophy

Even if traditional philosophy has rarely dealt with theatre (not to be confused with drama), it has always been present in philosophy as a metaphor 1. As an artform of its own, theatre, independent of drama, has hardly ever been considered. Hegel thought the art of acting to be so unimportant that he mentioned it only in some condescending remarks. The actor is a serious artist only as an „instrument on which the poet plays“ 2, whereas only „very bad products provide an occasion for the free productivity of the actor.“ 3

Starting from Hegel’s philosophy, Jennifer Ann Bates, an American expert on Hegel, therefore does not access theatre as performance, but theatre as text: Shakespeare’s drama „The Merchant of Venice“ 4.  She parallelises Hegel’s stages of the development of reason (Vernunft), especially observing reason, from „Phenomenology of Spirit“ 5 with Portia’s method of selecting a husband: the procedure of three princes choosing from three caskets. And she applies a phrase from Hegel’s philosophy of nature, „the inner of the inner“ 6, meaning the dialectical triad of universality, particularity and individuality, to Belmont, Portias domain 7. Bates believes the dangerous ambivalences of Shakespeare’s plays can be resolved (sublated, in Hegel’s sense of „aufheben“) with the help of Derrida’s playful concept of „relevant translation“ (French: „traduction relevante“, German: „relevante, d.h. aufhebende Übersetzung“) 8. In the understanding of Shakespeare’s play this means: if shylock is evil, he is not only responsible himself, but also Venetian society. A quite predictable result.

And the result of the examination of the relation of philosophy and drama is only that the stages of the development of absolute spirit, art, religion and philosophy, are not ordered according to priority, but that philosophy needs art, and drama as its highest form in particular, and that art needs philosophy. This complicated line of argument remains completely hermetically encapsulated in the conceptual cosmos of Hegel’s philosophy. Even literary theatre does not have any need for such a kind of philosophy.

Tom Stern’s own contribution to his collection of essays examines the opposite direction: what does theatre mean for philosophy? He takes the example of Nietzsche. His elegant fireworks of concepts are dismantled by Stern. Each conceptual spark is scrutinised. And, of course, he finds contradictions. To philosophers, Nietzsche recommends hiding behind a masque, but he also warns against philosophers behaving like actors 9  10. Stern resolves this contradiction by analysing three kinds of acting: the immersive, the gymnastic and the marionette-like 11.

  • – As an immersive actor you internalise the inner life of the character, you are completely immersed in his or her emotions 12.
  • – As a gymnastic actor you create signs for certain emotions which have been agreed upon with the audience, without feeling this emotion yourself 13.
  • – As a marionette-like actor you act like a puppet, as a body, without any inner involvement 14.

Nietzsche obviously warns against the first type of actor, who poses as „martyr of truth“ and is completely addicted to the applause of the audience, but Nietzsche recommends the philosopher to act behind a masque on the stage of philosophical dispute – a game of hide-and-seek for the sake of faithfulness to truth, in which the thinker does not betray himself. By approving Nietzsche to a certain degree Stern warns against a „naturalist“ interpretation of Nietzsche. “The pursuit of the naturalist philosophy will naturally undermine the possibility of its successful pursuit.“ 15



  1.  In Schelling’s „System des transzendentalen Idealismus“ the relation between freedom and historical law is illustrated with the simile of a performance of a drama whose author only exists virtually in the individual actors. F.W.J. Schelling, System des transzendentalen Idealismus. Hamburg: Meiner, 1957 (first Tübingen 1800), S.271. Hegel often uses the metaphor of theatre as well, e.g. in his introduction to his Lectures on the philosophy of history.G.W.F. Hegel, Theorie Werkausgabe Bd. 12. Frankfurt/M: 1970, S.34-35
  2.  G.W.F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik III. Theorie Werkausgabe Bd. 15. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1970 S.513 ︎
  3.  ibid. S. 516
  4.  Jennifer Ann Bates, „Hegel’s ‚Instinct of Reason‘ and Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice: What is a relevant Aufhebung of nature? of Justice?“ PTDA, pp. 15-41
  5.  G.W.F. Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes. Theorie Werkausgabe Bd.3. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1970 S.185-187 u. 233-262
  6.  G.W.F. Hegel, Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften II. Theorie Werkausgabe Bd.9. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1970 S. 22
  7.  Terry Eagleton’s interpretation of „The Merchant of Venice“ is helpful in understanding Bates’ Essay. Eagleton discovers the contrast between the general and the particular in the concept of law which Shylock and Portia interpret in different, contradictory ways. In Hegel, Bates finds a reconciliation of this contrast, a sublation to a higher level. She believes this reconciliation can also be demonstrated in details of Shakespeare’s text. Terry Eagleton, „Law: The Merchant of Venice“, in: T.E., William Shakespeare. London: Blackwell, 1986, pp.35-48
  8.  Jacques Derrida, „What is a ‚relevant Translation?“ Critical Inquiry27 (Winter 2001), p.174-200
  9.  I use the generic masculine as most authors of the collection do, although in English the female form „actress“ has always been in use. Everything said about actors in my text also refers to actresses. An appreciation of the differences between actresses and actors, which is non-feminist but influenced by Lacan, can be found in Alain Badiou, Rhapsodie für das Theater. Kurze philosophische Abhandlung. Wien: Passagen 2015, XLVI S.74-76 und LVIII-LX S. 86-90︎
  10.  Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, § 25: „Seht euch vor, ihr Philosophen und Freunde der Erkenntnis,(…) Flieht in’s Verborgene! Und habt eure Maske und Feinheit, dass man euch verwechsele! (…) Das Martyrium des Philosophen, seine »Aufopferung für die Wahrheit« zwingt an’s Licht heraus, was vom Agitator und vom Schauspieler in ihm steckte; und gesetzt, dass man ihm nur mit einer artistischen Neugierde bisher zugeschaut hat, so kann in Bezug auf manchen Philosophen der gefährliche Wunsch freilich begreiflich sein, ihn auch einmal in seiner Entartung zu sehn (entartet zum »Märtyrer«, zum Bühnen- und Tribünen-Schreihals).“ ︎
  11.  PTDA, pp. 71-74
  12. cf. Stanislawski. Stern calls this type of philosopher a “Wagnerian entertainer“ PTDA, p.78
  13. cf. Diderot︎
  14. cf. Kleist
  15.  PTDA, p.83

