In this chapter, I will conceptualise theatre laboratory as a historically constructed space, starting from its definition and etymology. I will compare it to the Renaissance studio and suggest directions of further study for a full historical description of this phenomenon. Evidence will draw on examples of theatre laboratory in contemporary theatre history and on Odin Teatret’s practice. Finally, I will give a close-up description of Eugenio Barba’s core concepts of mind–body and pre-expressivity.
1.1 Definition of a Volatile Concept
According to Schino (2009), it is almost impossible to define theatre laboratory because of the volatility of the concept and the large diversity of practices that can be defined as such: “theatre laboratory, workshop, atelier, taller: these are not exactly different translations or versions of the same term. Rather they indicate a mobile concept, one that spins around and off the road, even the alternative road. Consequently (and not only for this reason) it is not easy to sum up what is usually meant by theatre laboratory in the twentieth century Europe” (p. 7, original italics). In this book, however, a slightly different approach will be taken. While acknowledging the huge diversity of forms and interpretations of theatre laboratory, I will look at the similarities to be found in different traditions and practices. Moreover, I will look at the similarities between laboratory and studio.
By doing so, it is almost possible to trace a genealogy of the ideas that inspire the different theatre practices in twentieth-century Western culture.
First of all, a look at the terms that describe this concept may contribute towards a definition of theatre laboratory. The word theatre originates from the ancient Greek theaomai, a verb indicating the act of looking at, looking again, pondering (Etymonline 2016b; Pianigiani 2016b). Its artistic tradition was rooted in ritual practices of performing in a three-dimensional space with acting bodies, which an audience would look at. This looking, in ancient cultures, was associated with a sense of wonder and awe, indicating not just visual perception but an active aesthetic response. As for the second part of the term—laboratory—Schino (2009) suggests: “etymologically, a laboratory means a workshop equipped with the appropriate apparatus designed for carrying out research and experiments” (p. 149). Its origin comes from the Latin labor, a substantive indicating hard work, fatigue and hardship (Etymonline 2016a; Pianigiani 2016a). The looking intrinsic in theatre and the tasks implied in laboratory both have a special connotation. The former entails a repeated looking and contemplative attitude towards a sensation, something that arouses awe, amazement and admiration. The latter implies the doing of a task by means of hard work, a labour that is repeated, persistent and experimental. Summing up, theatre laboratory indicates a special space and a given time devoted to sustained hard work on, and reflection regarding performing and theatrical tasks. Warnet (2013) extends this definition to ensemble relationships and to a clearly stated apprenticeship learning model. According to Warnet (2013), theatre laboratory can be defined as “a specific space and time where a collective, under the direction of a master, carries out a work of experimentation within the different domains of theatrical practice, independently from the immediate necessity to produce a performance for an audience” (p. 19, my translation from French).
As already emphasised in Kuhlmann (2013), a laboratory shares with the tradition of the studio the same structures and purposes: “studija as Stanislavski called it – is historically within the theatre and performance art a concept that covers both the space and the investigating activity that takes place. The activity of studija has roots in the verb ‘to study.’ The term laboratory draws on the working dimension and will here be virtually synonymous with the studio. The theatre laboratory often constitutes a cluster of dedicated individuals, assembled with the aim to organize daily practice through a testing of techniques, primarily acting techniques, in order to be able to master various qualities of movements, actions and dynamic composition in space” (para. 32). I will adopt here Kuhlmann’s synonymous understanding of laboratory and studio and relate it to Renaissance practices in the fine arts.
Lastly, it must be emphasised that theatre laboratory shares the aforementioned general elements with other laboratory traditions, such as the science and technology laboratory or the business studio (Meisiek and Barry 2016), and it shares with artistic ateliers their specific expressive purposes. But before proceeding to examine these commonalities, I wish to make historical reference to the tradition of theatre laboratory, suggesting that theatre laboratory, in my opinion, exists if and when artists define themselves in these terms and place themselves in this tradition. It is fundamental, therefore, to be clear about which tradition we are referring to.
