The Theory and Criticism

of
Living Theatre

An Exploration of Philosophy, Foundation and Application

Julya Mirro Oberg 1

 Julya Oberg
1999
Morals. Values. Ethics. These are things often found lacking in today’s youth society, yet
they are necessary for human survival. In a world where computers run corporations,
schools, and leisure, the distinguishing characteristics of humans are slowly being forgotten.
Theatre has been and is now, a form of entertainment, information and a self-realization
tool. Through theatre, modern society becomes more aware of themselves, their values,
their world. Theatre “derives equal sustenance from theory and practice, common sense
and judgment, everyday life and the specialization and techniques of expression.”1

But there are more possibilities for theater than entertainment and information. There is a
form of theatre based upon theories proposed by educators, philosophers, politicos, and
scientists. This is “Living Theatre”. Based upon what is sacred to society, enhanced by
psychodramatic therapy and incorporating principles as variant as the Japanese Naikan to
Julian Beck's “Paradise Now”; from social work and innovation in Children’s Theater to
experimentalism and healing processes. “Living Theatre” comes from a place and people
who want to understand multiculturalism, society at large and each other; understanding
which can only come from education and experience. It seeks all forms of theatre which is
determined to:

Stimulate debate and pleasure;

Provoke reaction;
Provide reasons for living;
Engage emotions and intellect;
Confound expectations
[and not Theatre which agrees to]
Deny discussion and feeling;
Reinforce passivity;
Belittle belief;
Disengage emotion and intellect;
Confirm expectations.2

“Living Theatre” is “a personal attitude”3 and may be “the art form of the future.”4

1 1Alan Read, Theatre and Everyday Life/ An Ethics of Performance (New York: Routledge,
1992), 1.
2 2Ibid., 60.
3 3H. D. Albright, trans., Adolphe Appia's "The Work of Living Art" and "Man is the Measure of
all Things," trans. Bernard Hewitt (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1960), 81.
4
4 Ibid., 5.

Julya Mirro Oberg 2

To understand what “Living Theater” is actually about, one must consider the sources, the
philosophies, and theories which are the foundation of such an art form. Adolphe Appia
claims that “the touchstone for such an art form is experience which stems from
interrelationships with those people around you and their selves.”5 However true that
statement might be, we must first contemplate what the theatre is, so that we may
understand its use within these ideals. Theatre, though an art form, has had many
applications in its function within society, throughout history. As mentioned previously, it
serves to educate, inform, and reflect society. Thus, theatre is a great source for
philosophers and educators to use when considering the application of theories to the
general public.

Theatre began in ancient times, with barbaric cave dances and primitive rituals. The trials
and tribulations of war, the passage into adulthood, each of these were part of life for those
cultures which existed long before the time of written word. These were rituals sacred to
the people; they were the reincarnation, or re-creation of reality. Acting out the bear kill
gave pride to the warrior, information to the tribe, and excitement to the children. Feathers
and masks, skins and paint, costumes like modern society could never even fathom, these
were the early seeds of theatre. The idea to present something to others, to explain, to
educate, to excite- this is where theatre originates.

Alan Read explains that the word ‘theatre’, “itself carries with it the suggestion of a theory
within a practice.”6 He goes on to define the Greek origins of the word which relate to
theory and an ‘outward look’, rather than inward contemplation.7 This application of theory
is precisely why philosophers and experimentalists use theatre to explore avenues of
expressing their ideology. Ben Halm, a scholar of theatre ideology, explains that theatre
can be:

...an activity whose affinity to the constitutive

and formative elements of everyday life makes
it a powerful metaphor and via indirecta to the
understanding of human experience.8

It is because theatre can be so powerful, can use its symbolism and metaphors to engage
the audience, that “Living Theatre” was born. Is this not what we strive for? As theatre
professionals, do we not work everyday to produce something that has an affect on the

5 5Albright, 75.
6 6Read, 11.
7 7Ibid.
8 8Ben Halm, Theatre and Ideology (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1995), 93.

Julya Mirro Oberg 3

public? The audience allows us to show them something-and they agree to believe it while
it lasts. This is what makes theatre so powerful; an opportunity as an audience member to
forget your personal issues and let your mind and spirit become a part of something more
fantastic than your self. And much like the primitive people who watch the dance around
the fire in feathered masks, modern society goes to the theatre to be a part of something
bigger than themselves. Perhaps it is just other than themselves.

Just as the hunter experiences his kill, the audience members feel and explore the situation
in their own selves, as if they were there, and a part of the experience. We see how theatre
establishes this circumstance through Halm’s explanation of theatre:

Of all art forms, Theatre comes closer to capturing

and duplicating the essential character of human
experience. The basic material of Theatre is
humanlike beings acting and interacting in line with
deep-seated desires and dreams of self-fulfillment.
These beings come into conflict with others or even
with other parts of themselves and they resolve or
fail to resolve these conflicts.9

It is obvious that the reason theatre exists, in both primitive and modern societies, is due to
this essential character of human beings. Humans, by their very nature, want to belong. By
witnessing, and both emotionally and intellectually exploring some other experience; the
being is able to create and sustain a reality other than their own. In this fashion, the theatre
educates and informs, entertains and arouses.

