Conclusion

Abstract

The chemical metaphor used throughout the book derives from my understanding of theatre as art, in which theatre is seen not only as whatever occurs on the stage, but as a complicated communication process, by which a sort of feed-back is established between the phenomenology of the stage, the denoted fictional realm and the mind of the spectator. These were described as chemical retorts, in which all sorts of reactions take place, and which interact with one another as if in communication vessels, culminating in cognitive and aesthetic pleasure. It is only through the reactions between the three retorts that theatrical meaning is established. This metaphor enabled the author to make an attempt to define theatre, which today, when the demarcation lines between different arts and life have become blurred if not altogether erased, may be regarded as a somewhat risky undertaking. Especially in the present day, when, following the example of art, we are silenced by strict and omnipresent demands that we should give up the traditional humanist longing for clearly defined categories. We are told that definitions and demarcations are suspect and reactionary; so is theory. There is no doubt that performance art, body art, video art and the like have entered the theatre on a large scale during the last two decades or so, and some aspects of theatricality are clearly noticeable in the unbelievably complex and varied forms of what art is today. But this does not mean that we cannot distinguish between the particular artistic disciplines, and it seems, as this book attempts to show, that time may be the key factor in enabling us to make specific distinctions. Moreover, the interaction between art, new media and theatre can be extremely fruitful, as for instance The Wooster Group has shown us, but, again, this does not mean that we have to treat them as one artistic phenomenon.