Search results

1

Apocalypsis cum figuris – życiie po życiu

100%

Guszpit I.

|

2011

|

vol. 65

|

issue 2-3(293-294)

315-324

EN

This text concerns the legacy of Jerzy Grotowski, and upon the basis of archival material dealing with the famous spectacle Apocalypsis cum figuris, or primarily its filmed account directed by Ermanno Olmi, it deliberates on the possibilities and purposefulness of a contemporary interpretation of the Grotowski oeuvre. The basic problem involving the Olmi film is Grotowski’s request not to render it available. Researchers specialising in Grotowski thus face a fundamental question whether despite his will and the flaws of the film version it should be shown and, more important, treated as one of the sources for studies on the legacy of the founder of the Theatre of 13 Rows. I. Guszpit considered this problem while describing his own attempts at analysing the film, conducted as part of his didactic work.

2

Grotowski polityczny

63%

Modzelewski K.

|

2010

|

vol. 64

|

issue 4(291)

69-71

EN

A recorded statement made by Karol Modzelewski at an international conference: Grotowski. Narrations (Warsaw, 14-15 January 2010) organised by the Institute of Polish Culture at Warsaw University and the Committee of Cultural Studies at the Polish Academy of Sciences. Prof. Modzelewski recalled Grotowski from the period prior to the latter’s involvement in the theatre – the time when Grotowski was active in the Union of Polish Youth. In doing so, author shows Grotowski’s departure from communism and poses questions about the connection between the disappointment caused by the impossibility of altering the communist system and the beginning of the creative path of one of Poland’s greatest theatre directors.

3

Grotowski-Flaszen – rozmowa o filmie i teatrze

63%

Benedyktowicz Z., Dziewulska M.

|

2011

|

vol. 65

|

issue 2-3(293-294)

325-337

4

Cztery noty o Witkacym

54%

Degler J.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2016

|

vol. 65

|

issue 4

113-139

EN

Four notes on Witkacy’s biography. 1. Did Witkacy Intend to Return to the Tropics? On 9 April 1918, Maria Witkiewiczowa, Witkacy’s mother, sent a postcard to her friend, Leon Chwistek’s sister, with an information that Witkacy was planning to return to Poland from Petrograd or to travel to Sumatra. Though fascinated with tropical wildlife and nature, after his travel with Malinowski in 1914, which has influenced his painting and other creative work, in July 1918 Witkacy returned to Poland and described his Ceylon experiences in the reportage Podróż do Tropików (A Voyage to the Tropics). 2. The Puzzle of Prologue to Pentemychos i Jej Niedoszły Wychowanek. The Jadwiga Witkiewiczowa archive contains a single page with a German-language piece of verse which is a fragment of the prologue of the now lost play Pentemychos i Jej niedoszły wychowanek (Pentemychos and Her Would-be Pupil), written at the beginning of 1920. The surviving fragment probably comes from a translation that Witkacy commissioned from a friend in 1922, after meeting in Zakopane with Ms. Eckert who promised to recommend his plays to a theatre producer in Hamburg. 3. Witkacy “Honeycombed with Childishness,” or a DIY Way of Improving One’s Kaleidoscope. Witkacy had been a passionate collector since childhood. He collected walking sticks and various curios, which he put in his “albums of curiosities.” For a kaleidoscope, his favorite toy, he wrote a detailed funny manual. 4. Grotowski and Witkacy. As a student of the Cracow theatre school, Jerzy Grotowski planned to put on The Shoemakers at Wawel in 1958/59. Since the plan was not approved, Grotowski dropped out of school and went to Opole where he became the artistic manager of the 13 Rzędów Theatre. When asked whose portrait he would hang up in his directorial office, Grotowski mentioned Witkacy along with three other “martyrs” of the theatre: Artaud, Meyerhold, and Stanislavsky.