Theatre is usually coined in two terms: ‘good’ theatre and ‘bad’ theatre. Read provides an
accurate and succinct definition of ‘good’ theatre versus ‘bad’ theatre. “Good theatre stands
face to face with its audience. Where theatre has been able to do this, it has changed lives
and histories.”10 He goes on to say, “where it hasn’t it has imaginatively impoverished itself
and its audience.”11 This appears to be an acceptable explanation of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’, for
it agrees that theatre should be honest with the audience, and that if it is, if it can not only
present its reality to them, it can change them. If it forgets its purpose, and there are many
to choose from, it is weak and fruitless.

The human beings, the audience, are key to theatre. Not only in its purpose, but in its
realization. Read justifies the importance of the audience:

9 9Halm, 96.
1010 Read, 6.
1111 Ibid.

Julya Mirro Oberg 4

 Theatre is an expressive practice that involves an
audience through the medium of images at the
centre of which is the human body. It is the only
arts practice that foregrounds the body in this way,
and as such includes performance forms from
dance to death rites within its parameters.12

By presenting that one thing which all humans share, the body, theatre sanctions an
agreement and understanding of its audience members. Much as the primitive cultures act
out death rites for their dead, modern society acts out its rituals on stage. In our American
society, there are rituals and rites performed everyday, by every human being. Things as
simple as a kiss before bedtime to religious rites, such as bat mitzvahs and confirmations,
are interwoven into our lives.

This begs the question, what is the difference between what we see at the theatre and what
we experience everyday as we go about our habitual and ritualistic lives? I believe the
answer comes from the difference between the sacred and the profane. And because the
experience necessary for “Living Theater” comes from interacting with those around you,
with society itself, it is important to inspect and reflect on contemporary society. American
society revolves around the idea of multiculturalism. America has long been called ‘the
melting pot’, terminology used to denote the assimilation of all types of people. Each of
these people, and in a larger sense each culture, has their own idea of what is important to
them: what is sacred. These ‘sacred’ ideals are important enough to be taught to their
children, passed on from generation to generation. By sacred, I mean some vital,
intangible, often unattainable ‘thing’ which not only makes a person feel complete, but
permits the self to realize its potential and its values.

The opposite of the sacred is the profane. Both of these ideas come from innate human
philosophy: sacred is good and profane is evil/ bad. These two abstract ideas, sacred and
profane, are extremes or opposites. There is no such thing as a gray area between them
when it comes to values and ethics. Something is either ‘good’ or it is ‘bad’; murder is either
accepted or it is not. In modern society, the black of the profane and the white of sacred
have muddled together to create a hazy gray. This comes partially from the fact that one
person (or culture) has a specific idea about an issue, and another culture or person
disagrees. Thus, metaphorically, one’s black and another’s white together create a 'gray'
society. Because this distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is unclear, the morals, ethics,
and values in modern society are unclear as well.

1212 Read, 10.

Julya Mirro Oberg 5

It is this notion of the sacred, this intangible positive presence in every human’s life, that
permits theatre to touch an audience. Adolphe Appia, who wrote many texts on the theatre,
describes the same idea of the sacred this way:

...we feel, with some embarrassment, that there

is beyond [the text of the play], whatever it may
be, something that is an integral part of dramatic
art. It is an element we do not yet fully and exactly
understand, and one we are inclined to count
unimportant, possibly because we have such
difficulty in focusing our attention on it.13

This ‘thing’ that Appia speaks of, that we have already discussed, is what makes the theatre
alive. It creates an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue because the audience knows not
why they understand the plight of the character on stage, but that instinctively, they do. In
all honesty, much as Appia suggests, human beings do not want to know why.
Understanding would mean that people would have to step out of their reality for a time
longer than the duration of the play. In modern society, there is simply no time or energy for
that experience. “Representation is part and parcel of an unending process of self-and-
world definition and circumscription whose common name is culture.”14 And this culture
exists and survives because the audience allows for that representation to last only as long
as the reality holds.

Once the play is over, the audience takes a collective deep breath. As they exhale, their
vision clears, and they are back to the reality of their own lives. Therein lies the paradox of
theatre:

...the greatest and deepest joy that art can afford us is tragic
in its essence; for, while art has the power to make us “live”
our life without at the same time undergoing its sufferings,
yet art demands in return-if we are to enjoy it profoundly-
that we have suffered.15

While experiencing theatre, the humans in the audience relate to what is being presented
before them. What character they relate to, what plot, what sounds and sights, is
completely dependent upon the relationship those things presented have with the individual
audience member. If there is anything which triggers a memory or acknowledgment in the
audience’s own reality, then theatre has accomplished something profound-it has united

1313 Albright, 4.
1414 Halm, 9.
1515 Ibid., 2.

Julya Mirro Oberg 6

both realities into one. When the staged reality and the actual reality of the audience mesh,
then theatre can change lives and history.

Within Adolphe Appia’s teachings, theories and ideas, he takes this concept of the
connection between the theatre and the audience further. “In the framework of Appian living
art, the traditional individual artist is merely he catalyst of representation, not the chief
agent.”16 It is this idea of representation which confounds most people. What is
represented on stage, or rather before the audience, is merely that: a representation of
something else. Just as the hunter-warrior represents his kill to the tribe through
reenactment, the actors dramatize some situation or experience for the audience. In the
past, theatre was used to present plays which told stories about political and historical
figures. The plays were about entertaining the public, or about educating the public-making
them aware of some plight or situation in their world.

