Ambient Space in Twentieth-Century Theatre: The Space of Silence

DEAN WILCOX

l .H ... Al'PRO.\CH: OCCUPIH> PLACE ANO lJNl)IFff.RENTIATH>

SPACE

The conccp1 of space a' an clement ()f thcalrical presentation i'i as old a.' 1he medium itself. Space has hccn consistently engaged and manipul:ucd: from the natural space thar ·urroundc<l rhe earliest Greek theatres: ro the dispersed i.paL·e that typifies medieval performance: to the containment and control of illusiDnary ~pace in the Rcnaissam:c culmina1ing in lhe "fourth-wall" realism of the modern era. While the expression of space may vary in the above exam­ple!\, mu: thing rcmnins constant: u superimposition of tcxtualily onto sparial­ity in which the inhcrcnl qualities of the space arc suhsumed hy 1he locating fon.:e of the narrative. The natural world in the Greek rcrformance is easily linked to the exterior of Agamemnon·s palace. the frngmcntary quality of per­formance in the Middle Ages conveys a secluded spot where Ahraham intends tu sa1:rifice Isaac, 1hc interior of a banquet hall is magically tran~formeJ into a city :meet. and the familiar proscenium arch theatre hccomcs rhc home that Nora inevitahly escapes.

The process 31 work in cai.:h of these examples is one 001 unfamiliar 10 1he­alre audience~ and scholars. Throughou1 the history of 1hea1re, "sr:ice" ha..; been viewed as a palimpsest that has the potential lo tran~pnrt its viewers to Elsinore one day. lale nineteenth-century s~:an<linavia the nc111 . and a fr:ig­mcntcd postmodern lands~arc that barely rcscmblcti either the day after that. While tacitly addressed as "spa..:c," what is really at work in each of these examples is the creation of a 1heatrirnl place that usurps lhc distinct qualities of the given S('Qfl'. The question 1ha1 this essay :idJrcsscs i!i whether there is an ahcmate arpro:ich to thealrical space lhat allows srace to be space by cmhrai:ing ii a!. a fundumental component of lhe dramatic struclure. By draw­ing on a v:iriety of cxamrles. this paper argues 1ha1 space. indcrcndent of a

Mm/em Drama. 4tq !Wimer ::?OOJ) ~-P

Ambienr Space .543

locating narrative. must be considered as much a part nf the contemporary 1hcacrc as such slamJarJ clements a" character. plot. anJ dialogue.

In Space and Pfau: The Perspt'1.·tfre of Experience geographer Yi-Fu Tuan highlights the difference between the two conccpls hy Jiscussing "place" as "space" thal is endowed with value. In opposition lo this iJea of place. space remains thal area of abstract place. unfamiliar and undiffercnciated hy a unique .. ystem of values. In a nod to posrstructuralist thought. Tuan is careful lo emphasize rh:u the ideas of"space" and "place" are nol mutually exclusive. but tend to merge via experience. each requiring Che ocher for dcliniliun . Through his observations Tuan rai ses tbe question. Can one have a place with­ou1 space. or 1he idea of space wichout its more defined opposite'? It is through his denolation of space as "more ahstract than ' place '" (6) chat Tuan offers convenient categories to illuminate the spatial properties of the stage.

Relining 1his idea in his philosophical/historical overview. Tiie Fate of Place. Edward Casey argues. in relation to the work of such postmodern theo­rises as Foucault. Derrida. Bachclard. Benjamin. and Tuan. 1hat "the impor­tance of place is a conviccion that place itself is no fixed thing: it has no steadfast essence" 1286). For each of these theorists. plal·c is nt)I a stahlc entity. but "pan of something ongoing and dynamic" (286). As a perpetual process place is continuall>· defined and redefined with regards to a variety of sociological criteria. nol lcasl of which is our own hody's relacinn to chc 'iur­rounJing space. As Casey points out elsewhere. "To be in the world. to be sit­uated at all. is to be in place"' <Getting xv). When linked with Tuan\ experiential focus. the significance of che hody in Casey's work suggests that we under rand 1hc idea of i.pacc and place primarily because we inhabic them physically and mentally. Tuan's observations share wilh Casey's discussion of pla1:c the dynamic inceraction of prcscnc bodily forms. yt~t where space and place Jiverge is in relation to 1hosc same bodies. Summuri1,ing chc work of the sixth-century philosopher and theologian Philoponus. Casey explores a dis­tinction made bc1ween "hodily extension" ("c4uivalcnc lo chc particular place occupieJ hy a given physical body"> and .. spatial extcnsi1'l1f' (which "need not. in principle. be occupieJ hy any given hody or group of hodic;;: rather than being the room of a hoJy. it gives room ji1r a hody") (Fure 9.i. emphasis in original).

This distinction offers the potential for pla<:c 10 be contained within unJif­rercntiatcd space. but it negates space when confronted by a body laking it up :ind defining it a. a specific place. Place. within such a descripcion. needs to be occupied, and when occupied, it cca.~s to be space . Space. on the other hand. offers the polenti31 for occupation withoul the limiting quality of th31 Jcfini­tion. In chis 1erminology, place. then. is viewed as <lcfincd. specific. occupied. whcrcas space offers 1he poccntial for occupation. which endows ic with lhe apparent quality of infinile emptiness.

Complic3ting these ohscrv3tions 1s the fact lhat whik we experience space

544 Of.AN WILCOX

and place within the world via our bodies and our intcllcd, we are very often confronted hy 1hesc ideas in the 1hea1re in a largely visual way. Left with only 1he residual notion of our bodies in relation to wha1 we see on stage, theatre has lhc potential to disrupt Casey's idea that to he in the world means to he in place. In many pcrfonnance situations we arc less present in the sense of grounding our experience in our bodie!> within a stage situation than we are voyeuristic. looking in from 1he outside. Ccnainly. one could argue lhat the hodics onstage are capable of representing our offstage bodies in a mimclic extension or humanity. However, the work or theatre anists like Oskar Sd1Jcmmcr. Samuel Bcckcll. and Richard Foreman demons1rates 1ha1 an architectural. abse.nt. repetitive. or otherwise "un-rcalisric" use of the bo<ly of the pcrfonner(s) (which can be extended to other manifest theatrical clements like objects. settings. and costumes) can disrupt not only the mimetic exchange belwcen stage and audiem.:e. but have an effect on 1he m:cupation and location of the slage space.