Is there a philosophy of theatre? Part 3: Theatre and life (as such)

Review of Tom Stern (ed.), The Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. 209 pages

Tom Stern PTDA Titelbild

Part 3 of 5: Theatre and Life (as such)

If the essays on the relation of philosophy and theatre may for those who do not believe to be philosophers remain somewhat unrewarding, the collection also contains essays that could be interesting for non-philosophers.

Lior Levy from the university of Haifa examines Jean-Paul Sartre’s concept of theatre 1 Sartre’s lecture „Epic and dramatic theatre“ of 1960 is usually understood as an attempt to find a middle ground between Brecht’s epic theatre and bourgeois theatre, i.e. as a justification of Sartre’s own type of drama. But Levy places this seemingly garrulous lecture in the context of Sartre’s systematic philosophy. He starts with explaining the difference between an „image“ and an „analogue“, as Sartre stated it in his early work „L’imaginaire“ (1940). As material objects, works of art are representing analogues . Images are, on the contrary, ideas which do not have any material existence. Levy applies this distinction to actors:

„Actors, as analogues, are present. Characters remain absent as images.“ 2

But in the theatre there are two analogues: the words of the play (or the events on stage) and the actor. The actors create images of the characters they represent for themselves. And they are analogues themselves for the audience who create images from these analogues for themselves. Theatre results from this overlapping of images 3.  4

For Sartre, action is the essence of theatre 5, not in the sense that some kind of plot must be narrated, but that the work of art which comes into existence on stage results from the action of human beings. In order to be able to act a person needs a project of himself 6. This project is not a certain aim, which a person sets himself or herself consciously, but an original act of choosing which is not directly accessible for the person acting. This original act of choosing oneself is the precondition of all particular acts of choosing. The actor also develops such a project without being able to say what it consists of when he creates an image of the character for himself 7. He does something that we also do in our lives. He enables us to recognize how we live 8 Theatre is a means of self-knowledge 9. We come to understand that the project of our life is lived by action, that we are not something or somebody before we act, but that we act first and then and therefore are something or somebody, because we are free in our actions. That is what theatre reminds us of, explains Levy.

From Tzachi Zamir’s reflections on acting we learn something else about our lives 10. He starts from a technique in acting which he calls „giving focus“. This means creating attention for another actor, diverting attention, playing down oneself. Every actor must learn that at some time. For Zamir this is a basic characteristic of all acting, not only because several actors cooperate on stage, but also because every single actor shows something, a character, a process – not himself. Contrary to the general opinion about actors – vain, hollow creatures wafted through by every breeze – and contrary to the ongoing change from actor to performer, who uses all means of increasing attention for himself 11, Zamir sees generosity as a basic virtue of acting, the ability to give attention away generously 12. He does not claim that every actor possesses this virtue, but he maintains that it necessarily results as an aim from the analysis of what acting is.