But now, the idea of “Living Theatre” has matured. Halm states, “Appia’s works conceive
theatre as a viable means of presenting and representing experience.”17 Instead of
educating you, or even merely entertaining you, theatre can present an experience-one
which the audience member can actually participate in. This participation may take place
intellectually, emotionally, or in reality; every rendition is different because every person
feels things differently, based upon their personal experiences. Halm accepts the
differences thus:

As a mode of representation, Theatre seems to inform

and illuminate the basic processes of human self-and-
world representation, and yet, in concrete terms, it
means different things to different people.18

Because it can mean so many things, other groups have sought the use of theatre for their
own needs.

As previously mentioned, contemporary society is often considered morally deficient; where

ten-year-olds beat each other up over a pair of tennis shoes, seventh graders carry guns to
school for protection and pre-teens are pregnant for the second time. Due to the
overwhelming amount of moral neglect, educators and social workers have found a way of
influencing children’s morals: Children's Theatre. In fact:

Children’s Theatre has been hailed by educators and

1616 Halm, 127.

1717 Ibid., 107.
1818 Ibid., 84.

Julya Mirro Oberg 7

 community leaders alike as having the greatest potential
of all the arts for learning and as a means of bringing
beauty into the lives of boys and girls.19

This beauty includes knowledge and acceptance of the multicultural world in which they live.
The notion of using theatre to relay information to children has been accepted and furthered
by social workers. They have found:

...the earliest evidence of Children’s Theatre in the social

and educational centers of our larger cities rather than
on the professional stage.20

Unfortunately, both child educators and social workers have come to the conclusion that the
idea of representation of morals and ethics through theater has caught the children up in a
cyclical fury of “substituting one form of stereotype for another.”21 In fact, it was becoming
increasingly difficult to discern the value of a particular representation from the unintentional
slap on the children's defenses.

From the belief that theatre could represent values and morals to children if the presentation
could eliminate any defensive responses, came the birth of two types of therapy. They were
called psychodramatic therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Both therapies were
based upon the idea that kids could not accept all the multicultural lingo, discern the morals
and drop their defenses at the same time. Educators and therapists began at the inception,
rationalizing the ideology behind the term multicultural. In Brustein’s article "The Use and
Abuse of Multiculturalism", he states that multiculturalism was originated “chiefly in a desire
to celebrate many different racial, ethnic, and sexual strains and backgrounds that
constitute the quilt of American society.”22 Once children began to understand this principle,
as it was taught in schools, churches, and homes, the two therapies began to emerge in
prominence, in society.

Both therapies use theatre and acting to assess and address children’s behavior and
emotions. Realizing that children have a hard time distinguishing between their own reality
and their parents', and the chasm between their feelings and rules, educators decided to
simplify the theatrical experience. In fact, pychodramatic therapy and cognitive behavioral

1919 Nellie McCaslin, Theatre for Children in the United States (Oklahoma: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1971), 5.
2020 McCaslin, 6.
2121Robert Brustein, “The Use and Abuse of Multiculturalism,” New Republic, 16-25 September
1991, 31.
22
22 Ibid.

Julya Mirro Oberg 8

therapy utilize the art of acting, of presenting and representing the world; reality, if you will.
“Psychodramatic therapy looks inward: it aims at helping the child understand his or her
emotions...with clues often presented in symbolic form.”23 This therapy is like the actor
preparing for a character; it delves into what makes the character unique and real to the
audience. It also explores the possibilities of symbolism, much like modern directors utilize
symbols to enhance the meaning of their plays.

The second therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, is like the actor’s performance.
“Cognitive behavioral therapy looks outward: it trains the child to see the world differently
and to change his/her behavioral patterns. It has its roots in experimental psychology.”24
This is like the director’s presentation of a show; it offers the audience a new way to see
something which is based in reality. This theory is about presentation and pedagogy,
training the child to think and react differently. Although both therapies are used today,
there are problems with the effectiveness of each.

For psychodramatic therapy, the hardship comes in several forms. The first lies with the
child him/herself. Honesty is a hard thing to face, brutality and moral deficiency in the world
make that doubly true. So requiring a child to acknowledge their emotions is a considerable
task in itself. Secondly, trying to empower a child with the ability to discern between
emotions such as anger and hate, is difficult at best. This is partially due to the fact that the
manifestations of each are often seen as similar to a child's perspective. Teaching that hate
is an extreme reaction and anger is what you feel for a short time, is not an easy task for
adults, let alone children. Lastly, several therapists have found that the symbols which both
therapies use are not as universal as originally thought. In some cultures a bird represents
freedom, in others, death. Obviously, it is hard to reconcile the discrepancy, especially to a
child. Similarly, with cognitive behavioral therapy, retraining a child anticipates that a child
knows the difference between what they are doing and what is being expected. This goes
back to the issue of honesty and understanding. Although “the values of Children's Theatre
has been a driving force through the years,”25 it is imperative for both the therapists and the
parents to be clear on its limitations in these uses.