PL

Cztery uwagi do biografii Witkacego. 1. Czy Witkacy zamierzał wrócić do tropików? 9 kwietnia 1918 roku Maria Witkiewiczowa, matka Witkacego, wysłała pocztówkę do swojej przyjaciółki, siostry Leona Chwistka, z informacją, że Witkacy planuje powrót z Piotrogrodu do Polski lub podróż na Sumatrę. Choć zafascynowany tropikalną przyrodą i naturą, po podróży z Malinowskim w 1914 roku, która wpłynęła na jego malarstwo i inną twórczość, w lipcu 1918 roku Witkacy wrócił do Polski i opisał swoje cejlońskie doświadczenia w reportażu Podróż do Tropików. 2. Zagadka Prologu do Pentemychosa i Jej Niedoszłego Wychowanka. W archiwum Jadwigi Witkiewiczowej zachowała się jedna kartka z niemieckojęzycznym wierszem będącym fragmentem prologu zaginionej sztuki Pentemychos i Jej niedoszły wychowanek, która powstała na początku 1920. Zachowany fragment pochodzi prawdopodobnie z tłumaczenia, które Witkacy zamówił u przyjaciela w 1922, po spotkaniu w Zakopanem z panią Eckert, która obiecała polecić jego sztuki producentowi teatralnemu w Hamburgu. 3. Witkacy „dzieckiem podszyty”, czyli jak samemu ulepszyć kalejdoskop. Witkacy od dziecka był zapalonym kolekcjonerem. Zbierał laski i różne osobliwości, które umieszczał w swoich "albumach osobliwości". Dla kalejdoskopu, swojej ulubionej zabawki, napisał szczegółową zabawną instrukcję. 4. Grotowski i Witkacy. Jako student krakowskiej szkoły teatralnej Jerzy Grotowski planował wystawienie Szewców na Wawelu w 1958/59 roku. Ponieważ plan nie został zaakceptowany, Grotowski rzucił szkołę i wyjechał do Opola, gdzie został kierownikiem artystycznym Teatru 13 Rzędów. Zapytany o to, czyj portret powiesiłby w swoim dyrektorskim gabinecie, Grotowski wymienił Witkacego wraz z trzema innymi „męczennikami” teatru: Artaudem, Meyerholdem i Stanisławskim.

5

Summary of „Pamiętnik Teatralny” 1-4/2000

54%

Janikowski G.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2000

|

vol. 49

|

issue 1/4

694-700

EN

Overview of the Pamiętnik Teatralny 1-4/2000 content. This special issue re-explores the life and works of Jerzy Grotowski. The introductory part of the article recalls Jerzy Grotowski's early relationship with Pamiętnik Teatralny (a meeting in Opole in March 1963 and the editors' participation in a special ministerial committee in 1964). The author highligths the importance of the articles by Ludwik Flaszen and Zbigniew Raszewski published in Pamiętnik Teatralny 3/1964 in the theater milieu's defense of the 13 Rows Theatre in 1964. The story of the work on this special issue devoted to Grotowski, which began 1998, is also outlined.

PL

Omówienie zawartości „Pamiętnika Teatralnego: 1-4/2000. Poczwórny zeszyt został w całości poświęcony ponowionej refleksji nad życiem i dziełami Jerzego Grotowskiego. We wstępnej części artykułu przypomniano o wczesnych relacjach Grotowskiego z redakcją „Pamiętnika Teatralnego” (spotkanie w Opolu w marcu 1963 oraz udział redaktorów w pracach specjalnego komitetu ministerialnego w 1964 roku). Podkreślono wagę artykułów Ludwika Flaszena i Zbigniewa Raszewskiego opublikowanych w „Pamiętniku Teatralnym” 3/1964 w procesie obrony Teatru 13 Rzędów prowadzonym przez środowisko teatralne w 1964 roku. Zarysowano także historię rozpoczętej w 1998 roku pracy nad numerem specjalnym poświęconym Grotowskiemu.

6

„Do nieba? Bluźnisz daremnie”. Faust – Marlowe – Grotowski

51%

Kosiński D.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2016

|

vol. 65

|

issue 1-2(257-258)

5-49

EN

The article deals with the production of Tragiczne dzieje doktora Fausta (The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus) after Christopher Marlowe directed by Jerzy Grotowski and put on by the Laboratorium 13 Rzędów Theatre in Opole (premiered on 23 April 1963). The show became famous mostly for Zbigniew Cynkutis’ outstanding performance in the title role and Jerzy Gurawski’s stage set. It was also the first of Grotowski’s productions that garnered international acclaim. Until now, however, not enough attention has been paid to its dramaturgy and overall significance as an autonomous piece of artistic expression; instead, it has been viewed mostly as a step on the way to Grotowski’s more mature theatre. By reconstructing and recounting the particular scenes in chronological order the author presents his own interpretation of each of them and of the performance as a whole. Through this process, almost scandalous associations of great historical and ethical themes (e.g. theology after the Holocaust) with personal struggles with private inhibitions and intimate experiences can be found. It is through such associations that Tragiczne dzieje doktora Fausta was named “a mystery of awe and wonder.”

7

Towards a Poor Phenomenology. On Certain Structural Similarities between Phenomenology and J. Grotowski’s Philosophy of Theater

51%

Sobota D.

Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne

|

2020

|

vol. 49

89-117

EN

In his phenomenological manifesto (1911), Edmund Husserl presents the famous motto, which should be realized by the new philosophy: “Weg mit den hohlen Wortanalysen. Die Sachen selbst wir müssen befragen. (...) Ganz trefflich! Aber was sind denn die Sachen (...)?“ Consequently, the history of phenomenology is presented as the sum of the efforts to reach the deeper level and more fundamental areas of the original "Sachen". Husserl’s discovery of the domain of pure consciousness was only the beginning of a long way leading to more original areas, such as life, existence, body, intersubjectivity, historicity, humanity etc. With this journey towards deeper fields of sense-constitution, the meaning of the phenomenological method was changed. Phenomenology cannot be a simple work of lonely soul looking for self-transparency in the field of its own consciousness, but it must be a kind of action, a deed, an existential transformation, and an increase of experience. Recently, e.g. Natalie Depraz presented a similar view. In my paper I would like to explore the possibility of a new perspective on phenomenology, which gives the philosophy and theatrical practice of Polish theater reformer Jerzy Grotowski (1933-1999). Although he was neither phenomenologist, nor a philosopher, in his notes on the human performance, collected and entitled Thoward a Poor Theater, he opens, as it seems, new possibilities of phenomenological practice.