In addition Zamir refers to the function which artists have as ideal examples of shaping one’s life. Since Nietzsche the relation of the subject to his or her life is analogous to the relation of the artist to his work 13. We create and judge our lives according to aesthetic criteria. Life should be beautiful and not boring. Zamir also holds on to this analogy between artistic creation and authentic conduct of life 14. Proceeding from his analysis of the art of acting he sees other possibilities of creative self-design. Subordinating one’s own decisions to an effect which can only be achieved by a common effort can also be authentic. Thereby Zamir arrives at statements which are quite contrary to what guidebooks for leading an authentic life recommend (or the current fashion of theatre studies):

„I can choose to be a minor character in another’s life story, for example, and this decision can become a treasured part of what makes some aspects of my own life story meaningful and unique to me.“ 15

A further result of Zamir’s analysis of the deployment of attention by minor characters on stage is that empathy in theatre works in two directions. The audience feels with the characters on stage, but the actors also feel with the audience. Actors who direct the attention of the audience to another actor thereby often preempt reactions of the audience or make reactions visible which are suppressed or only half conscious in the members of the audience. As backward as this analysis might seem to defendants of the „aesthetics of the performative“, it is not naïve, it results from the close observation of actors on stage or in movies 16

It was promised we could learn something for our lives from these essays. Here it is:

„The actor’s selflessness can enrich the aesthetics of self-creation“ 17.

Learning from theatre means learning beautiful modesty. That is really good news 18.



  1.  Lior Levy, „The image and the act – Sartre on dramatic theatre“, PTDA, pp. 89-108
  2.  PTDA, p.95︎
  3.  „The interaction between actors’ and spectators’ imaginations, their joint participation in the constitution of images, makes theatre an inherently democratic art.“ PTDA, p.97
  4.  In one of Levy’s annotations the distance between anglophone philosophy of theatre and German theatre studies becomes apparent. Levy quotes from the English translation of Fischer-Lichtes Ästhetik des Performativen. Two models of the relation between performance and audience are mentioned: the traditional one with „staging strategies to stir the audience into guided and controlled responses“ and the model which originated in the ‘60s with performances „generated and determined by a self-referential feedback-loop.“ (PTDAp.106 Annotation 29). Levy groups Sartre with the second model, though he admits that for Sartre actors and spectators remain separate. Levys comment reveals his tendency to defend traditional theatre with a fixed script and a clear separation of stage and audience, but it also reveal the lack of understanding or underestimation of Fischer-Lichte’s conception of theatre. The interplay between actor and spectator in traditional theatre, even of Sartre’s variety, is definitively different from Fischer-Lichtes feedback-loop, in which actor and spectator become co-subjects or co-authors of an event. And with the model that Levy labels „traditional“ Fischer-Lichte does not refer to the middle-class theatre which originated in the 19th century, but to the attempts to create a politically activating theatre in the early 20th century, i.e. Ejsenstein and Piscator. (Erika Fischer-Lichte, Ästhetik des Performativen. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 2004, S.60)
  5.  „Il n’y a pas d’autre image au théâtre que l’image de l’acte, et si l’on veut savoir ce que c’est que le théâtre, it faut se de- mander ce que c’est qu’un acte, parce que le théâtre représents l’acte et it ne peut rien repré-senter d’autre.“ – „Es gibt kein anderes Bild im Theater als das Bild der Tat, und wenn man wissen will, was Theater ist, muss man sich fragen, was eine Tat ist, weil das Theater die Tat darstellt und nichts anderes darstellen kann.“ Jean-Paul Sartre, „Episches und dramatisches Theater“ (1960), in: J-P.S., Mythos und Realität des Theaters. Schriften zu Theater und Film 1931-1970. Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1991,S. 96︎
  6.  Heidegger’s concept, charged with ethymological meaning („Der Entwurf ist die existenzielle Seinsverfassung des Spielraums des faktischen Seinkönnens. Und als geworfenes ist das Dasein in die Seinsart des Entwerfens geworfen.“ Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 15. Aufl. 1979, S.145), changes with Sartre in French to a simple „projet“ („Toutes ces menues attentes passives du réel, toutes ces valeurs banales et quotidiennes tirent leur sens, à vrai dire, d’un premier projet de moi-même, qui est comme mon choix de mois-même dans le monde. Mai précisément, ce projet de moi vers une possibilité première, qui fait qu’il ya des valeurs, des appels, des attentes et en général un monde, ne m’apparait qu’au delà du monde comme le sens et la signification abstraits et logiques de mes enterprises.“ Jean-Paul Sartre, L’être et le néant. Essai d’ontologie phénoménologique. Paris: Gallimard, 1943, p.75
  7.  Textbooks for prospective actors try to schematize this procedure. Susan Batson e.g. writes : „Every scripted character has three basic dimensions – Public Persona, Need and Basic Flaw. Every person has the same three dimensions. In order really to act – to breathe life into a script – you must identify and explore these three dimensions in yourself.“ (Susan Batson, Truth: personas, needs and flaws in building actors and creating characters. New York: Webster\Stone, 2013 p.8) . And then all theatre characters are pinned down to these three character traits. That is, of course, not what Sartre had in mind. Sartre explains: „Totales Objekt sein könnte man entweder für die Ameisen oder für die Engel, aber als Mensch kann man es nicht für die Menschen sein.“ (Jean-Paul Sartre, „Episches und dramatisches Theater“ (1960), in: J-P.S., Mythos und Realität des Theaters. Schriften zu Theater und Film 1931-1970. Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1991, S.94. „Only for ants or angels we could be a total objects, but not as a human being for other human beings.“ Transl. G.P.) But it shows which direction an actor’s work has to pursue.
  8.  “The theatre is the place where we confront both the impossibility of knowing the project and the necessity of living it, of acting it out.“ PTDA, p.102
  9.  “Und folglich ist das, was wir wiedergewinnen wollen, wenn wir ins Theater gehen, natürlich wir selbst, aber wir selbst nicht insofern wir mehr oder weniger sentimental oder mehr oder weniger stolz auf unsere Jugend oder unsere Schönheit sind, sondern insofern wir handeln und arbeiten und auf Schwierigkeiten stoßen und Menschen sind, die Regeln haben, das heißt Regeln für diese Handlungen“. Jean-Paul Sartre, „Episches und dramatisches Theater“ a.a.O., S. 96. Levy summarizes this statement as: „Theatre is a means for self-discovery, a place where we can‚ rediscover (…) ourselves as we act‘“PTDA, p.103
  10.  Tzachi Zamir, „Giving focus“. PTDA, pp. 123-134
  11.  cf. Wolfgang Engler/Frank M. Raddatz, „Entfremdung verboten! Die Fallstricke des Authenitizitätsdikurses und die Freiheit des Spiels.“ Lettre International, No. 114 Herbst 2016, S. 52-74; or: Bernd Stegemann, „Achtung, echte Menschen“,, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 2.1.2017, and the contrary position: Christian Holtzhauer, „„Die Regeln des Spiels“, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 19.1.2017 und Eva Behrendt, , „Echte Tränen. Theaterkolumne“, Merkur, 2.1.2017
  12.  PTDA, p.129
  13.  “Die Künstler allein (…) enthüllen das Geheimnis, das böse Gewissen von jedermann, den Satz, daß jeder Mensch ein einmaliges Wunder ist; sie wagen es, uns den Menschen zu zeigen, wie er bis in jede Muskelbewegung er selbst, er allein ist, noch mehr, daß er in dieser strengen Konsequenz seiner Einzigkeit schön und betrachtenswert ist, neu und unglaublich wie jedes Werk der Natur und durchaus nicht langweilig.“ Friedrich Nietzsche, „Schopenhauer als Erzieher, in: Die Geburt der Tragödie. Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen I-IVetc. Kritische Studienausgabe Bd. 1, hg. G.Colli u. M.Montinari. München: dtv/de Gruyter, 1988, S.337f. Quoted in Engl. by Zamir, PTDA, p. 124
  14.  “Nietzsche was right to aestheticize authenticity.“ PTDA, p.128
  15.  PTDA, p.127︎
  16.  Zamir begins his essay with the example of a scene from Charly Chaplins „Goldrush“, in which Chaplin eats his shoe and is watched by another actor. Zamir is a lecturer at Hebrew University Jerusalem, so he probably is acquainted with the works of the Israeli director Yael Ronen and he has published a comprehensive study of philosophy of theatre, in which he also analyses the non-theatrical forms of performances. Tzachi Zamir, Acts. Theater, Philosophy and the performing self. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014
  17.  PTDA, p.128
  18.  Zamir’s view was confirmed recently by  Wiebke Puls’s acceptance speech when she was awarded the 3sat-prize for best actress at Theatertreffen Berlin 2018 in which she  thanked her fellow actresses and actors for the attention she has received from them. She also stressed that her success as an actress was only possible because she has had the opportunity to work in a permanent ensemble (Münchner Kammerspiele) for a long period of time.