Another component in “Living Theater” comes from two ancient Asian philosophers: Naikan
and Lao Tzu. The Japanese have a different idea of psychotherapy which is based upon
their philosophy of Naikan which means “looking within,”26and is considered “a form of self-

2323 Katherine Davis Fishman, "Therapy for Children," The Atlantic, June 1991, 48.
2424 Fishman, 48.
2525 McCaslin, ix.
2626 David Reynolds, Naikan Psychotherapy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 1.

Julya Mirro Oberg 9

reflection.”27 The Japanese use this psychotherapy to determine for themselves what they
have, as individuals, to do with the problematic situation they are faced with, and as a tool
to realize what they can honestly do about it. This Naikan idea of self-determination was
mutated to work for the theatre: presenting to an audience (usually children) an accurate
perception of feelings.
As Naikan is said to offer “profound insight into human existence,”28 this seems a logical
place for “Living Theatre” to probe. Is this not the goal every human being strives for: to
understand themselves and their place within society and reality? As “Living Theatre”
wishes to increase the awareness of its audience, surely a philosophy which lives in the
realm of insight is an intelligent theory to consider. Unfortunately, this is but a piece of the
puzzle and trying to create, before an audience, self-realization and insight often comes off
as flat and boring to modern society. If the audience cannot experience the realization
themselves, then what is the purpose in presenting accurate perceptions of feelings? It is
vital to recall that what “Living Theatre” strives for is participation, not explanation.

Another philosophy, derived from Lao Tzu, offers a diverse facet of insight. Just as the
Naikan philosophy looks inward (much like the aforementioned psychodramatic therapy), so
does Lao Tzu. However, he believes that knowledge is that unattainable ‘thing’ that we
discussed earlier-the sacred. For centuries the plight has been fought to earn respect and
attain power. For some cultures this revolves around money and politics, but for Lao Tzu, it
is about becoming wise and enlightened. Loa Tzu said, “the further one goes/ the less one
knows.”29 From this statement, we can derive the importance of knowledge, hundreds of
years ago and still today. Lao Tzu believed that by accepting the fact that you can not know
everything, you begin to know something.

It is because knowledge and understanding have been searched for that the essential, and
the idea of the sacred, reappear in this new form of theatre. Appia applied this theory to his
works, claiming, “the aim of a work of art is to reveal some essential, salient character,
consequently some important idea, more clearly and more completely than can real
objects.”30 This idea can only work once the important and essential things have been
discovered and accepted as needed. Consequently, each “Living Theatre” production
contains “a new knowledge,”31 which generally comes from the same place within each of
us: the emotions. That universal emotion ordinarily is suffering. All genders, races and
ages have experienced some degree or instance of suffering in their lives.

2727 Ibid., 44.

2828Reynolds, 1.
2929 D. C. Lau, Lao Tzu (New York: Penguin Books, 1971), 108.
3030 Albright, 23.
3131 Ibid., 57.

Julya Mirro Oberg 10

The idea of humanistic suffering gave birth to the idea of “Living Art”. For “living art is
social,”32 and can be related to by people of all walks, and cultures, of life. Furthermore,
since dramatic art is directed to “our eyes, our ears, our understanding- in short, to our
whole being,”33 it is the logical choice to begin perpetuating this theory of “Living Art”.
Finding a point of relation is simple-every person can relate to society; if they exist, then
they are a part of that society in one fashion or another. “Living Theatre” revolves around
the idea of presenting society with what it claims to be sacred and creating nuances within
that reality. Thus, whether it be founded in Naikan psychotherapy or Lao Tzu’s teachings,
there is a goal to marry inner thoughts and emotions with the reality of the outside world.

Other philosophers who contribute to “Living Theater's” premise include ancient

philosophers such as Aristotle and Nietzsche. As presented here in this discussion, “Living
Theater” is exacting to define and even to describe. Aristotle created one way to decipher
the thing we call 'theatre':

Perhaps the most immediate way to approach Theatre is

through the description of its constitutive or formative
elements and the conventions that underwrite their
organization. This is the basic approach in Aristotle's
Poetics...Plot, in his definitions, is the caused or deliberate
arrangements of actions, events, and/or situations
that constitute the play; it is to him the most primary
and important element of drama and Theatre.34

From this theory, put forth by Aristotle so many years ago, the “Living Theatre” proponents
have discovered that he is correct: it is the plot that is of most importance. For the story
which is being told is what makes the audience relate, understand and eventually
participate. “Living Theatre”, however, throws out almost everything else Aristotle stood for
and taught. Gone are the rules about time and place, about words and acting style. What
“Living Theatre” resolves to do is represent a plot which all can relate to; the belief is that if
the actors comprehend the plot and its significance, then the audience will also.

Nietzsche’s beliefs also offer some insight into the premise of “Living Theatre”. Although
Nietzsche rejected theater as an art form, he did offer us the first taste of the human will to
live.
To Nietzsche...Socratic philosophy, art, religion,

3232 Ibid., 59.

3333 Ibid., 6.
3434 Halm, 84.

Julya Mirro Oberg 11

 metaphysics, as well as the “more powerful illusions”
created by means of mythology all serve culture,
acculturation, and the human will to life.35

From Niezsche, “Living Theatre” understands the importance of the human will. The
position that a human’s will is stronger than its capacity for reason, its intellectual ability or
even its emotional stamina, is profound. “Living Theatre” takes that idea and creates
performances which challenge the audience to participate, dare them to strip away their
intellect, reason and barriers, allowing only for the emotional response and the experience
to take place. Once felt, the human’s will remains intact, but their barriers and perceptions
may be altered.