8

Jerzy Grotowski – Zbigniew Raszewski: W poszukiwaniu “istotnego dialogu”

51%

Osiński Z.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2012

|

vol. 61

|

issue 1-2(241-242)

59-88

EN

The relations between Jerzy Grotowski and Zbigniew Raszewski have not yet been a topic of any deeper reflexion. It seems that everyone has been satisfied with rather general opinions, whether they be apologetic (Raszewski as a defender of the Laboratorium Theatre at the dangerous beginning of the 1960s) or suggesting that in reality the two of them could not have had anything in common. At the same time, in Poland the problem resembles treading on thin ice because of oversensitivity of some of Raszewski’s students, whereas outside the Polish-speaking cultural life it becomes exotic due to the fact that the author of Krótka historia teatru polskiego (The Short History of Polish Theatre) is unfortunately little known abroad. They first met through Eugenio Barba. The opinion about Barba as „that Italian who’s crazy about Grotowski” is reflected in one of recently published letters written by Stanisław Lem to Sławomir Mrożek. Soon after their first meeting in Opole in March 1963, Grotowski assured Raszewski: “The relations with you and the people of Pamiętnik Teatralny, the relations that you write about, being long-term and lasting for years, are quite important to us”. There are fifteen letters and three telegrams sent by Grotowski in 1963–1989 that we know about (three of the letters were signed by Ludwik Flaszen as well). In the archive left after the Laboratorium Theatre in Wrocław, there are no letters written by Raszewski in 1963–1968; there are only two letters dated 1972 and 1980. Raszewski is also the author of the important text Teatr 13 Rzędów (The 13 Rows Theatre, Pamiętnik Teatralny, 1964, vol. 3) and a priceless account of his meeting with Grotowski on 18 January 1969, which appeared in print after the author’s death but when Grotowski was still alive. Before Grotowski embraced the concept of the „complete” or „whole man” taken from Mickiewicz, and that of „the complete actor”, whose most believable and compelling embodiment has been Ryszard Cieślak in Książę Niezłomny (The Constant Prince, 1965), there was the so-called Warsaw School of Historians of Ideas that Grotowski had taken great interest in and counted on their visit in Opole. Despite some biographical parallels (Raszewski was the same age as Zygmunt Bauman, being a year younger than Bronisław Baczko, two years older than Leszek Kołakowski, four years older than Jerzy Szacki, and five years Andrzej Walicki’ senior), the theatre historian’s views and interests had been quite different from those propounded by the Warsaw historians of ideas. Grotowski shared with the Warsaw philosophers the attitude of heresy and blasphemy combined with a deep distrust of the so-called traditional Polish values. Such an attitude seemed utterly alien to Raszewski. Raszewski’s reaction to Apocalypsis Cum Figuris, which he saw in November 1970, was very negative. He wrote it down many years later, on 12 September 1991: “In Wrocław, the sectarian tendencies overcame everything else. While at Opole Grotowski still had a theatre – which was mad, crazy but at the same time interesting – in Wrocław he ended up with some delirium and black Mass. He called it Apocalypsis Cum Figuris. It was his last production. I watched it and right after the performance I told him that it was beyond my threshold of tolerance, which he took calmly, as he did all my enunciations”. On 20 September 1972, Grotowski thanked Raszewski for his letter of congratulations on the occasion of awarding him “an individual state award of the first degree in the field of arts and culture for his creative work in the Laboratorium Theatre within the scope of theatre production and research on the art of acting, with special emphasis on Apocalypsis Cum Figuris, received on the national Holiday of the Revival of Poland, on 22 July, 1972”. On 14 April 1980, ending an extensive answer to Raszewski’s questions, Grotowski wrote: „Thank you that you told me directly and openly what you considered to be unjust and wrong in my work. Your honesty and your friendship are very important to me”. After 1981, it did not take Grotowski long to understand that the nationalistic Polonocentrism which was growing in strength almost day by day, along with the omnipotent power of the Catholic church was limiting his creative potential. On 22 December 1989, Jerzy Grotowski sent a telegram from Pontedera, which became the permanent place of operations for the Workcenter of Jerzy Grotowski in 1985; he sent Raszewski his best regards on the fortieth anniversary of Raszewski’s academic work: „Congratulations and assurances of faithful memory friendship and respect...” The friendly dialogue between the artist and the theatre historian lasted for almost three decades. The last note by Raszewski comes from 12 November 1991. And let’s not forget that he is the author of one of the most important sentences ever written about Grotowski’s work: “When someone works with such fury and as selflessly as the 13 Rzędów Theatre, when one is so interested in life and so sensitive, it is only a matter of time before they achieve something extraordinary”. This does not change the fact that Raszewski did not publish any text about Grotowski and his theatre in Pamiętnik Teatralny after 1964. Thus one must pose a difficult question: Did Raszewski’s famous „objectivism” and „impartiality” end just where they ran into conflict with his own tastes and beliefs?

