Abstract

.In Ukrainian, the online search for “theatre directing system” provides over seventy thousand results, while the search for “theatre system” over four thousand, which is proof ofthese concepts to be quite widespread. However, comparing the content ofthe search query is disappointing, asit reveals the oversaturation of art history with various terms that serve asshallow labels: different scholars use these terms differently under different circumstances and in different periods. This can be illustrated with many examples, yet, the most elementary would be the most telling: anyone can count the number of some objects, for instance, of apples in a basket, as we know the features that distinguish an apple from a non-apple. Nevertheless, no proper theatre researcher or practitioner would dare to name the number of theatre directing systems, as the boundaries of this concept are too vague. At most, what could be listed isthe number of popular, “iconic” systems; and yet, any given number would be true and false at the same time. The same is accurate for the concept of an “artwork”: according toMarcel Duchamp, itis enough only to label any object as art and place itin the “art space.” This paper addresses a “(theatre) directing system”: the history ofthe concept, its essence, and its features that define the scope of its use.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call