Combining the influence of Taoist teachings and experimentalism come the team Julian
Beck and Judith Malina, who created the actual troupe Living Theatre. Experimentalism is
the theory that engages the concept of trying something repeatedly until it works. Allowing
for the process to be alive, and the catalysts to acknowledge their influence, the process
creates something organic and basic. Using the example of the hunter-warrior, he
experimented over and over again until he could create a representation of the bear that the
tribe understood. Once he found the action or sound which related ‘bear’ to them, he knew
what behavior to exhibit the next time. The Taoists believe that everything is Nothing and
that basic naked truth is the most glorious thing one can have. Halm brings this idea into
modern terms:

What we human beings call culture is essentially a

veneer of civility and sociability we create at great
cost to veil our basic animality in much the same
way that clothes cover our nakedness.36

Two artists who believed in Halm’s assessment of culture, Beck and Malina, created The
Living Theatre. Utilizing nakedness and primitive, orgy-like movements,37 they created
performances like no one had ever conceived, let alone witnessed. It started with Beck’s
understanding of the visual art world:

[Beck] saw the work of Pollack, Motherwell, Rothko,

Kline and deKooning and realized that these artists
were implying a life that the Theatre didn’t know

3535 Ibid., 89.

3636 Halm, 106.
3737 Renfreu Neff, The Living Theatre:USA (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1970), 7.

Julya Mirro Oberg 12

 existed.38

So he asked his partner to help him create a theatre where the art was alive. It began with
a combination of Japanese Noh Theatre, medieval miracle plays, and Ibsen works,39 which
were performed because they touched people’s sense of reality and reason. Rejecting
anything purely entertainment,40 they decided this type of theatre could only exist if there
was no separation between art and life.41 Biner states, “it was to be a “living” Theatre, one
that would emphasize contemporary plays performed in such a manner as to move the
spectators.”42

Soon, Beck and Malina’s work took on the beliefs of a whole sect of society. Schechner
claims that they “were the bright hope of a group who wanted to see the theatre restored to
poetry, sensibility, social consciousness, and art.”43 Famous actors and directors were
involved in this theatrical movement within society; people such as Martin Sheen, Francis
Ford Coppola, and Bob Dylan.44 It is important, before we go any further, that we
understand the philosophy of the Theatre Beck and Malina wanted to create.

Beck’s philosophy comes from the idea that “we choose life, but are swallowed up,
unwillingly, by death.”45 Beck believed that “life is being dreamed. We are dreaming one
another,”46and because life is all one great intangible thing, peace can be found in the
altered reality of theatre. Theatre is as close to reality, according to this philosophy, as
reality gets. For if it is all a dream, then the art of theatre-the true pretending to be-is as real
as anything life can make. Once an actor tries to be something other than their self, they
are creating a reality through their performance of some alternative self. And if each of us is
merely participating in a dream, then one reality of self is as viable and real as another.

Theatre usually requires a text, a text which is “entrusted to human beings...as they bring it
to life on the stage.”47 As mentioned earlier, Beck’s philosophy concerning theatre
3838 Richard Schechner, The Living Book of the Living Theatre (Greenwich: New York Graphic
Society Limited, 1971), 1.
3939 Pierre Biner, The Living Theatre (New York: Horizon Press, 1972), 21.
4040 Biner, 27.
4141 John Tytell, The Living Theatre/ Art, Exile, and Outrage (New York: Grove Press, 1995),
xi.
4242 Biner, 21.
4343 Schechner, 1.
4444 Schechner, passim.
4545 Julian Beck, The Life of the Theatre/ The Relation of the Artist to the Struggle of the People
(New York: Limelight Editions, 1986), ix.
4646 Beck, The Life of the Theatre, 4.
4747 Albright, 4.

Julya Mirro Oberg 13

incorporates the importance of plot, but perhaps the term 'text' may be an overstatement.
Beck believed that the text should be full of realistic situations. By realistic, I mean
situations which reflect the society in which the play is being produced. Thus, Beck created
outlines for plays, both original and published, which revolved around everyday topics.
Keeping with experimentalist practices, when Beck’s group performed these outlines/texts,
they were done differently each time, depending upon the audience, the cast, the place. As
each “Living Theatre” performance stemmed from the actor’s personal emotions and
relation to the text, each show was not only different by means of the actual words spoken,
but also by the mood and tone set by the ensemble of cast and audience. And as the
emotions are also experienced by people in modern society, Beck felt that this would make
it easy for the audience to relate, no matter the actual performance’s words, tone or mood.

Relating to the play was Beck’s chief concern. Each time a play was witnessed, the
audience and the cast participated in it, some say to the same degree. Therefore, new
experiences were taking place at every performance for both the cast and the audience.
For the audience, “Living Theatre” is more of an experience than a witnessing of a show,
just as killing the bear is more of an experience than watching someone reenact it. The
audience is figuratively and literally drawn into the play; connecting their personal emotions
to the experience being had by the actor. For the actor, the audience involvement is what
determines the emotional course of the performance. Thus, for both the actors and the
audience, there is an experience of emotions and situations without having to engage in the
actual, physical situation.