9

Towards a Radically Relational Post-Grotowskian Performance Paradigm

45%

Magnat V.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2023

|

issue 4(287)

11-31

PL

Jerzy Grotowski zatytułował swój cykl wykładów w College de France La „lignée organique" au théâtre et dans le rituel („Linia organiczna” teatrze i rytuale). Autorka, która dokumentowała te ostatnie publiczne wystąpienia, stawia tezę, że organiczność stanowi linię łączącą teatralne i postteatralne badania Grotowskiego. Odwołuje się do tych wykładów i do własnego treningu opartego na praktykach Grotowskiego, w tym do pracy z Reną Mirecką, a także do współpracy badawczej z rdzennymi artystami i badaczami z Turtle Island (Ameryka Północna), między innymi z Floydem Favelem, który praktykował z Grotowskim i z Mirecką. Autorka wskazuje, że w różnorodnych tradycyjnych praktykach kulturowych, których rolą jest wzmacnianie, przywracanie i podtrzymywanie równowagi między ludzkimi i nie-ludzkimi formami życia, organiczność jest rozumiana jako żywa siła nadająca procesom performatywnym energię, moc i skuteczność. Post-Grotowski paradygmat performatywności zaproponowany przez autorkę opiera się na nieantropocentrycznej perspektywie inspirowanej ekologicznym i duchowym wymiarem relacyjności podkreślanym przez kilka pokoleń rdzennych badaczy. Autorka twierdzi, że taka zmiana paradygmatu, która rzuca wyzwanie praktykom artystycznym gloryfikującym ludzką kreatywność, może stanowić realną alternatywę dla dominacji (eurocentrycznych) nowomaterialistycznych i posthumanistycznych teorii nie-ludzkiej sprawczości.

EN

Jerzy Grotowski chose to name his College de France lecture series La „lignee organique” au theatre et dans le rituel (The „Organic Lineage” in Theatre and Ritual), and the author, who attended and documented these final public talks, contends in this article that organicity constitutes a through-line connecting Grotowski’s theatrical and post-theatrical research. The author draws from these talks, as well as from her Grotowski-based training, including her work with Rena Mirecka, and her research collaborations with Indigenous artists and scholars from Turtle Island (North America), including Floyd Favel, who worked with both Grotowski and Mirecka. The author points out that in diverse traditional cultural practices whose role it is to enhance, restore, and sustain balance between human and non-human forms of life, organicity is understood as a living force endowing performative processes with energy, power, and efficacy. The post-Grotowskian performance paradigm envisioned by the author hinges upon a non-anthropocentric perspective informed by the ecological and spiritual dimensions of relationality articulated by several generations of Indigenous scholars. She contends that such a paradigm shift, which challenges artistic practices glorifying human creative agency, can provide a viable alternative to the dominance of (Eurocentric) new materialist/posthumanist theories of non-human agency.

10

Buddah Still Works-the Work on Oneself Never Ends: Essay on Grotowski

45%

Palumbo G., Condorelli G. G.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2023

|

issue 4(287)

33-55

PL

Punktem wyjścia eseju są osobiste wspomnienia włoskiego reżysera Gioacchino Palumbo, w tym doświadczenia związane z oglądaniem Apocalypsis cum figuris i osobistymi spotkaniami z Jerzym Grotowskim, a celem – subiektywna prezentacja wybranych aspektów teatralnych i pozateatralnych praktyk Grotowskiego, z naciskiem na rozumienie teatru jako trwającej całe życie pracy nad sobą. Palumbo podkreśla te aspekty twórczości Grotowskiego i cytaty z jego wypowiedzi i pism, które przyczyniły się do jego własnego rozwoju jako artysty teatralnego. Szczególnie interesuje go stosunek Grotowskiego do różnorodnych źródeł inspiracji, dlatego obszernie omawia wywiad Grotowskiego na temat Gurdżijewa, uznając go za reprezentatywny przykład podejścia artysty do zjawisk kulturowych, które na niego wpływały. Esej został poprzedzony wstępem, w którym Giuseppe G. Condorelli przedstawia Palumbo jako oryginalnego artystę teatralnego, prowadzącego od 1981 roku własne laboratorium teatralne w Katanii.