I find Tuan's definition atlrai:tivc, specifically in relation 10 lhcatrkal space, in that he docs not begin. as many thcorb.ts of the stage do. with an assumption of representation or mimetic intention. As a geographer Tuan approaches space via social. architectural. and. as th1.~ title of his book indi­cates. a pcrspectival and experiential focus. As his concept of both space and place arc not defined independent of human interaction. his ohscrvations are predominantly devoted to discussing how humans organize space. not how they organize theatrical space to represent tm absent place.

Casey's fo1.:us on the historical arc of place share-s with Tuari"s work an avoidance of rhc mimetic bias. While Casey's project is largely devoted to reclaiming the prominence of place in philosophy - which he secs a ... a oncc­central concern of such voices a~ Aristotle's and then subsumed by discus­sions cemereJ on the vastness of space - this essay is focused on extricating space from theatrical place, largely because space. as defined by Tuan and Casey, has rarely held a position of prominence in theatrical writing. By examining philosophical and geographical notions of space and place. 1hese two theorisls offer a phenomenological approach to spatiality that is groundcJ in the idea of being-there-in-space independent of mimesis, an idea that serves this present exploration quite well.

THE FOU NDATION: THEATRICAi. SPACE AND DRAMATIC PLACE

As the examples cited above indicate, theatre practitioners have been organiz­ing space since 1he moment tbe medium came into being. The simple distinc­tion between "perfonncr" and ·•spectator" not only indicates the complex negotiation of role·playing. but also dis1inctions of space: defined simply as "performance space·· and "audience space." While 1hese divisions are cer­tainly nexiblc (clearly the nuid pcrfomtcr/spectator relationship in the Middle

Ambient Space 545

Ages is not identical to the forced separation necessary for pcrspcctivc or real­istic pcrformam:e). they do indicate that at lc:c.t part of the history of the the­atre has hccn devoted to partitioning space.

One of the dearest indications of this division is found in Tuan·s observa­tions. If space ha.'> the quality of being abstract. undifferentiated. and unfamil­iar. it hardly connotes the necessary distinciion lo discuss a bifurc:uion of sp:ice. And yet. Tuan·s definition of place as something more specific. dclincd, and endowed with value allows those dis1inctio11' to flourish to create Agamemnon 's palace. Abraham's scdusion. Nora's home. Theatre ha~ excelled at utilizing an adaptable space thal is then endowed with a place­value via lighting. setting. properties. costume. sound. the role of the per­former. and the te~t. But the question remains: What harpcns to the undiffer­entiated space of the stage in the process of denoting a specilic dramatic location'!

In the most general .;cnse. as each production establishes a stamp or place within the adaptable space of !he thcacre. che idea or spu1iuli1y can oscill:ue between 1wo poles. On the one hand. artisls working with a narrative expressed by a text manipulalc the spatial propcrtie" of !he stage lo form a rep­resentational platform in whil·h architectural arrangements work to cs1ablish an illusion of place as funct ional or decorative ~upport for the text. II is this division between tc~I and space that Una Chaudhuri refers to in StaRing Place: The Ge111:rc1pli_v nf Modt•rn Drama as the ··relationship of theatrical spacl· and dramatic place .. ( 17). Transpiring in this process is a superimposi­tion of dramatic place onto the lheatrical space that favor-. the value system of 1he drama over the ahstnu.:t 4uality of the space. It is rhis 1m~css that charges all "empty" stage space with a kind 11f psychic energy derived from the text. All space within the confines of the pcrfom1ancc location is then "theatrknl­ized .. and viewed through a textual or narrative frame. becoming part of the illu~ory place.

In contrast to this process. and very often in collusion with the illusion. practitioners have a tendency lo deny the spatiality of the stage hy veiling it in thick. dark velour. offset hy contained and focused ligh1ing. thereby creating a void. an act of camouOage as deceptive as the act of illusion. A "line" is drawn separating thcatricalizcd space from offstage spal'C akin to the separa­tion of audience and pcrfonncr. dearly delineating the cxlent of the narrative or pcrformalive frame. Most spectators understand that while sitting in a the­atre scat the confines of Nora ·s home do not extend beyond the line of the proscenium to incorporate their location. As far as Nora anJ her house arc concerned. the spectalors do not really exist. While it may appear lhal this example allows at leas! a portion of the represent:llional "place" of the theatre 10 be discussed as "space,'' the acl of disguising space creates the absence or space, something to be ignored. as if a sign were hung staling, "Pay no atten­tion to the space behind this curtain ...

l>l~A WILCOX

In either case. illu ·ory rlacc or camoul1aged sracc. Tuan's concept of sracc as more abstracl 1han place is not embraccJ by 1he above citamrlcs. The assumption Iha! this is a fundamental quality of 1hea1ricality ignores the poten­tial for space to remain unJiffcrcntiateJ in relation to pcrfonnance. This assump1ion is unJerscored hy Anne Ubcrsfeld's rmclamation thal "ltlheatri­cal space is, first of all. a stage l<x:us that must be constructed'" (95). Even a cursory overview of stuJies devoted to 1hcatrical sracc will reveal liule anen­tion lo space independent of drnmatic place. Most critics. Chaudhuri and Uhcn;feld included. begin their discussion of space with the performer who is delincd as a vehicle for the text. As the lm~ly of the performer cnicrs the per­formance localion. the assumption is that its mere presence. defined by Casey as a quality of placeness. grounds unJifferentiated space within the narrative action, !hereby limiling the potential for space to est.:apc representation.