Beck created a play in the seventies, or rather an outline, entitled Paradise Now. This script
reflects the Taoist ideal of Nothing, and their idea of teaching, “the teaching that uses no
words.”48 Beck generated a type of theatre which utilized these teachings through use of
symbols, people representing objects, and society as his mirror and reflection. He believed
that all people come from one origin and thus, can relate to each other if they can get back
to that place of genesis. He did this by breaking down the barriers society puts up, using
words, images and bodies in ways that are often confrontational, political, animalistic and
timely. An example of text from this performance:

A is for Alice
N is for new
A is for another or also
R is for reefers rebirth and repose
C is for cock c is for cunt
H is for harvest

4848 Lau, 104.

Julya Mirro Oberg 14

 Y is for you49

Clearly, the references are antiestablishment and possibly even inciteful in nature. The
‘Alice’ reference is to a character of a book who kills herself because she is disillusioned by
life and society. ‘Reefers’ refers to the drug marijuana which was outlawed and yet
consumed by immense numbers of society. This is a clear example of showing society
what is actually going on. Using words such as ‘cock’ and ‘cunt’ provoke the audience.
Not only are these words considered vulgar, but they refer to sexual body parts which are
rarely discussed in private, and never in public. The ‘harvest’ term refers to two items.
Harvest symbolizes the creation and disposal of children, termed by abortion clinic
adversaries: harvesting the babies. It also refers to the harvesting of the land for others;
Beck and Malina supported the Farmers Aid programs and they, with their cast and crew,
lived a communal life. In their world, they harvested their own land (when they had it), and
shared their harvests. Lastly, the ‘you’ refers to the audience, and in the bigger picture, to
all of us who ever read, hear about or experience his work. It is this type of tactic, the in
your face, ‘I am talking to YOU’ attitude, that made Beck’s works so controversial.

Beck also used the components of theatre to symbolize his beliefs and interpretations of
Taoist and experimentalist principles. All of Beck’s shows were performed on a blank
stage, which symbolize the emptiness of the world before humans inhabited it, and also the
Nothing principle of Taoism. Once he began to use sets, they were abstract, usually
consisting of trash or debris, and he used the cast as the mountains, the creatures. Many
of Beck’s first presentations were performed in the nude, for nudity symbolizes the denial of
possessions and rebirth.50 Beck and Malina also claim that nudity represents the inner soul,
and thus, life. This, of course, led to extreme criticism and his original theatre was shut
down because the police felt it was a front for a whorehouse.
Undeterred, Beck required his cast to wear only loincloths, as this covered the only
distinction between man and woman-the genitals and sexual organs. Beck believed that by
employing the cast as the actors and the set, there would be less distraction on the stage;
the audience could relate to the human form and would accept it in whatever position or
manifestation. Beck and Malina were concerned with representing the real life of humans,
not the daily trials and tribulations experienced, but the soul’s reality. Although water is the
essence of life to the Taoists, Beck innovated the idea of the human being as the essence.
Thus, good art, and theatre, comes from within the human being’s soul. And so Beck and
Malina used their minds, bodies and selves to represent “Living Theater”.

4949 Schechner, 7.
5050 Julian Beck and Judith Malina, Paradise Now (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), passim.

Julya Mirro Oberg 15

Beck’s co-author, partner, and wife, believed that Beck was not only a genius, but
misunderstood by the very society which he strove to represent. She also felt that they
were revolutionaries and the truest theatrical artists of all time. Malina had this to say:

Julian affirmed that the highest art shall be best

understood by the most oppressed, because of
their need. And with the means of art, as writer,
poet, activist, man of the Theatre, street performer,
painter, actor, anarchist spokesman, playwright,
rebel lover and pacifist agitator, with all the means
of art he roused us from the torpor of our fear. He
made the Theatre the matrix, the model, the prophetic
vision of revolutionary action that could be liberatory
without being destructive.51

The opposition to this type of work, was immense. The public was forever shutting down
and banning Beck/Malina performances. As previously mentioned, their first theater/
performance space was shut down because the public and the police believed that it was a
front for a whorehouse; there were all these naked people running about. Their
organization and works were wrought with problems:

Before one upheaval could be absorbed and resolved,

another one set in, making it almost impossible to keep
them separate, the conclusion of one tending to precipitate
the next crisis.52

They were eventually closed down permanently, once they had paid the proverbial dues
and attained an actual theater space, by the IRS. As Neff states it plainly in his text, the
“Living Theater” was closed down, officially, because Beck and Malina failed to pay federal
excise and payroll taxes.53 Unofficially, it was banned due to its vulgarity, nudity, orgy-like
primitive physicality, and political commentary.

Interestingly, once The Living Theatre was banned, they toured Europe with great success
and eventually came back to America with a one year tour which was met with great
enthusiasm. Apparently, it was a wonderful concept, but American society wanted it to
belong somewhere else. Recently, I had the opportunity to experience what I can only think
of as a Beck/Malina creation. A performance group from Spain, called Visa Visa, is
currently performing in a dingy space off of New York’s Circle. This performance had all the

5151Beck, The Life of the Theatre, x.