EN

This essay uses the personal recollections of Italian director Gioacchino Palumbo, including the experience of viewing of Apocalypsis cum figuris as well as some personal encounters with Jerzy Grotowski, to present a subjective account of selected aspects of Grotowski’s theatrical and non-theatrical practices, with an emphasis on understanding theatre as a lifelong work on oneself. Palumbo highlights those aspects of Grotowski’s work and quotations from his statements and writings that have contributed to his own development as a theatre artist. Particularly interested in Grotowski’s attitude to diverse sources of inspiration, Palumbo extensively discusses Grotowski’s interview on Gurdjieff, considering it as a representative example of artist’s approach to cultural phenomena that influenced him. The essay is preceded by an introduction in which Giuseppe G. Condorelli presents the original theatrical work of Palumbo, who has been running his own theatre laboratory in Catania since 1981.

11

MICKIEWICZ JAKO „PRZYRZĄD DO GRANIA”. PRZYPADEK JERZEGO GROTOWSKIEGO

45%

Hoffmann-Piotrowska E.

Świat Tekstów. Rocznik Słupski

|

2020

|

vol. 18

271-288

PL

Przedmiotem refleksji w artykule jest szczególny sposób lektury teatralnej twórczości Mickiewicza przez Jerzego Grotowskiego. Twórca Teatru Laboratorium, postrzegany tu przede wszystkim jako filozof kultury, buduje swoje koncepcje antropologiczne m.in. poprzez mediację z kulturą romantyczną. To, jak „używa” tekstów wielkich poprzedników, autoutożsamiajacy typ lektury utworów Mickiewicza czy Słowackiego, przekonuje, że Grotowskiemu nie chodziło o to, by zainscenizować romantyczny tekst, lecz by„wyrywać” z niego (też w sensie metaforycznym) to, co wydawało mu się przydatne i inspirujące – myśli, sceny, sytuacje i zbudować z nich sztukę potrzebną mu do istnienia oraz wspierającą rozumienie własnego istnienia. Paradoksalnie, taki bardzo podmiotowy sposób czytania zbliżał Grotowskiego do lektury, którą uprawiali sami romantycy

EN

The subject of reflection in the article is a special way of reading the theatrical work of Mickiewicz by Jerzy Grotowski. The creator of the Laboratory Theater, seen here primarily as a cultural philosopher, builds his anthropological concepts, among others through mediation with romantic culture. The way he «uses» the texts of his great predecessors, the self-identifying type of reading works by Mickiewicz or Slowacki, argues that Grotowski did not want to stage a romantic text, but to «pull» from it (also in a metaphorical sense) what it seemed to him useful and inspirational – thoughts, scenes, situations and build from them the art he needs to exist and support the understanding of his own existence. Paradoxically, this subjective way of reading brought Grotowski closer to the reading that the romantics themselves did.

12

«Hochsztapler, który przy pomocy wydziwiania czaruje ludzi i władze»: Grotowski w Opolu

45%

Wójtowicz A.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2022

|

vol. 71

|

issue 4

151-170

EN

This article discusses the activity of Jerzy Grotowski in Opole and the history of Teatr 13 Rzędów (Theatre of 13 Rows) in 1959–1964. The author makes use of various types of documents collected during her years-long research into the political context of Grotowski’s creative work: interviews with witnesses, letters, memoirs, personal files, censorship papers, and materials from the archives of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (including reports prepared by the state security organs based on denunciations) in order to portray Grotowski as a theater manager. The juxtaposition and analysis of these documents shows the scale of the surveillance of the Theatre of 13 Rows and reveals the authorities’ methods of indirectly exerting control over the artists. The article provides new arguments to support the claim that the experience of working in Opole helped Grotowski the manager to develop politically effective methods of communication with the authorities and the media, which enabled him to retain his artistic autonomy.

PL

Artykuł dotyczy działalności Jerzego Grotowskiego w okresie opolskim i historii Teatru 13 Rzędów w latach 1959–1964. Autorka wykorzystuje różnego typu dokumenty zgromadzone w trakcie długoletnich badań nad politycznymi uwarunkowaniami artystycznej działalności Grotowskiego: rozmowy ze świadkami, listy, wspomnienia, akta osobowe, dokumenty cenzury i materiały pochodzące z archiwów Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej (w tym raporty organów bezpieczeństwa oparte na donosach), aby naszkicować portret Grotowskiego jako dyrektora teatru. Dzięki zestawieniu i analizie tych dokumentów pokazuje skalę inwigilacji Teatru 13 Rzędów i prezentuje stosowane przez władzę metody niebezpośredniej kontroli artystów. W artykule pojawiają się kolejne argumenty na rzecz tezy, że opolskie doświadczenia pomogły Grotowskiemu-dyrektorowi wypracować skuteczne politycznie metody komunikacji z władzami i mediami, które umożliwiały mu zachowanie artystycznej autonomii.