h it possible, however. lo arproach lhis assumption as II llaluralizcd idea and examine a type of 1heatrc in which the manipulation of form, location, movement. and the imcraction of the performer. stage. and textual clements allows space 10 remain sracc :md nm be subsumed by the narralivc? Can we llcgin not with a presumed plac:cncss i:rcatcd by 1he performers body. not the realization of rlace. hul the idea of potential place held at bay hy lhca1rical space"? This, of course, woulJ be a frui1lesi. entcrrri!>t: if n(l use fol examrtes cxish:d: therefore. lhc ccnlral c1l11ccm of thio; essay is 10 develop a theoretical pcrspecti"·c on this issue of spai.:c hy examining lhe work of various modem/ rostmodcm 1hcatrc practitioner~ such as Si.:hlemmcr. Beckcll. and Foreman.

While the traditional approach to lhcalrical sracc has been lO ground it in 1hc 1ex1 and thereby endow ii with narrative conlcnt. there arc a number of 1we111icth-ccntury anisls who resist this form of analysis. Any aucmpt 10 read the work uf people like Schlemmer. Rcckctt, and Foreman solcl)' within the context of traditional spatial representation is ultima1ely frustrated by the anti­mimetic 4uality of their work in performance. II is for this reason thal I set out to explore lhcalrical spai.:c unconstrained by dramalic superimposition: I use Tuan's geographical i.:ommcnls combined with Casey's bodily placement as a base in which the focus is on spai.:c ddincd hy social and physical parameters independcm of a locating narrative. While this essay docs not auempt a com· plcte re-evaluation of the work of these artists by offering startling new obser­vations, it docs use lheir work, with a reliance on al le.as! 111aci1 understanding on the part of the reader. as examples t<l create a model of modem/postmodern spatial representation thal differs from 1hc above, more traditional apprnachcs.

While cenain of the following examples may initially appear unconnected (as the material on John Cage will. no doubt). the structure of the essay func· tions like any :m:hitcctural arrangemenl in which only certain informatiM can be gleaned from the outside. It is only hy going deeper into rhe structure that 1he fullness Clf the composition is revealed. My intent is to prcsenl a sequence of fragmentary examples thal cohere inlo a larger argument by the condusion

Amhient Space 547

uf lhc essay. These examples. which I have termed .. exhibit ... :• arc just tha1: exhihitinns of work that cmhraces pace as ~pace in a phenomenolngicnl man­ner. I do not offer extensive infonnation on each of the examples. hut assert. through the invucatjon and combin:ttion of !hem. that the use of undifferenti­ated space hy twentieth-century rheatrc arti!>ts moved hcyoml mere camnu· nage and illusion 10 become a useful dramaturgical <kvicc as powerful as any spcdfh~J dramatic place.

I H THE AltGUMl·.NT : TH E Sl'ACF. OF Sil. E NC i-. - THI· I EGACV llJ- 4 J:\

In 11)5 ~ the composer/philosopher/poet John Cagl' brought to rhc fore the con­cept of silence within our contemporary artistic repcnnire tiy presenting his now legendary cum position / 3_?". in whil·h pianist David Tudor. the piece's original imerprcter. followed the notes of the wurk 's thn:c movements but ,·rc­atcd no deliberate or intentional sounds. As Cage state-;, "I wrote / 3J'' note by note and all the notes "ere siknt .. Cl have nothing to say"). Cage forced hi~ audience. and all audiences since then. to fncus on the ambicnl sounds that an: present at all pcrfom1ative activities. hut generally di~mi)lscd as not pan of the intended piece. A"' Cage point11 out. the initial audience <.if this compo~it1u11

"mi'lscd the point. There ·~ no sud1 1hing a' )lilcncc. Whar they 1hought was silence. 1 •• • I because 111\!y d1dn 't know how to listen . was full of accidental o;ound," hjtd. 111 Ko'\1cla11erz 65 l. In a very real .;ensc. the legacy of /.u" is a challenge to presumrtion:. in which the idea of nothingne~s mu:.t tic addres-;cd a)I eminently filled with something. be it sound . light. energy, and l>O on.

r>cspitc Lhc compositillll of s ilent note:. and the bchd that "the material of musk is sound and silence. landl in1cgra1ing lhcsc is composing" (Cage. "I have no1hing to say"}, there is no silence in Cage's famous "si lent" composi­tion. In this sense 1hc idea of silence as an abstract cnnccpl is analogous lo Tuan·., obscrvalions about sracc as abs1rac1 place lh:ll Uf'peurs unfamiliar am.I undifferentiated. and yet ha.~ an unmistakable presence of its own. While 1hc space may not be endowed with lhe same defining 4ualities with which we approach place. it is not absenr: in foci it i~ very mur h presen1. That which is meant to tic ~ilcnt in a traditional pcrfurmam:e situation j,. generally ignored. a:-. is undifferentiated space. and yet the sound of this silence and 1he presence of thi" space arc more than t:onccptually apJlarcnt since they arc alway)I defined in relational to surrounding clements. Framing a span of time of four minutes and thirty-three sccnncls. Cage set off "silence" from the sound that surrounded it an<l discovered that th i~ silcnce.1hb nothingness. had suhs1ancc.

Building on Cage's idea of ~ilcn~e. I argue lhat this filled nothingness i" pan of our late-twentieth. early twenty-first century theatrical pulcne in a spa­tiul as well a~ an audible i;en . .;c. While it may apJlCar that the u~c of Cage's notinn of silence as the theoretical lynchpin of thi~ essay wan<ler!I far afield from the queMion of spatiality. the lwo concepts - .;pai:e and silence - !!hare a

l'>EAN WILC'llX

number of crucial properties. How can one Jescribe silence or space wi1hout rci.orting to tem1s like ahsrnce, lack, undefined. and so on'! Like silence. space i'i generally amorphous and defined in relation to other elcmcnls - silence is the lack of sound. space the lack of a defined place. Both share the illusion of emptiness. when in reality they arc a..; subs1antivc as their more defined opposites.