5252 Neff, 161.
5353 Ibid., 7.

Julya Mirro Oberg 16

trappings of a Living Theatre performance; there was sexual, primitive dance, audience
interaction (both physically and verbally), symbolism and very vague sets created from
painter’s scaffolding, bungee chords, and walls. Unlike Beck’s cast, the actors were
clothed, yet the audience was exposed to their underwear for most of the performance, and
there was one completely naked actor who grabbed audience members and took them for a
ride on the bungee chord system. Although it was an exciting and intriguing performance, I
can see why critics dissent with it being called 'theater'. There is little distinction between
the audience and the actors, the costumes are provocative, and there appears to be no plot,
although symbolism runs rampant if one chooses to look for meaning within the
performance.

This brings us to the issue of plot in general. If “cataloguing events is one of the ways to
shut out life, to dispose of something bothersome,”54 then it makes sense that Beck chose
not to ‘catalogue’ his performances. As “Living Theater” wants only to expose humans to
life, it is clearly within their philosophy’s parameters to avoid anything that shuts out life,
when all they want to do is let it in. Appia’s works agree on this point, as “all thought
reduces and simplifies the quintessential complexity of phenomenal experience.”55 An
experience, therefore, is had by not thinking, and just allowing the experience to happen.
Surely this is what happened at Visa Visa, and can only be assumed to have occurred with
Beck’s performances. However, there are other theorists who pursued this same idea
through other methods.

Bertholdt Brecht, a German playwright, would have agreed with Beck's notion of
experiencing theatre rather than simply witnessing it. Brecht believed that “every art
contributes the greatest art of all, the art of living.”56 Perhaps coined in different words, is
this not the same thing that Beck and Malina believed? That through theatre, people could
contribute to each other’s lives, learning and understanding their selves within that reality
called life? Although Brecht was never a part of the “Living Theater” movement, as an
educator, social worker or performance creator, he did agree with the concept of using
theatre to represent reality and change. Halm described Brecht in these terms:

Brecht’s quest to change the world by making

the theatrical representation of human experience
scientific enough to suit the scientific-technological
times bespeaks his belief in the acculturative
force of Theatre in its nature as the most human,

5454 Biner, xvii.

5555 Halm, 105.
5656 Ibid., 159.

Julya Mirro Oberg 17

 universal or naive form of representation.57

Brecht used theatre as a means of reaching the technological society of which the
audiences of his play were comprised. It was his belief, as Beck’s and the educators’, that
theatre itself is a universal form of representation.

The emotion most often represented, as we discussed earlier, is often termed ‘suffering’.
As all of society has suffered, in some way or another, it is the easiest emotion with which to
relate. Add to that the fact that it is one of the most internalized emotions within the realm
of human feeling, and there is adequate evidence to see the value of presenting suffering.
There has developed another type of therapy based upon the ideas presented by
psychodramatic therapists, Beck and the belief in universal suffering. This is called
Dramatherapy. Phil Jones, the author of a Dramatic Therapy textbook, states, “...drama
and theater are ways of actively participating in the world and are not merely animation of
it...within drama there is a profound potential for healing.”58 This practice relies on the
theory of healing a suffering person by helping them to experience a reality other than their
own, thereby causing the person to see outside of their reality and create a safer, more
comfortable alternative world.

In simplistic terms, “Dramatherapy is involvement in drama with a healing intention.”59 This

is considered innovative and creative by its supporters, and experimental and worthy of
caution by its adversaries. Because so little is known about how Dramatherapy works for
individuals, and what kind of long term ramifications the work has, the jury is still out on this
type of “Living Theatre”. Borrowing from Beck the idea of outlines rather than scripts, and
from educators and social workers the idea of healing children, Dramatherapy has a specific
ideology and some definite theories to process. Children’s rights activists and psychologists
are looking to this type of therapy to remedy some of the moral destruction in this country’s
children.

Another example of using theatre to heal belongs to history: the Federal Theatre Project of
the 1930’s. Its birth lying in the Living Newspaper, a Central European based novelty, this
was an institution created by the government to try to heal the Depression Era theatre-
related souls. Stuart Cosgrove, in the introduction to Liberty Deferred describes the origins
of the Living Newspaper:

The origins of the Living Newspaper are located in the

twentieth-century Bolshevik revolutionary government’s

5757 Ibid., 169.

5858 Phil Jones, Drama as Therapy/ Theatre as Living (New York: Routledge, 1996), 1.
5959 Jones, 6.

Julya Mirro Oberg 18

 attempt to establish a vast apparatus of information, news,
education, and propaganda. From these early beginnings,
the Living Newspaper had to be flexible in ways that the
conventional play could not...It’s flexibility, brevity, and
mobility made the Living Newspaper the most appropriate
dramatic form for...the revolution, and its responsiveness
to all kinds of political subjects allowed disparate issues,
such as collectivization, personal hygiene and international
affairs, to be contained within one theatrical bulletin.60

Out of work, and refusing aid in many cases, the actors, designers, directors of America
were losing hope with their world. “Living Newspaper” referred to the idea of animating a
newspaper61and its information. The Federal Theater Project had many facets: the
“Experimental Theatre”, the “Negro Drama” and the “Children’s Theatre.”62 These varying
avenues of performance allowed black actors, young actors, and innovators to perform and
create theatre for the public. Intended to help a group out of poverty and inform the public
while entertaining them, the government projected it would begin to heal the nation’s cultural
deficiencies and suffering.