13

Dwie drogi – Teatr Laboratorium i The Living Theatre

45%

Ostrowska J.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2000

|

vol. 49

|

issue 1/4

607-618

EN

This article juxtaposes and comments on selected aspects of the concepts and practice of two theater groups-The Laboratory Theater and The Living Theatre. The authors discusses both differences and similarities, as well as parallel elements resulting from socio-cultural circumstances. She highlights the recognition that both groups similarly diagnosed reality and the situation of humans in culture, as well as considered theater as a tool that could transform this situation. However, they proposed different solutions and had different goals. The author compares the attitude of the two groups to the audience and the proposed means of its involvement in a theatrical event, linking this issue to broader concepts of communication in theater and art. The article also analyzes the attitude of Jerzy Grotowski, Julian Beck, and Judith Malina to counterculture and anarchist ideas. The analysis is based on the artists’ texts and the reception of selected performances.

PL

W artykule zestawiono i skomentowano wybrane aspekty idei i praktyki dwóch grup teatralnych – Teatru Laboratorium i The Living Theatre. Autorka omawia zarówno różnice, jak i podobieństwa oraz elementy paralelne, wynikające z okoliczności społeczno-kulturowych. Podkreśla, że obie grupy podobnie diagnozowały rzeczywistość i sytuację człowieka w kulturze oraz uważały teatr za narzędzie, które może tę sytuacje zmienić, proponowały jednak odmienne rozwiązania i miały różne cele. Porównuje stosunek obu grup do publiczności i proponowanych przez nie sposobów jej angażowania w teatralne wydarzenie, wiążąc to zagadnienie z szerszymi koncepcjami komunikacji w teatrze i sztuce. Analizuje także stosunek Jerzego Grotowskiego, Juliana Becka i Judith Maliny do kontrkultury i idei anarchistycznych. Podstawą analizy są teksty artystów oraz recepcja wybranych przedstawień.

14

Jerzego Grotowskiego doświadczenie Rosji: Rekonesans

45%

Osiński Z.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2000

|

vol. 49

|

issue 1/4

284-315

EN

This article presents various aspects of Jerzy Grotowski’s attitude towards Russian culture, his contacts with Russians, and his experiences during the stays in the Soviet Union in 1955–1956 and in 1976. The author highlights the special role in Grotowski's contacts with Russian culture played by Ludwik Flaszen, who also translated the official correspondence of the Laboratory Theatre with the Russians. The article discusses in detail Grotowski's first scholarship stay in the Soviet Union: studies at the A. V. Lunacharski Russian Institute of Theatre Arts GITIS, interrupted by a two-month trip to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The significance of Grotowski's relationship with one of the GITiS lecturers, director and prominent pedagogue Yuri Zavadsky, is highlighted, as well as the development of Grotowski’s interest in Meyerhold during this period. The research is based on Polish and Russian articles published in periodicals, unpublished archival materials, including audio and video recordings and Grotowski’s correspondence with Yuriy Zavadsky and others, as well as Grotowski's conversations with the author.

PL

W artykule przedstawiono różne aspekty stosunku Jerzego Grotowskiego do kultury rosyjskiej, jego kontakty z Rosjanami i doświadczenia z pobytów artysty w Rosji w latach 1955–1956 i w roku 1976. Autor podkreśla, że szczególną rolę w kontaktach Grotowskiego z kulturą rosyjską odegrał Ludwik Flaszen, który także tłumaczył oficjalną korespondencję Teatru Laboratorium z Rosjanami. W artykule omówiono szczegółowo pierwszy stypendialny pobyt Grotowskiego w Rosji: studia w Gosudarstwiennym Institutie Tieatralnogo Iskusstwa im. A.W. Łunaczarskogo przerwane dwumiesięczną podróżą do Turkmenistanu i Uzbekistanu. Podkreślono znaczenie relacji Grotowskiego z jednym z wykładowców GITiS, reżyserem i wybitnym pedagogiem Jurijem Zawadskim, a także rozwój jego zainteresowania Meyerholdem w tym okresie. Podstawą badań są polskie i rosyjskie artykuły publikowane w czasopismach, niepublikowane materiały archiwalne, w tym nagrania audio i wideo oraz korespondencja Grotowskiego z Jurijem Zawadskim i innymi osobami, a także rozmowy Grotowskiego z autorem.

15

«Do nieba? Bluźnisz daremnie»: Faust – Marlowe – Grotowski

45%

Kosiński D.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2016

|

vol. 65

|

issue 1/2

5-49

EN

This article deals with the production of The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus after Christopher Marlowe directed by Jerzy Grotowski and put on by the Laboratory Theatre in Opole (premiered on 23 April 1963). The show became famous mostly for Zbigniew Cynkutis’ outstanding performance in the title role and Jerzy Gurawski’s stage set. It was also the first of Grotowski’s productions that garnered international acclaim. Until now, however, not enough attention has been paid to its dramaturgy and overall significance as an autonomous piece of artistic expression; instead, it has been viewed mostly as a step on the way to Grotowski’s more mature theatre. By reconstructing and recounting the particular scenes in chronological order the author presents his own interpretation of each of them and of the performance as a whole. Through this process, almost scandalous associations of great historical and ethical themes (e.g. theology after the Holocaust) with personal struggles with private inhibitions and intimate experiences can be found. It is through such associations that The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus was named "a mystery of awe and wonder."