The correlation between lhe two ideas transcenJs a mere metaphorical con­nection. Leaving a legacy ()f white canvases. silent musical compositions. empty stages. :md blank page:;. 1wcn1ieth-century art chullengcJ traditional approaches by placing marginalized material in lhe center. It is for rhis reason that the discussion of Cage's work forms !he essay's central argument. oct·u­pying a prominent location prior to a discussion of Schlemmer, llcckell. and Foreman. Jusl as Cage turned our attention to the wealth of sound in non­sound. contemporary theatre artists have challenged our notions of sp~e to go hcyonJ an illu~ion of reality or a negation of presence 10 allow space as a non­different iatcd medium to function as a palpable entity . In a nod to Derrida's dec:onstructive rhetoric. we are left with the sound of silence. the presence of absence.

This is not a meaningless acaJemic exercise limilcd to a small circle or avant-garde nrtists, hut like much of the experimentation in the twentieth-cen­tury. it is :m idea that had a profound effect Oil the types or 4uestions jX)SCd and the type of material aJdrcsscd by contemporary ;:inists. Al> Cage points out. "I W le huJ to conceive or i.ilcnce in QrJcr to open our cars" (qtd . in Rcvill 164). With his "silent" composition he illuminated the potential for artistic frames 10 allow the ephemeral clements of our daily life to be perceived as an. whether it be in a theatre. a museum. a home. or created through the tension hctwcen the artificial and the natural. This is nut In say that in a post-Cagean world the potential for dramatic place has been eliminated. but Cage's sugges­tion that there is a great deal in any performance situation thal is suppressed or goes unnoticed provides the tools for illuminating theatrical spa1.:c indepen­dent of narrative value. As Lhc following examples will explore, theatrical objects. movement. language. light. architecture. and sound can he used to disguise space or to help to focus attention onto space as space. and keep it from hcing suhsumed by camouflage and illusion.

EXHIBIT A: HIE THE.>\TRic. OF Tl!E BAUHAU S

From 1923 to 19::?9 the Bauhaus stage workshop, under the direction of the visual 3Mist Oskar Schlemmer. was concerned primarily with thrce­dimensional figures in space. Schlemmer was not interested in using the theatre as a place In explore character development. plot structure. or narrative; rather. he was engaged in using the theatre as a location in which to experience the abstract 4uality of space.

Ambient Space 549

Exploring this concept he asks ... Man. the human organism, stands in the cubical. abstract space of the stage. Man and Space. Each has different laws or order. Whose shall prevail?" ("Man" 22). For Schlemmer. this space must he adapted to the human form or the human fonn must be recast to fit the mold of the stage. Rather than follow the more traditional path and adjui1t the anificial stage space. Schlemmer SQught to unify the human fom1 with ahstract space hy transfonninl! his actors into a kind of ambulant architecture. and thereby limiting the placcmeot quality of the human body. Through movement and the interaction of space and costume the spc..:tator became more aware of the abstra~:t - not rhc representational - 4uality of the stage. With this in mind. Schlemmer argues, "We can imagine plays whose 'plots' consist or nothing more than the pure movement of fonns. color, and lighf' ("Theater" 88).

With a rerfonnance medium focused on form rather than narrative. Schlemmer was able to explore stage space that transcended camounage aml illusion. By embracing thearrical sp~-c rather than dramatit: pince and manip­ulating the formal propenies of the stage. the notion of space - not a."i some­thing hidden or contingent on the narrative but a tangihle elemen1. much like Cage's use of the non-silence of any concen hall for his "silent" composition - was embraced as an integral component or lhc dramaturgy. While it may he rossible to discuss all theatrical activity as contingent uron u dialogue hctwcen pcrfom1er and spal.'.c. that interchange is quite often grounded in a construction of dramatic place. The unique elemcni or Schlemmer's work wa.;; 1hat hy reversing the hierarchy and favoring 1hc abmact and artificial space ewer the naturaJness of the performer. thereby nullifying the 4uestion of mimesis. space not place became the defining quality of the pcrfonnance.

This is not to say that a narrative trajcclory was completely abandoned. The movement and artificiality of the forms in spnce subsumed it, and the spatial narratives enacted in su..:h pieces as the Triadic Ballet were l'Onstructed not on character or dialogue. but on the interoction of &he formal properties of line. shape, color, and movement. Even a cursory glance al Schlemmer's diagrams, in which costumes accentuate the spatial a.;; opposed to human qualities or the performers. reveals the formal and dramatic possibilities contained within these spatial propenies. as tension, resolution. duration. and movement are explwed through the manipulation of forms in space. Viewed as artificial and therefore abstracted fmm the human form. the theatrical work at the Bauhaus bypassed the idea of representational place and absent space to promote what Michel de Ccrtcau sees as a defining quality of space in that it "takes into con­sideration vectors of direction. velocities, and time variables." and is, like Schlemmcr's work at the Bauhaus, "composed of intersections of mobile ele­ments" ( 117). While often categorized a~ "dance" rather than "theatre." rhe work at the Bauhaus that created a theatre of movement. form, color. and ligh1 suggests an alternative to the more traditional textual superimposition on the­atrical space. Schlemmer and his cohon at the Bauhaus produced a legacy or

550

thealrical experimen1a1ion that not only limited 1hc li1crary clcmcnl of perfor­mance. bul established spocc <L" a fundamental component of 1hc dramatic structure.

EXlllBH B: REC KE TTIAN SPAC F.