1.2 Rethinking Acting and Theatre: A Brief History
Historically, theatre practices that began to be defined in laboratory terms arose during the European twentieth century. However, although it is possible to trace the historical development of these experiments, several of the initiatives mentioned later in the chapter often ran side by side over a period of time. Therefore, the following chronological reconstruction is indicative and not exhaustive of the many experiments made and their organisational complexity. A thorough work has been done by Jean-Manuel Warnet in Les Laboratoires: Une Autre Histoire du Théâtre (2013), and I will therefore refer to his chronology and historical review for further details.
According to Picon-Vallin (2009) and Warnet (2013), the first theatre laboratory in Russia was the Studio Theatre, founded in 1905 with the intent of innovating acting from within. Stanislavski recruited his former pupil at the Art Theatre, actor and director Vsevolod Meyerhold (1874–1940), whose aim was to recreate the art of theatre. Meyerhold had founded a company where he made use of pedagogical means such as imitation (of his master, Stanislavski) and apprenticeship, and where young actors were exposed to more experienced ones and to a monastery-like discipline. Stanislavski called Meyerhold to manage the studio, as a means of experimentation. However, doubts on the autonomy of this initiative from the established ensemble at the Art Theatre arose from its beginning. As Meyerhold (1998) recalled, at the time it was presented as a new company in the daily newspapers and periodicals, but a company that had the task of renewing the repertoire, making it more updated (more “contemporary”) and more outgoing by means of tours in the provinces and in venues other than theatres (for instance, museums). Even the repertoire was expected to be open to performances that were not drama-based, such as poetry readings. The Studio Theatre, which Meyerhold (1998) called Theatre-Studio, was presented as a “subsidiary company of the Art Theatre” (p. 40), and commentators wondered whether this operation was going to bring authentic novelty and renewal or if the difference with Art Theatre was only in principle.
Successive to this attempt, many newly created laboratories received Meyerhold’s own signature: the Music and Drama Studio that remained only conceived in 1907, the Borodinskaya Street Studio in 1913 and the KOURMASTSEP in 1918–1919 (Picon-Vallin 2009). None of these experiments went unrecognised by the grand masters of Russian theatre, who endeavoured to join forces with these new ideas. Stanislavski was very attentive to Meyerhold’s attempts, even if their performing styles and ideologies differed greatly (the former a realist, the latter a symbolist). Meyerhold recalls: “at one time the MAT [Moscow Art Theatre] had four studios. If I let my imagination roam, I might say my theatre is also one of those studios. Not the fifth, of course, but, at the greater distance which divides us, let’s say the 255th. For I too am a pupil of Stanislavski and was graduated from his alma mater. I can find bridges between my theatre and the MAT” (Meyerhold and Hapgood 1964, p. 23).
The genealogy of theatre laboratory, as descending from the Studio Theatre, can be challenged by the evidence of Stanislavski’s own experimentation, dating long before 1905. In collaboration with Nemirovich-Danchenko, Stanislavski had already set up the Art Theatre in 1898. Their historic meeting in June 1897, when they sat in a Moscow restaurant for eighteen uninterrupted hours and conceived what was to become the Moscow Art Theatre, has entered the mythology of contemporary theatre as a transformative encounter. Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko agreed to join forces by pooling their acting companies and founding a novel, modern ensemble. The vision behind their creation expressed the need felt for cultural renewal and was at the core of the even more experimental initiatives to come. Although their purpose was common to theatre laboratories, that is, the innovation and renewal of acting and theatre, the organisational structure was still that of the classic theatre company and the pedagogical routines were targeted at the scheduled theatre productions. However, Stanislavski was regularly exposing his actors to new techniques and approaches. A need for a more experimental space was growing in him, and the Art Theatre might be seen, in this sense, as a predecessor to the studios and laboratories to come. Only the laboratory turn, though, allowed to focus unambiguously on the specific missions of a true art theatre and a research theatre: to regenerate, to explore and to transmit (Warnet 2013, p. 29). Finally, in September 1912, Stanislavski opened the First Studio as an artistic and pedagogical experiment. During the preceding two years, he had attempted to experiment within his Art Theatre but had found the structure unsuitable. In his retrospective look at these attempts, Stanislavski (2008) had to admit that a clear break with the official theatre school and theatre production was needed in order to let experimentation flourish: “laboratory work cannot be done in the theatre itself, with its daily performances, its concerns over the budget and the box office, its heavy artistic commitments and the practical difficulties of a large enterprise” (p. 301). As Schino (2009) notes, experimentation (for instance, within Stanislavski’s Art Theatre) does not necessarily imply the establishment of theatre laboratory (as Stanislavski’s First Studio may be defined). What makes theatre research a laboratory is its sustained, free and explorative mindset, together with the awareness of and commitment to a research programme. In reality, though, the Art Theatre and the studios lived a parallel existence in their diversity and variety of organisational structures and aesthetic choices.