PL

Artykuł omawia spektakl Tragiczne dzieje doktora Fausta według Christophera Marlowe'a w reżyserii Jerzego Grotowskiego wystawiony w Teatrze Laboratorium w Opolu (premiera 23 kwietnia 1963 roku). Spektakl zasłynął przede wszystkim za sprawą wybitnej kreacji Zbigniewa Cynkutisa w roli tytułowej, a także scenografii Jerzego Gurawskiego. Był to również pierwszy spektakl Grotowskiego, który zdobył międzynarodowe uznanie. Do tej pory jednak nie poświęcono wiele uwagi jego dramaturgii i znaczeniu jako autonomicznego dzieła artystycznego, zamiast tego postrzegano go głównie jako krok na drodze do bardziej dojrzałego teatru Grotowskiego. Rekonstruując i opowiadając poszczególne sceny w porządku chronologicznym, autor przedstawia własną interpretację każdej z nich oraz spektaklu jako całości. W tym procesie można odnaleźć niemal skandaliczne skojarzenia wielkich tematów historycznych i etycznych (np. teologii po Holokauście) z osobistymi zmaganiami z prywatnymi zahamowaniami i intymnymi doświadczeniami. To właśnie dzięki takim skojarzeniom Tragiczne dzieje doktora Fausta zostały nazwane "misterium zgrozy i urzeczenia".

16

Tadeusz Kantor – Jerzy Grotowski – Jerzy Gurawski

44%

Osiński Z.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2015

|

vol. 64

|

issue 2(254)

122-149

EN

Contrary to widespread opinion (including enunciations of the artists themselves) I believe that one of the greatest artistic partners of Jerzy Grotowski’s was his great rival and opponent, Tadeusz Kantor. It may be said that Kantor was in a way obsessed with having an idea in art. At the same time, the relations of the two artists were marked with strong ambivalence. At the opening of the exhibition Witkacy a Teatr Cricot 2 (“Witkacy and the Cricot 2 Theatre”) that took place at the Cricot 2 Theatre Centre on 2 Kanoniczna Street in Cracow on 26 February 1985 Kantor publicly admitted that, among artists known to him at the time, only Grotowski had his own idea of theatre. Jerzy Gurawski was born in Lwów on 4 September 1935. He is twenty years younger than Tadeusz Kantor and two years younger than Grotowski, with whom he co-created the Laboratorium Theatre in Opole since the production of Siakuntala (“Śākuntalā”) based on Kalidasa’s play in 1960. What testifies to the import of Gurawski, an architecture graduate of the Cracow University of Technology whom Grotowski called “the doctor of theatre space”, are mostly his work at the Laboratorium Theatre in the 1960s, his correspondence with Grotowski and a number of comments, scattered here and there, made by himself and by other artists. Eugenio Barba was right in what he wrote in his autobiographical book, translated into many languages, Land of Ashes and Diamonds. My Apprenticeship in Poland. Followed by 26 Letters from Jerzy Grotowski to Eugenio Barba (Aberystwyth, Wales: Black Mountain Press, Centre for Performance Research, 1999), pp. 28-29: “The creator of the scenic space was Jerzy Gurawski, an architect (not a scenographer) of the same age as Grotowski. Their encounter belongs to the category of events that can well be described as historical. Neither one of them would have been capable of arriving at such extraordinary solutions without the other. Gurawski’s contribution to Kordian, Doctor Faustus and The Constant Prince was exceptional. When his collaboration was lacking, Grotowski’s scenic space was reduced to an empty room with the spectators seated at the sides, thus involuntarily becoming a theatre in the round. Gurawski was a modest man who was seldom to be seen at the theatre and who worked by himself while remaining in constant contact with Grotowski. In the case of Doctor Faustus too, where I was assistant director, he neither attended rehearsals nor intervened in the realisation of the designs. He was an unforgettable personality who, through his encounter with Grotowski, changed the conception of scenic space for generations to come. Theatre history has not given him the prominence he deserves, whereas Grotowski himself always underlined his importance. It is often the case that the creativity of a group, their collective tension and effective symbiosis, are associated with a single name.” This year Gurawski turns eighty. As it turns out, Tadeusz Kantor’s art has been one of the most important sources of his inspiration for many years. He has been interested in Tadeusz Kantor’s personality and art throughout his career as can be attested by his works from the cycle titled In memoriam Tadeuszowi Kantorowi – Jerzy Gurawski. Rysunki architekta z Teatru Laboratorium (“Jerzy Gurawski – In Memory of Tadeusz Kantor. Drawings by an Architect from the Laboratorium Theatre”) exhibited publicly for the first time at Wielopole Skrzyńskie in September 2014.