The pauses in Samuel Beckel!':. work seem 10 indicate a kind of Cagean silence (never simply pauses but always filled wilh somclhingJ. in !hat his dra­maturgy works toward an energi7.ing of whal must 1101 be con .. idcred simply empty space. In the :ire or Bcckc1rs career as a Jrumat1st he moved from 1hc "expansive .. space of W<1iti11g for Godot, discrete in i1s c:reali(ln of a neutral yet illusionistic place ("A country road. A tree" Ifill to an ever-increasing minimalism in which the "empty s1age" resonated with dramatic possibilities. In his descrip1ion of Brt1atlr. a " lflaint light on stage" illuminalc'> "miscella­neous rubbish." An inhalation of breath is aud1hle as lhe lights rise: "Silence and hold about five seconds ... An exhalation of brcalh then follows: "Silence and hold abnul fi ve :.econds'' {Collected Shorted Plays 2 t 1 ). While Bcdeu·s hypcr-specifici1y could never be confused wi1h Cage's use of cha111:e and non­detennined a,·tions. 1he entire piece rests. like Cage's 4'.u". on the spec1a1or's anticipation of somc1hing. and 1hc reali1at inn 1ha1 the mind is enrnuraged 10 wander ahout thi:. mental. physkal. and aud ihle space.

In Beckett' Nm I. a :.olirary mouth hovcrli eight feet arnwe the stage. o;ur­ruunded by :m cxpan:.c of "empty~ stage space. accompanied hy an "auditor'' cnwloped from head to foot in black. It is in this ahsencc of a defined loca­lion. indeed the absence or any dc1cm1ined pla1:e save the blackened theatre. thal Beckel! allows the space of 1he stage tn resnnatc a pre~nce with its pre­sumed abse111:e, forcing the spectator to confront a plasticity of space created by the visual and dr:una1ic tension among the auditor. 1hc mouth. and the sur­rounding sracc. Thi:. is nC1 illu:.it>nary performance in which rumi~hing)o, and propcnies Jefinc and ltll:atc a specific plal·c. Nor is it an imagined auditorium like thal from. say. N11nsen.w.'. in which lhc audience playt- the part of an imagined au<liencl' in an illusionary space for an illusory performance. Rather. Beckcll created a dramalurgical struc1urc in which 1hc space of the lheatre is addressed us space am.I not as an illusionary plat:c. It is with this understanding 1ha1 Beckett was able tn side step the notion of dramatic place to allow the thealrical space to take precedence. and like Cage 's work with the non-siknce of l .u". illuminalc the power and presence of 1ha1 which is presumed empty.

The question may anse as to whether Bcde11'o; use of o;pace here i)I not along the lines or camouflage since he designates the space t\l be darkened with the exception of the "faintly lit" mouth and auditor (Collected Shorter Plays 216). llu1 th is faintly lit spncc is not. like the line between the:atricalizcd and offstage space. a dear divi ;;ion of signifying locales. Bcckcn use:. - ra1hcr

Ambienr Space

than disguise!> - thi:. space since it is not intended to be ignored: it is an inte­gral component of the stage composition. Not I docs not prcscnl a negation or space. with the image of a mouth that stands in complete, isolation, but a rela­tional spm.:c in which the mouth and the non-defined space of the theatre con­tinually internet. Unlike camounagcd space in whh:h offstage space could presumably not exist or 'iCmiotically be subsumed into the narrative since it is possible to imagine someone passing from an on~tage room to one located off­stage. Beckett 's construction of Nm I is dcpcndcnt upon an expanse of "empty'' space and would collapse were it removed.

As Ubersfcld point!\ ou1. "Spatialization cnn he created from dialogue" (96): more specifically ahout Beckett"s work. she states that he "can make do with an undefined space that is perpetually reshaped by the actors" ( 1 t 9). But in the case of Not I, unJelined space is perpetually reshaped by 1he absence of one of the central performers. save the illuminated mouth. By manipulating the appearante of the pcrfonner in the same sense that Schlcmmer's work at the Bauhaus manipulated the fom1 . Beckett ' ~ lack of a body. like Schlem­mcr's ambulant architecture. helps limit mimesis and redistrihulc focus onto the !>pace present in performance. This gcMurc is. as Casey's comment about placement and rhc body o;uggcsts. one of unseating the lo1:ating force or Lhc hody onstagc to pcm1it the space of the stage to bcrnmc a central clement of the perfomlUnce. It is lhis point 1hat reinforce!> the hallucinogenic quality of Not/. By removing the hnJy of the performer. or at least limiting the body to the image of a mouth. Beckett creates a sense of space as well as of placclcss­ness. something Casey describes as eliciting the emotional response of "homcsickncs~ ... "disorientation." "depression." and "desolation" 1Ge11in>: x). phrases certainly not completely foreign to Beckett 's rather hleak theatrit:al landscapes. As a playwright Beckel! uses rather than ignores the undefined spal'C of the stage. and hy usurping the power of this spm:c in direct relation to the text exhibit~ a sense of non-place that i:. very much present in perfor­mance.

Even a simple glance at the text for Nor I might lead the reader to assume that the piel·c is a met:iphor for birth. death. purgatory. or insanity. The ambi­guity of the text in performance. however. is compounded hy the surrounding undclincd space, complete with an auditor who periodically makes a gesture of "helpless compa:1sio11" (Collected Shorter Plays 2 t 5). As Martin Esslin points oul about Beckett's dramaturgy. it is "the m·rrall impcJ('f of a single uver-whelmingly powerful image'" composed or variuui; theatrical fragments that the audience should expect to take home and not a clear understanding of "'the complex story lines and intellectual puz.zJcs they enshrine" ( 123, empha­sis in original). While Beckel! creates an atmosphere from text. im:ige. spai:.-e. and action that may not he clearly or directly defined. each spectator is able to endow this. undifferentiated space with value via the performance. As specta­tors we become pan or Bt~cken's undefined lanllscapc with our perceptions as

Of.AN WILCOX

we attempt to dedphcr 1he con .. ·ergence of text and images conditioned by our reception of undisguised theatrical space.