Is there a philosophy of theatre? Part 4: Theatre as art

Review of Tom Stern (ed.), The Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. 209 pages

Tom Stern PTDA Titelbild

Part 4 of 5: Theatre as art

The status of theatre as an autonomous art of its own is unquestionable for all contributors to the collection. James R. Hamilton also presupposes this status 1. He examines the relation of observed and participatory theatre. At the beginning of his essay he analyses the various intellectual activities of a spectator in „observed“ theatre. The essential activities are „event segmentation“, i.e. structuring the flow of events into meaningful sections, and „belief-revision in time“, i.e. the perpetual adjustment of expectations what might follow in the course of the performance. Hamilton does not see any conceptual difference between „performance“ and „acting“ 2. This applies to narratively structured performances as well as to non-narrative ones. Reverting to empirical research on audience behaviour, Hamilton provides the differentiated conceptual foundation for Jacques Rancière’s claim:

„Le spectateur aussi agit.“ 3

Hamilton looks into the theory of participatory theatre in detail. There is the moral problem: participation usually means cooperation. But can it be called cooperation if spectators and performers do not pursue a common aim? Is cooperation possible without the consent of the participating spectators to a common aim or if they do not know this aim at all? Many projects of participatory theatre claim to have the license to transgress these elsewhere undisputed moral norms.

