The subject of this text is a particular type of an engaged theatre, which the author defines as the theatre of immediate intervention. Referring to opinions of theoreticians, but also critics and theatrical artists, she makes an attempt at establishing its definition. She discusses two most important determinants of this model of theatre: the formula of being up-to-date and the principle of “fast reaction” to current social problems.
The paper concerns some elements of the construction of worlds represented on stage in recent Polish theatre. This may be seen as a comment on the state of democratic Poland after 1989 and, more generally, as an analysis of the peculiarities of the contemporary world. However, a deeper analysis shows recent theatre staging as structurally similar to the construction of dystopias. The worlds represented on stage are characterized by the presence of a nonlinear construction of time, by the absence of ending, of a horizon and of death, by the presence of ruins (intended literally, as an aesthetic paradigm, and metaphorically) and by the construction of dystopian characters. The analysis focuses on one of the most important performances for the Polish political theatre of the last two decades, H. (2004), a version of Hamlet directed by Jan Klata, performed in the historic and derelict Gdańsk Shipyard, a symbolic stage set which becomes at the same time the place of fulfilment of dystopia and of the emergence of the desire for utopia.
The subject of this article is the theatre as an engaged cultural institution in Poland. Its engagement means not only producing critical art (although that is often the beginning of structural changes in an institution), but also, and perhaps most importantly, revealing and verifying the mechanisms of its own functioning. Entering into dialogue with the institution itself is the beginning of its evolution “from criticism to critical institution”. Involving the institution in this context means changing its functioning towards democratic practices. Speaking of democratisation, we can think, on the one hand, of ways of winning the favour of the audience, involving them in the life of the institution and forming alliances with them to protect the institutions from the temptations of the authorities. And on the other, of changing the modes of management. The democratisation of the management process is primarily associated with the emancipation of theatre workers, meaning their self-organisation, the need for empowerment and the development of new management practices and decision-making processes. The empowerment of art workers seems to be an important step in order to “sever” the art institutions’ connections with their manorial dependencies, which are common and very often invisible (also to employees of institutions), because they form, as Andrzej Leder claims, the basis for the functioning of Polish society. Manorial relations, of which the authoritarian model of management is a frequent manifestation, exist not only inside institutions (the director of an institution in his relations with a theatre company), but also at the junction of an institution and its organiser, namely, local and state authorities.
PL
Przedmiotem artykułu jest teatr w Polsce jako krytyczna instytucja kultury, nie tylko tworząca sztukę krytyczną, lecz także, a może przede wszystkim, ujawniająca i weryfikująca mechanizmy własnego funkcjonowania. Zaangażowanie instytucji w działania krytyczne oznacza zmianę jej funkcjonowania w kierunku praktyk demokratycznych – z jednej strony chodzi o sposoby pozyskiwania przychylności odbiorców, włączania ich w życie instytucji i zawierania z nimi sojuszy w celu ochrony instytucji przed zakusami władz, z drugiej o zmiany sposobów zarządzania (emancypację pracowników teatru – ich samoorganizację, potrzebę upodmiotowienia oraz wypracowania nowych praktyk zarządzania i procesów decyzyjnych). Wszystko to ma służyć „wyrwaniu” instytucji artystycznych z powszechnych i bardzo często niewidocznych (także dla pracowników instytucji) zależności folwarcznych (A. Leder), których częstym przejawem jest autorytarny model zarządzania, obowiązujący nie tylko wewnątrz instytucji (dyrektor instytucji w relacjach z zespołem).
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.