Rather than using performance specificity to counterpoint textual ambigu­ity, Beckett increasingly worked to strip the stage of a defined spatial repre­sentation, leaving space itself. It is this deliberate nchulousness in Beckett"s work that was ohviously so much of a concern for the dramatist 1ha1 in refer­ence to JoAnne Akalaitis's controversial 1984 production of EndRamr. which transponed the text from a nondescript room with a rolling chair. a window. and two dustbins 10 a subway station. he stated. "IA )ny production which ignores my ~lage directions is completely unacceptable to me" (qtd. in Brater JO). In this sense. Beckett 's "places .. become Cagean silent spaces in which our individual ohscrvations as speclalors mingle with ambienl sound and amhienl spa~e to help differentiate. via text and image. a unique system or val­ues created nol hy the production. hut through the in1erac1ion of production and spectator.

EXHIRIT C : fOREMAN'S PH ENOM ENOLOGICAL SPACE

Writer/direclor Richard Foreman creates theatrical vista." in which, echoing Beckett 's work. space tales precedence over place. Avoiding traditional dra­matic elements like character development and linear plot structure. his work with lhe Ontologi"~I Hysteric Theatre provides the audience with an aware­ness of perception that focuses attention on relat ionships in space and lime. A~ geographer Marc Auge comments in Non-P/oct•s: lntrod1u-1i1111 lo an Anthro­po/010· of S111,~rmodt'r11i1y. " IA Ill re lations that are inscribed in space arc also inscribed in time" (5!n, and the perpetual rcpctition 1ha1 dominates Furcman ·s work reinforces this lcmporal a.<ipcct or spatiality. As the stage designer and theorist Adolphe Appia points oul . ''In space. units of time arc cxpres-;ed hy a succession of forms, hcm:c mo't·emcnt. In time. space is expressed hy a soc­ccssion of w~'rds and sounds" (7-8). Indeed. while the categories of space and time are often discussed separately. 1hc synthesis of lhc 1wo. grounded in the now of the perfonnancc as constructed by a !>.UC\."Cssion of fonns and move­ment\, are a" intcnwined a."i Foreman's text and staging.

Heavily influcnc.:ed by the writings or Genrude Stein. Foreman acknowl­edges this convergence hy working to sculpl time as well as space. Building on S1ein's notion of a .. prolonged present" (25). Foreman shapes space-time 1hrough the manipulation or sounds. word'I, and movements, often repeating gestures and text to the point of impeding the presumed forward momentum of the performance. Like de Ccncau·s idea of the exiMcnce of space via vec­tors of direction. vclocilics. and time variahles, Foreman )hapcs space a." he manipulates time. Rut it is this impediment to fol""·ard momentum 1hat is the key 10 Foreman 's dircclorial style. since !he perceptions of the spectator 1ha1 transpire in that prolonged momcnl hccome the focal point of the performance

Ambient Space 553

insread of a dimaclic narrative arc. Unlike a rcalisric approach lo the sparial division between spectator and pcrfonncr - something Chaudhuri discusses as "a logic of representation to which the spcc1ator was. essentially. an obstacle. a hindrance. an inconvenience .. (9) - Foreman's thcarrical approach is depen­dent upon the pcrcertual engagement and ranicipation of the spcctator. Rather than present a bifurc:ate<l space. as in a more traditional narrative. Fore­man offers a kind of shared space hetwcen actors and audience that is reminis­cent of Bcckerl's work.

In c.Jcfercnce to Stein's c.lcscrirtion of thearrc as a landscape in which cle­ments onstagc arc always in relation to other objects and images (Stein 77). Foreman poinL.; out, "Thl.'re's no denying that my main interest in the theatre is ~·ompositional. that I am iruerestcd in the interplay of all the clements" ("Both Halves" 17). For Foreman, rheatre space is nnl a place of illusion or a void. but "an cnvironmcnr for the rext to explore, a gymnasium for a psychic. sriritual. and physical work-out" (U11halancin.~ _54). HI.' state". "The sets arc em:lnsed spac:es. hut in no sense should the audience feel it is pecking through an imaginary. transparent founh wall. lnsread. the action of rhc play should hounce against the three walls of rhc stage. then mn with the trick surface of a founh wall that the audicnc:e is continually. vaguely. reminded of' (58).

In his rroductions Foreman rcpcalcdly .. dividclsl anc.I rcdivit:k:lsl. dcfinc[ s l and redcfincls I" space. in whic.h relationships arc emphasized .. until space itself bcrnmes as ·pla..;tic' as the objects. people. and activities in it" (Davy 41 ). By u1ili1.ing a kind of perspective grid created by the taught strings thal are a hallmark of Foreman's directorial style, 1hc interaction of objec1s. words. anc.I actions arc foregrounded as clements arc visually and spatially connected via 1hesc strin!?s. As Bonnie Marranca stalei.. Foreman uses this theatrical ele­mcnl as a means of ·•pointing out ccrcajn corrcspondet1'·cs between lhc wore.ls and the images. When a performer. for example. draws a string from one end of the space Ill another until it touches a person nr object. that person or object is defined in an exact point of time and space" (R-Q). II is this aspect of physi­cal and temporal definition. something Casey might dcscribc as creating place by taking up srace. tha1 allows Foreman to call attention 10 the stage space thal surrounds his performers. Since he offers little in the! way of a defining narrative context. the occupied place..; arc defined nol in rclalion to a definitive sense of location hut in relation to each other. al1011.·ing Foreman to highlight the presumed emptiness that stanch hetwecn them.

