ENCOUNTERS IN LANDSCAPES: SCENOGRAPHY, LANDSCAPE AND MEMORY IN ESTONIAN OPEN-AIR PERFORMANCES

Abstract

1. Introduction In open-air theatre, the site of performance can be regarded as instrumental to the performance. Theatre is synthesizing form of art, where different art forms complement one another and contribute to the process of meaning-making. Performing in 'found space' (1), which is the case in open-air theatre, makes the question even more acute. While the stage in conventional theatre building is usually designed to act as relatively neutral ground to enable and foster the creation of different stage worlds, found space is embedded with meanings of its own. In this paper, open-air theatre is discussed solely within the limits of found space, where the landscape is used as fictional setting for the performance. During the last decade, open-air performances in actual landscapes have become increasingly popular in Estonia. A brief survey of professional open-air productions that have premiered in Estonia during the past five years (nearly 60 in total), shows that slightly over 60% were given in found spaces. Depending on the scenographic strategies, the actual landscape can be used as stage to act on, or it can be reduced to scenery, backdrop to perform against. Regardless of the scope of new meanings assigned to the visible elements, the production does not erase or replace the existent memory entirely even for the time of the performance. This phenomenological study maps the problems related to the use of landscape related memory regarding the creation of scenographic setting. In the first part I will take look at the structure of landscape and its relationship to memory, the second chapter concentrates on the strategies used in employing landscape-related memory in theatre. Examples in the choice of location and scenographic solutions that address the problems of landscape perception will be addressed in the third part. 2. Landscape, memory, theatre Both living in and looking at landscape can be regarded as acts of remembering, which, however, provide different tools and different strategies for approaching memory related to the particular landscape. In the holistic view (as also used in this paper) landscape includes different interfaces that involve time, space, mental and material modes as well as several agents (see Palang et al. 2004). Landscape is regarded as totality that comprises the natural environment and human agency, physical landscape and meanings and values attached to it. Composed of simultaneously existing elements from various periods landscapes have layered structure, where some layers can be more sustainable than others. The different periods hardly ever erase all elements of past formations in their physical or mental modes. Metaphorically speaking, landscape is palimpsest, a pattern of historic memory that consists of visible and invisible traces (Palang et al 2004:163). The invisible parts, whether personal memories, family stories, legends, historic events, are partly connected to the existence of physical landscape elements. Landscape-related memory (both personal and collective) depends on the physical site, as well as on people who reciprocally support each other. In the following, I will take look at some of the specific characteristics of the physical landscape that contribute to its functioning as memory device. The philosopher Edward Casey (1987:189) suggests that the structure of landscape itself contributes to its capability to store memories and open them up for recollection. A horizon that constitutes its defining border serves as an enclosing function; it provides focus and guarantees the integrity of the inside. It acts like girdle that keeps the contents together. By enclosing the landscape elements, as well as the perceiver, it offers direct contact with landscape-related memory. Casey's thinking is closely linked to Maurice Merleau-Ponty, which is instrumental regarding the connection between body and space. …