In addition, Hamilton analyses the concept of interactivity and arrives at the conclusion that it must be scalable.

„All theatre is interactive.“ 4

Observed theatre and participatory theatre only differ in the degree of their interactivity. The question only remains, which level of interactivity is sufficient for justifying the label „participatory theatre“? This type of theatre is often vindicated as offering „attention-training exercises“ 5. That leads to the question, whether this training has any consequences for the spectators when they have left the theatre. Hamilton reverts to the results of empirical research of the effects of video-games on the increase of attention of gamers. He arrives at the conclusion that interactive attention-training is in fact transferrable to other dimensions of life . The small chance that competences acquired in a training situation can be transferred to everyday life is increased by interactivity. But this effect does not depend on the level of interactivity. Even at a low level of interactivity, as in observed theatre, a transfer of the increase of attention to other areas is an observable effect. The categoric difference between passive spectators and active participants of a performance in a feedback-loop is blurred to a gradual one, in which a higher level of interactivity is not at all a prerequisite of an improved effect 6

Hamilton clearly underpins Rancière’s rehabilitation of the activity of the spectator, which was influential in Germany, but he does not mention the critical discussion of Rancière’s view in German theatre theory. Attention-training is a very modest aim compared to the „re-enchantment of the world“, which Fischer-Lichte hopes to be achieved with the aesthetics of the performative 7. Juliane Rebentisch criticizes Rancière because he does not consider the dual character of participation in art. Participation is not active learning, Rebentisch thinks. In performative works of contemporary art „participation itself becomes an object of reflection through artistic interventions“. The observing audience is made aware of observation as one form of participation among others 8. In contrast to Hamilton’s attention-training, these lofty aims of performative theatre elude empirical verification. And that is quite okay, German theory of art thinks:

„Whether such reflections in fact lead to a change of consciousness which results in practical action, is a question, which is not decided by art itself.“ 9

Theatre is a form of art among others and cooperating with others. The relationship between theatre and film suggests itself to consideration because, since the days of its appearance, film has been competitor as well as model, supplier of stories or material to be integrated into theatre. David Z. Saltz 10 sees the difference mainly on a presentational level 11. For him, the film image is a visually replete representation of a fictional world 12. „Replete“ means everything that is visible in a film image belongs to the fictional world, even the cockroach which crawls up the wall behind the protagonist unnoticed. It is not understood as a defect or accident. This does not apply to theatre. As a rule we do not believe that the theatre moths that buzz around the flood lights belong to Hamlet’s royal castle.

In addition, Saltz distinguishes between „infiction“ and „outfiction“. Usually the activity of the spectator is understood as reading a fictional narrative from the events on stage happening in the real world („outfiction“). But also the reverse process is taking place. With the help of his or her knowledge of the fictional narrative the spectator reads a certain meaning into the events on stage happening in the real world („infiction“). But this double process only applies to theatre. In film these two directions of constitution of meaning coincide. The film audience does not have to decode the meaning of visual events with the help of its previous knowledge of the fictional narrative, because film is visually replete. Saltz explains the role of infiction with the concept of „constitutive rule“ 13. Such rules are not visible, but without them the visible activity which is ruled by them would not exist at all. They are arbitrarily invented rules of the game. Such rules play an important part in theatre. Every action on stage can represent any other. The tenor sings in his aria that he will stab his enemy with a knife, but has a pistol in his hand. We have to know these rules if we want to understand theatre. And these constitutive rules differ from production to production. We have to discover them in the performance itself. Saltz calls this mode of representation „ludic“ and the mode of representation of film „pictorial“.

So far the concepts of theatre and film have been separated nicely and cleanly. But Saltz also knows about the hybrid forms. There also is (or was) a theatre that tries to be as replete as film (e.g. Alvis Hermanis’ production of „Oblomov“ in Halle Kalk of Schauspiel Cologne in 2011) 14. There are films that try to be as empty or visually scarce as theatre (e.g. Lars von Trier’s „Dogville“ of 2003). And there are musicals which should belong to the ludic genre, but are subjected to the visually replete mode of representation in musical films15. Therefore Saltz comes to the conclusion that film and theatre typically use their specific and distinct strategies, but that this correlation is culturally conditioned and changeable 16

And because these strategies can be handled so flexibly and because their use is historically and culturally conditioned, it is deplorable that Saltz’ examples are so limited in scope. He refers to Thornton Wilder’s „Happy Journey“ of 1931 and Peter Shaffer’s „Equus“ of 1973 (resp. its film version of 1977) as examples of the visual minimalism of theatre. But in the meantime, German stages have been flooded by a wave of filmic means of presentation: projection screens, film clips, live cameras on stage, interactive computer generated images etc. – every kind of hybridization is experimented with 17). It would be rewarding to try and analyse how Hamilton’s modes of representation, which mold the viewing habits of film and theatre, influence each other in this type of theatre which is so frequent today.