In Foreman's theatre. the gap between objects. like the expanse surrounding the mouth in Not I. can be viewed as a kind of "pure" lheatrical space in the phenomenological sense. This gap is to he perceived as space. not concealed or defined by its representational or illusionary t1u:llities, but sp<icc as space. the thing itself. It is this energized spat:c, produced by the visual tension hctwcen concrete stage clements that punctuates space. bringing it into focus the way Cage brought sound into focus by enL·omra.~sing it with silence. This

554 l>b\N Wll CO\

i" a process that Richard S..:hci.:hncr Jesaibcll a~ .. aniculating"' )tpa..:c in which one creates a means of "'Jelling the spai.:c have ils say"' ( 12. emphasis in origi­nal). C:ige understood thal 1he aclion of prc;;enting preconceived sound demands lhc suppression of amhicnl sound m the 'iamc way tha1 a representa­tional place demands camounagc and illusmn to narrow 1hc field of perccp-1ion and therehy suppress amhicnl "pace. snmclhing that Foreman avoids with his uni4ue directorial style.

In contra~! 10 supprc)tsing space. anil.:ulaling -;p~e j-; nnl "a mean<; of doing whal you wan! lo do in it, but of unrnvering whal 1hc space is, how it is con­s1ruc1cd. what i1s variou.; rhylhms arc .. <Schec:hner 12). While Schci.:hner"s observations arc dcvorcd to the crcalion of ··environmental theatre." his com­ments arc applicatllc lo Foreman'i. dirc":torial style !hat work'i to illuminate ambient space by expanding the sJlCl·lator's perceplion lo fill !he entire 1hea1ri­cal venue. As Foreman points out. ··1 try lo make a 'llage pklure in whu.:h every ini.:h of !he stage dynamically panicipates in the momen1-hy-momen1 composilion of 1hc piece" (Unha/cJ11ci11g 55). While Foreman may not phy)ti­cally '"Jefonn"' or negate lhc presence of his performers in 1hc !.amc way 1hal Schlemmer or Bedell did. 1hc rcpcti1io11 and phcnumcnologi1:al exploralion of movements. ges1urc-.. and language dearly place foreman's performances in a tategory different from camounage or illu .. ion. h is this composi1ional style 1ha1. unlike an illu~ionary approach lo the 'ilagc. i.:onccmralcs a11cn1ion nnlo spai.:e that is generally suppreso;cd. and m.c Cage's amplification of "'silcni.:c,"' leis lhc spai.:c haw ils say.

CONCLUSION : THE Al-.STHF.TICS OF AMBIENT SP.\Cf.

The 4ues1ion may arise a.; In the appropria1cnes-. or dcscrihing a progression in the use of space from 1he Bauhaus lo Bcdcn to Foreman. Ohviou'lly. 1he)tc anis1s have different spatial acsthctii:)t - the Rauhaus opling for a kind of dance-oriented exploration of space. Bcl.'kcll preferring a minimalist approach holh in text and landst:apc that h:b lhe dcanline~s of a modcm1s1 s1ruc1urc hy Corhusier. while Foreman's spaces have the duucrcd. messy foci of postmod­ern exces)t - yet there is a 4uality lo 1hl: way in whil.:h each uses space that allows for a discus,ion of development from Bauhausian roots through Bcck­en's lale modernist approach lo Foreman':; poslmodemism.

There arc. howe\·cr. <.·crtain es)>Cnlial differences. Schlemmer"s work at the Bauhaus re)ttcd on a formal exploration of slage clements - shape. line. color. movement - as an appro:k.:h 10 anificial .;pace. 1hc pcri.:cplioo of which hccamc the f<X·al poinl of the rcrformance activity. The central idea \\as to remove from rhc 1hca1re what Mnholy-Nagy refers lo as .. literary cncum­hranc:e'" in which lhc stage becomes a vehicle for literature '"fom1ulatcd or visually expressed without the crca1ive forms peculiar only 10 the s1age'" (50). In the hands of people like Schlemmer the slage hcc:amc a lahora1ory lo

Ambienl Space 555

disrnver. manipulate. and e~plorc the intrinsic form of the anifidal stage space.

Hecken's forces the audience to wrestle with a planne.d amhiguity located in an undifferentiated theatrical space. In deference to hoth Beckell and the Bauhaus, Foreman's work is constructed on the action of lhe audience wah.:h­ing themselves watch. While Bcckcn 's works may be more absorbing in the sense 1hat we arc drawn into the images and tcx1 by grappling with their ambi­guity, Foreman 's Brechtian impulses. such as shining light in the spectators' eyes. the use of buzzers. 1huds. tape loops. and other loud noises. continually interrupt this type of spcclalor association and force the audience to he aware of their own pcrceptions a..-. they are simultaneously perceiving them.

Dc.~pite differences. all 1hrce eschew the more traditional focus on the con­struction of a definite and stable dramalic place lo draw on a phenomenology of spa1:e 10 struc1ure 1hcir stage images. Like Ca!!e's use of 1he ambient sound rrese111 at the moment of perfQnnance. Schlemmer. 8ccke11. and Foreman manipulatt' the role of the pcrfonncr and focus anent ion 011 the prcscnl space of the theatn: and the immedia1c perception of that presence. Through juxta­position of text, objects. light. images. and actions they utilize space as sp:1cc, nol as reprcscmative of an illusory place or a negated presence.

Thcalre 1hu1 is focused 011 a linear narra1ivl' demands lhat the thc:urical space rcnct.:t an clement of rlace: lhat is. it musl represent. even al a facile level. a defined and value-laden location. Clearly, this locale need noi remain stable for the entire performance. but can change as the theatrical space is transformed into a series uf dramati1: rlaccs complete with all of the necessary signifiers of such a pla1:c - properties. lighting. movement. gesture. text. and so on. II is in 1h1s respe.c1 lhat 1hc bodies of the pcrfonners, both narratively through the tcllt and [lhysically through their placement, help contain and limit undefined spai:e by creating a sense of place. This is a form of theatre in which pure space is held aloof or ignored as not integral to the narrati\'e. In various theatrical fom1s. such as the thcalrc of 1hc Bauhaus and Beckett and Foreman's work. space is not only allowed to he space. but is also embraced as such. as an integral componc111 of the dramaturgy. As exhibited in the work of the three an·isls discussed. amhicn1 space. not simply emptiness or illusion, but an encrgii'.Cd visual field highlighwd by lhe relationships among concrete stage clements. is a..; much a pan of the contemporary stage anist's palette a:; chara1:1er. plot, or dialogue.