Other innovators in contemporary theatre such as Yevgeny Vakhtangov and Mikhail Chekhov founded laboratories or studios, and this tradition spread rapidly from Russia throughout the United States. From 1905 onwards, a few actors from the Art Theatre visited New York and some stayed in the United States, beginning to disseminate Stanislavski’s teaching (Gray 1964). In 1923, the Art Theatre made a triumphant tour of the United States, and Stanislavski’s system became a matter of curiosity, so much so that his book My Life in Art was published in English the next year. The American Laboratory Theatre was founded in 1923 when Richard Boleslavsky and Maria Ouspenskaya, two former students of Stanislavski, decided to teach the Stanislavski system to American actors. This first overseas laboratory was followed by the Group Theatre in 1931 and the Actors Studio in 1947. The American venture, which is too complex and significant to fully discuss here, crystallised around Strasberg’s interpretation of the Stanislavski method. In reality, according to Foster Hirsch (1984), it would be more correct to define Stanislavski’s concept as a “system” and Strasberg’s interpretation of it a “method.” Even though strictly related by a common genealogy and united by shared visions, the two practices remained separated by their context of work and by a specific theatre ideology. The method and the system, indeed, successively divided the traditions of theatre laboratories against the background of the acting practices proposed. Strasberg’s method, based on Stanislavski’s earlier draft of his reflections on acting, failed to integrate his later developments, which aimed at broadening the spectrum of psychological memory and actions to a major role of physical actions on emotional memory. Owing to this gap, studios and laboratories settled on—seemingly—opposite identities. In reality, as Sergei Tcherkasski (2016) explains, the idea that Stanislavski’s conceptualisation can be divided in two completely separate and disconnected periods is wrong and oversimplified. When Stanislavski develops his most recent ideas on physical actions, he also makes use of his previous experimentation on emotions and psychology, transferring the earlier insights into a holistic model (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1
Historical overview of the development of theatre laboratory
Selected milestones | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Year | Name | Founder | Place |
1898 | Moscow Art Theatre | Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko | Moscow, Russia |
1905 | Studio Theatre (also known as Theatre-Studio; in French, Théâtre-Studio) | Stanislavski and Meyerhold | Pozharskaya Street Theatre, Moscow, Russia |
1907 | Music and Drama Studio | Meyerhold | Conceived, but not realised |
1912 | First Studio | Stanislavski | Moscow, Russia |
1913 | Borodinskaya Street Studio | Meyerhold | St. Petersburg, Russia |
1915/6 | Second Studio | Vakhtang L. Mchedelov and Stanislavski | Moscow, Russia |
1918–1919 | KOURMASTSEP | Meyerhold and Gripich | Russia |
1920 | Third Studio (also known as Studio Vakhtangov) | Vakhtangov | Moscow, Russia |
1923 | American Laboratory Theatre | Boleslavsky and Ouspenskaya | New York, NY, USA |
1931 | Group Theatre | Strasberg, Clurman, Crawford... | |