The existential meaning of the art of theatre in Kierkegaard's philosophy

Abstract

In this paper, I will consider Kierkegaard's approach to the art of theatre: Does he view the art of theatre as existentially relevant to concrete existence or does he see the art per se, as well as the attendance at theatrical performances, as reflecting a break with life? One of the characteristic ways of describing the relationship between art including the art of theatre - and existence in Kierkegaard's thought, appears in the work of S. Crites: ...the modem reader is likely to be doubtful about the idealistic premises that inform his discussions of art, and may be troubled by the apparent separation of art from life, or at least from the ethical and religious centre of human existence. I This description seems justified since the theatre is a classic expression of the aesthetic stage, as the latter is described by Kierkegaard. The aesthetic stage, by its very nature, is severed from the ethical problem of concrete existence - self-choice. Moreover, Kierkegaard himself ascribes to the theatre a status of "artificial actuality" or "shadow existence. ''2 In a critique of his times Kierkegaard writes: "This public likes to transform all actuality into a theatre, to have nothing to do itself but imagine that everything anyone does happens in order for it to have something to chatter about. ''3 The theatre is a medium of the imagination and, as such, it separates man from existence. Both actor and spectator are together in an illusory world of suffering and tension, rather than experience the suffering and tension of concrete existence. 4 Kierkegaard claims that, in fact, the theatre serves to compensate man for his inability to contend with existence. In the theatre, victories never won in life come within reach.