In the interplay between absence and presence. illusion and camounagc dominate space. forcing ii Ill bend 10 their whims by disguising or negaling its presence. In a post-Cagcan landscape the concept of space demands 10 be addressed nol simply as a gap separating materia l objects within lhc context of the narrative or something to be ignored by wrapping ii in velour and dark­ness. but as a positively charged phy.,ical entity. Just as C:ige turned our atten­tion Ill 1he wealth of sounds that pcnneatc what had been considered silence.

Uh\N WI! COX

i:ontemporary composers of the stage have challenged 1he traditional approach 10 thcatrkal space and made u:. aware of amh1ent space. independent of repre­sentation and negation, and h:a1cd at 1hc perceptual intersection of ohjccts. actions. and text. II i~ 1hc concept of an "cncrgi1.cd" space produced by the dynamic interaction of concrete stage elements that :allows the "silence" of the pcrfonnance sp:acc 10 assen i1s presence. and ii is 1his notion of spatiality 1ha1 we as critic:s. Jramaturgs . dirci:tors. designers, and playwrights have inherited from our (flost)modcm prcdcccs-;ors.

WORKS CITE!>

Appia. Adolphe. "The Wur._ or Livmg Art. " Tran'i. H. 0. Alhrighl. The Wod or Liv­ing Art and Man is the Measure of All Things. Coral G:ihles. FL: U 11r Miami P.

196o. 1-1111. Auge, Marc. Nm1-Pluc·.-s · /n1rod11ct""' to on A nthr11p11ln,r:,\' 11/ S11p1•rmodrrmry. Lon-

don: Verso. 191}5. Bcd•cll. Samuel. c,,//ected Slrortt•r Plays. New Yurl: Grove, 19N..J. ---. ira11111,J( for Godot. New Y or._: Grove. 195.i. Bratcr. Enoch. llryontl M1mn1t1/1sm H<•rkett's Late St,1ft• 111 tlu• Tlteuter. Ne11. York :

0.t.ford UP. 1987. Cage, John. "I ha,·e nuthini: lo o;:sy an.I I am 'iayini; ii." ProJ. Mu.,1c Project for Teh:\1-

~inn. WNET/Ne11. Yorl and Lol;i Film ... Videnrecordmg. llim'IC Vhion, 11)()0. Casey. EJwarJ. Tltt' Foti' t!f Plun· A Pl11los1111Jrirnl Hisrlll'y Berkeley: lJ 11rr11lifomia

P. t997. ---. Getti11x 811cli. 1n111 Plt1cr. Tmnird a Rt·nt·wed U11d1•r.wandinx 11/ 1/u• Plucr·

H orld. Blm1mington: Indiana UP. 199.l· Chaudhuri. Una. Sta,11111,11 Plt1cl': Thi• Ge11gr11111ty of M11ih•rn l>n1111u . 1,nn Arbor: U or

Michigan P. 1995. Davy. Kate. R11 hard F11remu111111tl thr Onrolo,11ii ul-HysrerlC' Tltl'utn-. 1\nn Amur: UMI

Research P. 19M 1. de Ccrteau. Michel. Thr Prur1ir·e 11/ Ei·t>rydu\' L1fr. Tran' Ste\e Rendall. Berkeley:

U or C:ilifomia P. 19M4. Esslio. Martin. Mecl1af/11n.s E.m1y.r 11n Rrrx ht. HrcJ.:1•1t. and tlw Mt'{ftu. 19(12. Balon

Roui:e: Louisiana St:ile UP. 19!10.

Foreman. Ri1.:h:1nl. "Roth llalve~ nf Ri.:hard F11rcman " Interview" 1th Anhur Bar1<1" . Amt'ricun Tht't11rt• July/Augusl 11187: 15-1M+.

- --. Unhalundn,11Ac1.r Fmmdutim1sf11ra TIU'11tr1'. New York: Thealrl! Cc1mmuni · cation~ Group. 199:.

Grorius. Walter, eJ. The T/i(•u1er 11/ rhe H1111l11111s. Tran~. Arthur S. Wen,ingcr. M1Jdle-1own, CT: Wesleyan UP. 1961.

Kos1elanc1z. Richard. ed. C11111·ersing ll'itlt Cage. New York: Limeligh1, 19M8. Mammca, B1mnie, ed. Tire Theutrr of Images. New York: PAJ Publi1.:a1i11n~. 1977. Moholy-N3gy. Laszlo. "Theater. Circus. Variety." Grnriu~ 49-70.

Ambienl Space

Rcvill. David. Tlrt Rouritr,I/ S1ltnct': John CaRt. A life. Ne" York: Arcade, 11}<)2.

Schcchncr. Richard. E111·iro11mental Theater. New Y urk: Hawthorn. 1 y73. Schlemmer. Oskar. '"Man and An Figure ... Grnpiu~ 17- 46. - - -.'"Theater (Biihnel." Gropius 81-103.

557

Stein. Gcnrudc. Wri1i11gs ""'' uc·u1res tyt 1-1y45. EJ. Patnl."ia Meycrov.·it1_ London: Owen, 1967.

Tuan. Yi-Fu. Space and Plaa : Tiii' Ptrspecril'e oj £ fpenrnce . Minncapoli~ : U of Minnesola P. 1977.

Uhcr~frld. Anne. Rc•cJdm~ Tl11•utrt' . Trans. Frank Cullin.;. Toronto: U ur Tnronlo P.

1999.

Copyright of Modern Drama is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.