Essay -- Body, Installation, Theater

Chapter One: The Body

1.1 Body in performance arts and performance art

It may be easy to confuse performance art with performance arts. The term “performance art” might have been invented because of the close relationship between the form of art and theatre. Performance in theatre requires adequate preparation, repeated rehearsal, planned action and words, and the relationship between the performer/performance and the viewer/viewing. In most of the traditional theatre, the performer does not show what they really are—they are playing a time-defined, fictional role. On the contrary, performance art attempts to express the essential self. In some works of performance art, the viewers play an important role; they are participants, giving unpredictability to the work. “Performance is a mental and physical construction that the performer makes in a specific time in a space in front of an audience, and then energy dialogue happens. The audience and the performer make the piece together. And the difference between performance and theatre is huge. In the theatre, the knife is not a knife, and the blood is just ketchup. In the performance, the blood is the material, and the razor blade or knife is the tool. It’s all about being there in the real-time, and you can’t rehearse performance, because you can’t do many of these types of things twice --ever” said Marina Abramović, defining the performance art in a TED lecture. In Abramović’s work titled Rhythm 0 (1974), the work was created in the process—the audience members acted on the artist. The audience’s reaction was unpredictable and out of the artist’s control. Meanwhile, the artist played herself but no one else; all the symbolic power came from her body, not from any disguise. Another instance is her work The Artist is Present, performed at MoMA, New York in 2010. The one communicating with the audience in the work was the artist herself. “The art of the ‘real body’ does not pertain to the truth of a visible form, but refers back to its essential content... The body is not perceived as the repository of an artistic essence: it is seen as a kind of hermeneutic image.” feminist artist Mary Kelly wrote in her article

2020-03-09 上午2.53.43.png

Left: Marina Abramović, Rhythm 0, 1974
Right: Marina Abramović, The Artist is Present, 2010

“Re-viewing Modernist Criticism” (1981). When the artist puts herself into action, what she creates is herself and the symbolic meaning of her combined as a work.

I think theatre acting is a very good example of performance arts. Theatre acting is a comprehensive form which may include plays, operas and acrobatics... A detailed history of theatre will no bet presented here but a few typical genres given as examples, together with an explanation of the expression of the body in these genres:

Commedia dell'Arte, a form of improvised comedy originating from Italy in the Renaissance. This form depends more on the improvised performance of the actor rather on the playwright (the improvisation is based on the main plot and scene). The actors have abilities of different types and levels. They wear masks and are unable to use their facial expression. Instead, their body movements are one of the main media for expression. Each actor has a unique mask and style.
Eastern theatre, including Japanese Kabuki,
Chinese Peking Opera and Kun Opera. Body movements (dance) are heavily involved in these genres, which share extensive use of multiple expression approaches: the narration comprises dialogues, songs and dance; historical events, myths and fictions are the main sources for the story. The form itself is the denotation and connotation.

In traditional theatre, body performance is for expressing the plot. The body is a theatre language, not the purpose of theatre; it is an implication, a tool. Performance arts emphasizes the direction of denotation and the external symbol represented by the performer, namely, the performance; while in performance art the body serves itself and the artist uses the symbol brought by the body to create. Performance art emphasizes expression and revelation rather than narration.

1.2 Body in physical theatre

One cannot avoid the concept of physical theatre when talking about contemporary theatre. There are different versions of the origin of physical theatre: pantomime, Commedia dell'Arte or modern dance( Expressionist dance). Physical theatre is to a large extent faithful to the concept of theatre of Cruelty by Antonin Artaud. The theatre of Cruelty must awake the eve of the downfallen theatre, unleash its plague-like nature, break the chain between words and theatre, and discard the aspiration for creating masterpieces. This is a form of destructive theatre, destruction of poetry; it reconstructs itself in the process of destruction. What Artaud intended to destroy first was the altar of words—“The theatre of cruelty expulses God from the stage.”(1) In traditional theatre, the playwright functions as the role of a Bible writer, and their words function as God’s. In the theatre of Cruelty, the power of words is restricted and it can no longer dominate the stage. “It seems, in brief, that the highest possible idea of the theatre is one that reconciles us philosophically with Becoming, suggesting to us through all sorts of objective situations the furtive idea of the passage and transmutation of ideas into things, much more than the transformation and stumbling of feelings into words.”(2)

It is no wonder that contemporary theatre, supported by the concept of theatre of Cruelty, emphasizes the use of the body. “The body is nothing more than a paradoxical void that opens up to a possibility. The body theatre is a potential theatre”(3). The possibility brought by the body comes from the body itself. The rhythm
of the body creates a virtual space, a non-signified
theatre space. In physical theatre, the body reveals itself, focusing on its materiality and poses. This is a practice of Theatre of Cruelty; a theatre of abreaction is built on the development of body, and physical theatre becomes a realization of illusion. Pina Bausch’s Tanztheater is an extension to physical theatre, which relates to Bertolt Brecht’s theory of Verfremdung ( Elienation ), that is, the distance between the stage and the audience, defamiliarization of stage presentation when emphasizing the language of Theatre of Cruelty and the self-regression of body. (4)In Café Muller, the scenery and the dancers constitute a space, one full of illusion, depression and dismay. The dancer spins and stumbles in the space. And a set decorator-like role moves the tables and chairs; this role functions to distance the dancer from the space, and the audience from the stage.