17

Jerzy Grotowski a chiński teatr poszukujący i tajwański teatr tańca

44%

Łabędzka I.

Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Literacka

|

2021

|

issue 40

203-220

EN

This paper is devoted to the reception of Jerzy Grotowski’s ideas of theatre and actors’ training system in China and Taiwan at the end of the twentieth century. The author analyses the scope of Grotowski’s influence on Chinese and Taiwanese theatre reformers, stage directors and actors/dancers at a specific moment of deep social, cultural and political transformations in Asia. She also tries to determine the main reasons for Grotowski’s popularity in mainland China and Taiwan in the 80s and 90s.

18

Le mani di Jacek Woszczerowicz, attore “di composizione”

44%

Randone G.

pl.it / rassegna italiana di argomenti polacchi

|

2015

|

issue 6

141-154

EN

The article aims to draw attention back to the art of Jacek Woszczerowicz, once a well-known and beloved Polish actor. It focuses on his peculiar acting style by analyzing two adaptations of stage dramas and a documentary of a theatrical masterpiece Richard III (1960). In particular, the author highlights Woszczerowicz’s work on gesture and the role played by hands in building characters. This brief survey will lead us to re-discover the deep process of cognition and experience realized dramatically by the artist and to understand why Jan Kott considered him “the first contemporary Shakespeare”, while Jerzy Grotowski praised him as the greatest “actor of composition”.

19

«Hochsztapler, który przy pomocy wydziwiania czaruje ludzi i władze»: Grotowski w Opolu

44%

Wójtowicz A.

Pamiętnik Teatralny

|

2022

|

issue 4(283)

151-170

EN

This article discusses the activity of Jerzy Grotowski in Opole and the history of Teatr 13 Rzędów (Theatre of 13 Rows) in 1959–1964. The author makes use of various types of documents collected during her years-long research into the political context of Grotowski’s creative work: interviews with witnesses, letters, memoirs, personal files, censorship papers, and materials from the archives of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (including reports prepared by the state security organs based on denunciations) in order to portray Grotowski as a theater manager. The juxtaposition and analysis of these documents shows the scale of the surveillance of the Theatre of 13 Rows and reveals the authorities’ methods of indirectly exerting control over the artists. The article provides new arguments to support the claim that the experience of working in Opole helped Grotowski the manager to develop politically effective methods of communication with the authorities and the media, which enabled him to retain his artistic autonomy.

20

Sulle tracce di Jerzy Grotowski: la tappa di Breslavia

44%

Woźniak K.

Italica Wratislaviensia

|

2014

|

issue 5

221-234

EN

At the beginning of 1965 Jerzy Grotowski and The Theatre of 13 Rows were forced to transfer their headquarters from Wrocław to Opole. One of the most difficult periods in the history of the company coincided with the resounding success of The Constant Prince, based on Julius Slowacki’s translation of Calderon’s play. In under two years this production brought him fame and a reputation as one of the most important artists of the contemporary theatre. Until the introduction of martial law in Poland in December 1981 and the exile of Grotowski first to the United States, then to Italy, Wrocław became a witness to the most important artistic works of Grotowski and the profound changes in his artistic practice: from the theatre, through the paratheatre, to his activities in the Theatre of Sources.

Refine search results

Apocalypsis cum figuris – życiie po życiu

Grotowski polityczny

Grotowski-Flaszen – rozmowa o filmie i teatrze

Cztery noty o Witkacym

Summary of „Pamiętnik Teatralny” 1-4/2000

„Do nieba? Bluźnisz daremnie”. Faust – Marlowe – Grotowski

Towards a Poor Phenomenology. On Certain Structural Similarities between Phenomenology and J. Grotowski’s Philosophy of Theater

Jerzy Grotowski – Zbigniew Raszewski: W poszukiwaniu “istotnego dialogu”

Towards a Radically Relational Post-Grotowskian Performance Paradigm

Buddah Still Works-the Work on Oneself Never Ends: Essay on Grotowski

MICKIEWICZ JAKO „PRZYRZĄD DO GRANIA”. PRZYPADEK JERZEGO GROTOWSKIEGO

«Hochsztapler, który przy pomocy wydziwiania czaruje ludzi i władze»: Grotowski w Opolu

Dwie drogi – Teatr Laboratorium i The Living Theatre

Jerzego Grotowskiego doświadczenie Rosji: Rekonesans

«Do nieba? Bluźnisz daremnie»: Faust – Marlowe – Grotowski

Tadeusz Kantor – Jerzy Grotowski – Jerzy Gurawski

Jerzy Grotowski a chiński teatr poszukujący i tajwański teatr tańca

Le mani di Jacek Woszczerowicz, attore “di composizione”

«Hochsztapler, który przy pomocy wydziwiania czaruje ludzi i władze»: Grotowski w Opolu

Sulle tracce di Jerzy Grotowski: la tappa di Breslavia