  1.  James R. Hamilton „What is the relationship between ‚observed‘ and ‚participatory‘ performance?“ PTDA, pp.137-164
  2. PTDA, p. 145
  3. Jacques Rancière, Le spectateur émancipé.Paris: La fabrique éditions, 2008; quoted in English by Hamilton, PTDA, p.148 ︎
  4. PTDA, p.154
  5. PTDA, p.150
  6. “… thinking of so-called participatory and observed theatre as merely marking different degrees of interactivity is important.“ PTDA, p.156 ︎
  7. Fischer-Lichte ibid., S.360 ︎
  8. Juliane Rebentisch, Theorien der Gegenwartskunst zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius, 2013, S.89. This is true of productions like Milo Raus „Mitleid. Die Geschichte des Maschinengewehrs“ („Compassion. The history of the machine gun“), Schaubühne Berlin 2016. Cf. The review in: Tageszeitung (taz) vom 19.1.2016 or in: Freitag 31.1 2016
  9. Rebentisch ibid. S.79 Translation G.P.
  10. David Z. Saltz, „Plays are games, movies are pictures: Ludic vs. pictorial representation“. PTDA, pp.165-182︎
  11. PTDA, p.168
  12. „The film image is a visually replete representation of the fictional world.“ PTDA,   p.169. Saltz adopts the concept of „repleteness“ from Nelson Goodman. Goodman compares an electrocardiogram with a drawing of Fujiama by the Japanese painter Hokusai: „Einige Aspekte, die im bildlichen Schema (Zeichnung von Hokusai) konstitutiv sind (Dicke oder Farbe der Linie usw.), (werden) im diagrammatischen Schema (Elektrokardiogramm) zu kontingenten Aspekten abgewertet; die Symbole im bildlichen Schema sind relativ voll (replete).“ Nelson Goodman, Die Sprachen der Kunst. Ein Ansatz zu einer Symboltheorie. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1973, S. 231
  13. Saltz adopts John R. Searle’s concept: „Constitutive rules constitute (and also regulate) an activity the existence of which is logically dependent on the rules.“ John R. Searle, Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969, p. 34
  14. cf. the review by Peter Michalzik  13.02.2011
  15. It is strange that Saltz does not mention the genre of opera at all.
  16. “The difference between the two mediums (…) is ontologically grounded in the sense that theatre and film are highly compatible with their characteristic modes of representation. Nonetheless, it remains historically and culturally contingent and mutable, not baked into the ontology of the two mediums.“ PTDA, p.179 ︎
  17. Kay Voges, artistic director of Schauspiel Dortmund, likes to make use of all the technical possibilities to rearrange these modes of representation. In his production of Wolfram Lotz’ play „Einige Nachrichten aus dem All“ (“Some news from outer space”) the audience watched a film version of the play on a screen for about an hour until at the end suddenly a real car smashed into the screen from behind, hovering just above the heads of the audience (cf. the review on Nachtkritik 14.09.2012). And in the project called „hell. ein augenblick“ (“light. an instant”) actors and actresses were photographed while acting visibly on stage and were immediately turned into huge static black-and-white pictures projected onto two huge screens. Two completely different modes of representation were combined and juxtaposed (cf. the review on Nachtkritik 11.02.2017︎).

Is there a philosophy of theatre? Part 5: Philosophy and theatre criticism

Review of Tom Stern (ed.), The Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. 209 pages

Tom Stern PTDA Titelbild

Part 5 of 5: Philosophy and theatre criticism

In none of the essays theatre criticism is a subject of enquiry, except for some mischievous sideswipes. But nevertheless two of the essays can be read as treatises on theatre criticism (against the grain).

Kristin Gjesdal 1 from Temple University Philadelphia examines the usually disregarded „Lectures on dramatic art and literature“ which August Wilhelm Schlegel held in Vienna in 1808. These lectures were completely ignored by philosophy, because they were seen as narrative presentation of European theatre literature. But Schlegel had in mind to combine the theory of dramatic art with its history 2. Gjesdal now lays open their theoretical nucleus. And due to the ambivalence of the concepts of „critic“ and „modern“ this can also be read as a list of requirements for theatre criticism of today3.