2020-03-09 上午3.02.07.png

(1) Jacques Derrida., Writing and Difference, trans.Alan Bass, The University of Chicago, p.296.
(2) Antonin Artaud, The Theater and Its Double, trans.Mary Caroline Richards, Grove, 1985, p.109. Hans-Thies Lehmann,

(3) Postdramatisches Theater., trans.Li Yinan, Peking University Press.
(4)The aim of Verfremdung concept is to dispel the effect of “theatrical illusion” between the audience and the stage, thus the audience can not emotionally intervene, thereby enabling the audience to think rationally. Obviously, this view and Aalto's Theatre of Cruelty essentially, can not symbiosis. Therefore, I pointed out in the text that Bausch's theatre takes the form of a Theatre of Cruelty and shows the inner core of Verfremdung theory.

2020-03-09 上午3.06.12.png

In Dimitris Papaioannou’s theatre works, the cooperation between the body and the scenery is the core of the work. In Still Life, the actors tear up the tapes scattered on the floor, make bricks a staircase, lift up the dome...a unique language is used for the poetic space. In Papaioannou’s works, language is replaced by space and body. The scenario on stage is absurd and chaotic. The chaos, however, puts the theatre near poetry. (5) What is happening on stage chaotically and obscurely constitutes an atmosphere so as to replace the lost text. “.Artaud promises the existence of a speech that is a body, of a body that is a theatre, of a theatre that is a text because it is no longer enslaved to writing more ancient than itself, an un-text or an un-speech.” (6) Papaioannou’s works provide theatre of Cruelty-ish illusion, which drags the audience away from the theatre and into the abyss of meaning.

The difference between physical theatre and performance art may be just the difference in location and audience. As mentioned above, in performance art, the body itself is used and action is emphasized. What the body functions in physical theatre are similar to what it does in performance art; it is no longer a tool of expression but becomes the essence of theatre, the subject of expression, within which the meaning is hidden. Nonetheless, what makes physical theatre so different from performance art is the relationships between the audience and the actor, between the audience and the work. The relationship of viewing and being viewed is the only one that exists in most works of the two genres, and the audience is just involved in space or emotion. But in some works of performance art, Abramović’s works, for instance, the presence of the audience’s body becomes part of the work, even the dominator of the work in terms of materiality. In that case, the audience and the actors are integrated into the same space; the relationship between them is no longer one-way emotional expression but mutual communication. I think in-depth involvement of the audience will be widely applied to theatre works in the future—no script is needed, the actor is no longer dominant, and the audience becomes actors. An illusion is created using scenery, music and the objectified body for the audience to act in.

(5) This helps us to understand that poetry is anarchic to the degree that it brings into play all the relationships of the object to object and of form to signification. It is anarchic also to the degree that its occurrence is the consequence of a disorder that draws us closer to chaos. Antonin Artaud, The Theater and Its Double, trans.Mary Caroline Richards, Grove, 1985, p.43.

(6) Jacques Derrida., Writing and Difference, trans.Alan Bass, The University of Chicago, p.219.

Chapter Two: Installation

2.1 Objectified body

I have been thinking of the questions whether the body can be an installation, whether installation art can involve the body, and how installation art is different from performance art if the body is involved.

The body as an installation, or the objectified body, means that the body becomes symbolic, body movement is no longer pure action, and the body is empowered by it is symbolic. The body as the installation has returned to traditional performance arts. Here returning does not mean regeneration or repetition. The symbol or denotation of the body is not a certain person or event, but an abstract, integral concept. The essence of the body remains and the symbolic power of its functions for the whole scene. In other words, the reduction of action makes the body installation, and body movement is no longer for the sake of the body,

Body sculpture has emerged in the field of contemporary art—Tino Sehgal’s Kiss (2007) is a good example. Two performers hug and kiss each other in an empty hall, imitating the masterpieces of the art history—Auguste Rodin’s Kiss (1889), Constantin Brâncuși’s Kiss (1906), Gustav Klimt’s Kiss (1907), etc. In this work, the imitation makes the action symbolic. Being symbolic is superior to being physical. By doing so, the body is objectified as a moving “sculpture” in the space.

Anne Imhof’s Faust for the Venice Biennale 2017 is categorized as an installation or performance-cum-installation. In my opinion, the work includes the elements of physical theatre and body installation. The performance/behaviour is of typical physical theatre, integrating singing, music, plot, action and scenery (property), which constitute the space of theatre of Cruelty. The artist’s goal is achieved when the viewers step into the spaces—the viewers’ emotion is dragged into this poetic space.

Attention can be also paid outside the hall. The artist built a site walled with wire fence; in the site, there are two hounds, and a yellow warning sign is posted on the fence. As Picture 8 shows, the performers are sitting on the top of the fence, three or four meters above the ground. It is a dangerous scene—hounds that are barking, the narrow top of the fence, and a height that predicts falling. The body is not the core of the whole expression but just an element in the scene. No special body movement is made; the modesty of the body gives away the say to space. Space shows much more power than the body does; the body is not an installation, but part of an installation. Moreover, the status of the body contributes nothing to the physicality of the body; the value as a symbolic agent is taken from the body, which becomes an object for the purpose of expression. Here the presentation replaces the essence, and the material replaces the concept. The objectification and symbolization of the body is the product of modern society, according to the definition of the modern body by Baudrillard. The objectified body reminds us of the Über-marionette put forward by Edward Gordan Craig in his book On the Art of the theatre. We have not, however, followed Craig’s thoughts; to us, the objectified body is not a tool for alienating the emotion, but a tool for going beyond the limit of body and guiding the viewer’s emotion in another context.

What is the biggest difference between the body as an installation and the body sculpture? The presence of the body in works of body installation blurs the boundaries between reality and artificiality, between living things and lifeless things. The body as part of the work shares the same functions and features with that of the viewer, but it works as an object. In this chaotic situation, illusion spreads in the space. Meanwhile, the body, something mobile, can bring changes to space in a real-time manner when it is moving. Meaning is conveyed during this process. The change is a transfer of energy, which brings art into the process.

No matter how objectified the body is, the person has an unspeakable “field.” The energy comes out of the individual characteristics such as limbs, eyes and faces. Eye contact, body contact or vocal expression realizes the communication between the viewer and the performer. This is the reason why the body is special. No communication is achieved when the viewer is looking into a sculpture’s eyes or touching its body.

If the viewer gets hints before hands, they will no longer see the essence of the body. When the viewer considers the action as a symbol, the real walking becomes symbolic and is turned into walking in the virtual space. Therefore, the viewer’s subjective perspective turns the real scene into the space of the traditional theatre, and the body into a symbolic agent of traditional theatre. In this process, the body is transformed into an object.

Chapter Three: Theatre

3.1 Theatrical hallucination

Theatre should be surreal, swinging between the reality and the virtual. The reality is based on the fact that the substantial material and the viewer’s emotion are real; the imagination is symbolic. The stage of contemporary theatre is no longer restricted to the box-type stage. Like public installation, theatre can be placed in a public place or occurs in a real environment. Under this circumstance, space itself is a symbol. In this field, the viewer’s judgment of the work, or even their judgment of their identity, will be changed: the space is substantially real but the content, the space within the theatre is symbolized, virtualized, theatricalized. The severe conflict between reality and imagination gives birth to theatrical hallucination. Meanwhile, as one of the subjects in the space, the viewer’s body becomes the origin of space perception(as mentioned at the end of the first chapter). The viewer’s body participates in the theatre and becomes a material of the stage. The one-way expression of theatre should be terminated. In the same space, the viewer should have real-time talks with space and the performer, which will react upon the space; by doing so, the viewer will have control of the theatre. The final expression of the theatre will be individualized. the theatre will function as a builder of dreamland; the viewer will become the Alice who jumps into the rabbit hole, stimulating their own aesthetic experience and obtaining differentiated perception by participating in the theatre event, experiencing synesthesia and talking with space. No performance exists without the viewer, or there is just a celebration.

In this dreamland, the performer’s body is objectified and works for the whole environment. In this installation-like space, the performer’s body is no longer the subject as in performance art or physical theatre. The body as an installation uses its materiality, like a tree or a chair in the background. The theatre becomes an installation space except that it is aimed at creating illusions and dragging the viewer into the abyss of illusion.

3.2 Theatrical language

Sound, odour, scenery, light, dance, performance, language, technology—all these things work together to build the tower of dreamland in the space.

No concrete space is needed; instead, a combination of abstract theatre language is constructed. The actor’s language is incoherent and obscure. Their bodies flicker. Sounds are untraceable. Lights are dim. The scenery is abstract and simple. All the languages work for the whole space. The theatre space is constructed on the communication between theatre languages, and between the languages and the viewer. The absence of any of them will result in the collapse of the space.

I do not oppose any existing form of theatre but wish to provide one possibility for theatre creation. The body has been swinging between objects and non-objects in theatre history.

With the advancement of time, the gradual collapse of the subject has made the cooperative relationship of the theatre environment language emphasized and given more expression space for theatre space, scenery and music. It is a meaningful reform that the body develops from the media to a language. All the forms will eventually arrive at a critical point, so it is possible for the objectified body to develop as a new language for theatre. “Living beings are reified into symbolic agents. Such reification is monstrous, I condemn it without exception,” said Richard Schechner in his Performance Theory. The change in the theatre subject is inevitable. Although both Schechner and Artaud have mentioned the cooperation of languages, yet can we arrive at another body revolution after going through this phase? Can we imagine that the body-installation could be a new language within theatre and performance art, and simultaneously out of both of the forms? The complete objectification of the body, the personification of the material.

part 3

part 3

Contextual Practice

Confirm copying

Restore backup