Gjesdal points out that Schlegel does not demand any fixed criteria of the critic, but a certain attitude. The „internal excellence“ of a work of art has to be judged. Therefore Schlegel postulates the „universality of mind“ of the „true critic or connoisseur“ 4 and the independence of „personal predilections and blind habits“ 5. Gjesdal emphasises that this independence cannot be claimed in advance, but has to be acquired through the encounter with different points of view. This kind of romantic (i.e. modern) criticism is an educational process which makes the reader understand himself better as well as the work of art. The critic should „treat the work of art as an individual and, all the same, explicate its universal dimension“ 6. The model for this apparently paradox procedure is again Shakespeare. His characters have a „concrete universality“ 7, a combination of individuality and general validity, which should serve as an example for critics 8. Contemporary theatre (Gjesdal thinks of both Schlegel’s present and ours) should „create artworks, through which modern (romantic) audiences can understand themselves“ 9. The critic should not prefer one of the life options, that a drama presents, „but should engage in a kind of syncretism that emerges from their interaction“ 10.

This description of the tasks of a critic, with which Schlegel actually referred to the critic of dramatic literature, is quite appropriate for the self-image of most theatre critics today. But it is not the image of the critic that still prevails in the minds of art theoreticians. Quite often the critic is a bogeyman which is erected in order to construct a view which can be argued against 11. It is insinuated that he claims objectivity for his judgements. But already Alfred Döblins demand „A chap must have an opinion“ 12 emphasizes the subjectivity of a theatre critic’s judgements. And since then, nearly all (German) theatre critics have similar views 13. The „independence of personal predilections“ that Schlegel demands refers to precluded judgements, which are fixed before the encounter with the work of art, i.e. the performance, and to preconceived emotional bonds to or economic dependance on certain artists. The criterion of „internal excellence“, that Schlegel advocates, means the rejection of all criteria of general validity. Flexibility is what is required of a critic to be able to engage with the peculiarities of the individual work of art. That was evident even in 1808.

Paul Woodruff 14 of the University of Texas Austin examines the question which is of vital importance for the professional critic: whether he or she should direct his or her attention to the technical side of theatre, to techniques of acting, stage set etc. Woodruff defines theatre from two sides: as the art of „making human acting worth watching (for performers), and as the art of „finding human action worth watching (for audiences)“ 15. For him, many different kinds of human actions belong to theatre: concerts, dance, improvisation, performances of scripted plays, rituals, religious ceremonies, lessons and spectator sports. Fiction and mimesis are different concepts for him, both of which do not necessarily belong to theatre. Attention to technique, however, can disturb mimetic effects of theatre. Only in pedagogy is the concentration on the” how?” of the performance desirable. The audiences have got to help mimesis along with their imagination.

But that does not apply to the critic. Woodruff comes to the sad conclusion:

„The critic’s job is not only to watch, but also to observe technique. Even at the cost of losing some joy in the experience.“ 16.

Woodruff’s examples, in accordance with his wide concept of theatre, come as well from classical music 17 as from Shakespeare 18. At the end of his essay he arrives at a somewhat milder judgement on the joy of the critic during a concert or a theatre performance. The better you are acquainted with the technical side of the performance, the less you have to concentrate on it. And then he develops a tangible criterion for artistic greatness in theatre:

„Can a performance steal the attention of educated watchers from technique?“ 19.

If a performance can elicit even in the hard-nosed critic a second naivety of emotional reaction, then it surely is great.


All the contributors of this volume write from a background of analytical philosophy. That leads to an accuracy in the explication of concepts which might seem pedantic in German eyes. But it is nearly always tied back to everyday use of language and to artistic practices. This method produces manifold illuminative insights. Only a few of the essays get lost in the jungle of theories. The concrete recourse to theatrical practice in some essays (Levy, Zamir, Hamilton, Saltz), however, demonstrates how narrow the empirical basis of these essays is. Shakespeare always is the prime example (in the historical essays it even is the German reception of Shakespeare, with Hegel, Schlegel and Nietzsche, that serves as a starting point). The multifarious experiments of American and British theatre groups are only acknowledged in abstract. Carol Churchill’s „Love and Information“ of 2012 ist the most advanced example 20. Classical German philosophy of the 19th century is screened with awe-inspiring expertise and accuracy for statements about theatre. But German theatre studies of today are hardly mentioned (similar to French philosophy 21). Not to mention German theatre productions of today. The reason might not only be the geographical distance from Germany of authors living in the USA, Israel, Australia or Britain, but also the linguistic obstacle. For the present, the internationalisation of spoken theatre is a oneway street and as long as there are different languages it will remain incomplete.


  1.  Kristin Gjesdal, „The theatre of thought: A.W. Schlegel on modern drama and romantic criticism“. PTDA, pp.43-63
  2.  „die Theorie der dramatischen Kunst mit ihrer Geschichte zu verbinden…“, August Wilhelm Schlegel, Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur. Hg. Edgar Lohner. Erster Teil. Erste Vorlesung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1966, S.17. Gjesdal: „his bottom up (rather than top-down) approach, to combine a historical and a systematic approach in aesthetics.“ PTDA, p. 44
  3. Schlegel calls „Kritik“ a mediator between theory and history. In English „Kritik“ is translated as „criticism“, and „literary criticism“ is the equivalent to „Literaturwissenschaft“. But the representative of this activity or branch of science is sometimes called „Kenner“ (connoisseur), sometimes „Kritiker“ (critic) by Schlegel. In the English translation this is nearly always „critic“. Schlegel also uses the terms „romantisch“ and „modern“ as synonyms. Accordingly Gjesdal always accompanies the word „modern“ with „romantic“ in brackets or vice versa, e.g. PTDA, p. 44, p.56. ︎
  4. „Vielseitigkeit oder Universalität des echten Kritikers“, August Wilhelm Schlegel, ibid. S. 19
  5. „Aber ein echter Kenner kann man nicht sein ohne Universalität des Geistes, d.h. ohne die Biegsamkeit, welche uns in den Stand setzt, mit Verleugnung persönlicher Vorliebe und blinder Gewöhnung, uns in die Eigenheiten anderer Völker und Zeitalter zu versetzen, sie gleichsam aus ihrem Mittelpunkte heraus zu fühlen…“ August Wilhelm Schlegel, ibid., S. 18. Quoted in Engl. at Gjesdal, PTDA, p.51
  6. Gjesdal, PTDA, p.54
  7.  Gjesdal, PTDA, p. 56
  8.  „Shakespeares ausführlich gezeichnete Personen haben unstreitig viele ganz individuelle Bestimmungen, aber zugleich eine nicht bloß für sie gültige Bedeutung: sie geben meistens eine ergründende Theorie ihrer hervorstechenden Eigenschaft an die Hand.“ August Wilhelm Schlegel, Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur. Hg. Edgar Lohner. Zweiter Teil, 26. Vorlesung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1966, S. 131.
  9. Gjesdal, PTDA, p. 56
  10.  Gjesdal, PTDA, p. 57
  11. So does Juliane Rebentisch unfortunately as well: „Traditionell wurde der Kritiker als jemand vorgestellt, der seine Autorität durch eine Distanz zum Objekt etabliert, die seine Neutralität garantieren soll – so, als ob die Grenzen dieses Selbst und jenes Objekts stabil wären. Der so verstandene ideale Kritiker ist nicht nur objektiv, also von Vorurteilen möglichst frei, er zeigt auch möglichst wenig affektive Reaktionen vor allem keine heftigen wie beispielsweise Scham, Erregung, Angst oder Ekel. Neutralität ist nach dieser Vorstellung eine Voraussetzung für die kritische Urteilspraxis.“ Juliane Rebentisch, Theorien der Gegenwartskunst zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius, 2013, S. 83 ︎
  12. Alfred Döblin, Ein Kerl muss eine Meinung haben. Berichte und Kritiken 1921-1924. München: dtv, 1981
  13. Two examples: „Der Kritiker ist nur der Sekretär seiner Eindrücke, seiner Empfindungen, seiner Erfahrungen. Hätte der Kritiker Maßstäbe, so wäre alles einfacher.“ („A critic is only the secretary of his impressions, his emotions, his experiences. If the civic had criteria, everything would be much easier“. Transl. G.P.) Georg Hensel, „Der Hordenkomiker, Alfred Kerr, Karl Valentin und Kollegen. Der Maßstab des Theaterkritikers oder Die Elle des tapferen Schneiderleins“, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 12. Mai 1990. And: „Es gibt keine allgemein gültigen Kriterien, aber man muss trotzdem Urteile fällen. Denn nur am Argument entzünden sich unterschiedliche Betrachtungsweisen, die wiederum die Kreativität des Ganzen befördern. (…) Ein Kritiker darf hassen, gerührt sein, belehren, resignieren, persönlich werden oder jubeln, solange er seine Gefühle in eine verständliche Relation zu dem Gegenstand bringt.“ („There are no general criteria, but nevertheless we have to pass judgements. Because only an argument can elicit different approaches which in consequence increase the creativity of the whole. (…) A critic is allowed to hate, be moved, teach, resignate, get personal or cheer as long as he can bring his emotions into an understandable relation to his object.“ Trsl. G.P.) Till Briegleb, „Kritiker und Theater. 10 Thesen“, in: Dramaturgie. Zeitschrift der dramaturgischen Gesellschaft*, Heft 1/2006, S. 12-13 ︎
  14. Paul Woodruff, „Attention to technique in theatre“, PTDA, pp. 109-121
  15. PTDA, p. 110
  16. PTDA, p. 114
  17. Saint-Saëns, Cello concerto op. 33; Beethoven, Piano sonata op. 101
  18. „A Midsummernight’s dream“: Theseus’s and Hippolyta’s comments as they watch the artisans’ performance
  19. PTDA, p. 120
  20.  cf. Hamilton, PTDA, p. 143
  21. With the exception of a tribute to Derrida (PTDA, p. 31) and one to Rancière (PTDA, p. 148)