A member of the Federal Theatre Project, John Houseman, writes of its importance:

The miracle of the Federal Theater Project lies

precisely in this-that from the drab and painful
relief project there sprang the liveliest, most
innovative, and most original Theatre of its era.63

Unfortunately, even with the government's creation of this program, there was dissent
among the ranks. Some politicians, knowing how the Living Newspaper was being used in
Europe, feared that American politicos were using this project to perpetuate their own
agendas. While using the theory of “Living Theatre”, with outlines for scripts, symbolism,
messages to heal the suffering of its audiences, there was a great deal of concern about the
plot of the shows. Eventually, the government shut the project down claiming that it was
being used for subversive purposes against the very people who created it.64 The theatre
6060 Lorraine Brown, ed., Liberty Deferred and Other Living Newspapers of the 1930's (Fairfax:
George Mason University Press, 19889), ix.
6161 Brown, xi.
6262 John O'Conner and Lorraine Brown, eds., Free, Adult, Uncensored/ The Living History of
the Federal Theatre Program (Washington, D.C.: New Republic Books, 1978),
passim.
6363 O'Conner and Brown, ix.
6464 Brown, vx-xxi.

Julya Mirro Oberg 19

world was then recreated into the original theater spaces, with management, auditions, and
scripts. Only recently, through shows like “Paradise Now” and “Visa Visa”, have we seen
this idea come back to the forefront of theatrical performances.

One of the most important facets of “Living Theatre”, is the idea of being alive. For the
mass society, that means for the actors to live their lives. For advocates of “Living Theatre”,
it means the theatre, the performance, the whole experience, needs to exist where it can
breathe. Every moment of every day is an experience. It is a moment which cannot be
returned to you. “It is theatre's prerogative to exist in a place for a unique, unrepeatable
moment and then to perpetuate in the memory.”65 All theatre is a process, a project that
begins before it starts and ends only with the cessation of the mind’s memory.
As a matter of policy, all advocates of “Living Theatre” believe that theatre is necessary to
living; it holds some true and otherwise unattainable knowledge. Jones says that even
“Dramatherapy originates from these beliefs which see theatre as being necessary to
living.”66 Therefore, from the school of thought modern society politely calls
multiculturalism, understanding and the avant-garde principles of Beck’s art come together
to conceive the child: “Living Theatre”. This is proclaimed as the most intense ideal for
Children’s Theatre and therapy. Unfortunately, there are few who understand or wish to
help the child develop. Right now, it is still a baby, barely crawling. There are troupes,
however, who perform from outlines centered around issues presented in the newspaper
such as AIDS, rape, incest, drug abuse, bullying, verbal abuse and domestic violence.
Because “Living Theatre” has been hailed as an educational tool, we can, as Appia states,
“learn to live art in common with others; let us learn to free ourselves, to experience in
common the deep emotions that tie us together.”67

This deep emotional pool is the thing, the intangible that we all search for in our lives. It is
the one obsession that all humans have in common, though not all humans know how to
access or even define it. It is an inexplicable thought and an emotional ideal all rolled into
one creating the sacred- the goal we strive for in our lives. “Living Theatre” came out of a
desire to teach, to educate, to understand both children and adults; hoping to better
understand our selves in the process. The educators and social workers see theatre as a
means of expressing varying cultures to increase awareness and tolerance. Beck saw the
theatre as a way of expressing humanistic feelings in a simplistic, albeit confrontational, way
that all of society could relate to. Every theorist, philosopher and theatrical soul provide, in
their contribution, a space for values, ethics, and morals. It is the application of these
principles and theories which present the variation. To quote Appia:

6565 Read, 12.

6666 Jones, 4.
6767 Albright, 73.

Julya Mirro Oberg 20

 Specifically and practically speaking, how are we
going to express the desire; how are we going to
share it with others, concretely and convincingly,
so as to inspire them to unite with us in realizing
the Great Work?68

It seems to me that even by reading this, processing it, allowing it to breathe inside your
mind, if not your soul, makes that question moot. But I press on, for it seems to me that
there is so much left to be said and discussed. What of the idea of scripts? What about the
notion of healing? How can we incorporate every philosophy and theory and still create a
uniform being called “Living Theatre”? Appia sums up my personal belief:
We who know living art and its possibilities bear a
torch of life, which must light up the innermost
recesses of our public and especially our artistic
life...In our search for the flame of aesthetic truth,
we had to extinguish, one after the other, the false
torches of a false artistic culture. Now our own
fire-yours and mine-can relight those torches.69

What else can be said? It is up to us, you and I, to bear Appia's torch, to tell the story of the
bear kill.
Works Cited
Albright, H.D., trans. Adolphe Appia’s “The Work of Living Art” and “Man is the Measure of

All Things” , trans. Barnard Hewitt. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1960.

Wonderful translation of an important essay on this subject; Appia’s ideas are

revolutionary and specific.

The Atlantic. June 1991. “Therapy for Children” p.47-9. By Katherine Davis Fishman.

Fabulous essay describing the need and use of children’s therapy in various forms.

Beck, Julian. The Life of the Theatre/ The Relation of the Artist to the Struggle of the
People.

New York: Limelight Editions, 1986.

6868 Ibid., 80.

6969 Albright, 80-81.

Julya Mirro Oberg 21

 Includes multiple essays by Beck and an important forward by Malina; gives insight
into what Beck and Malina were striving to create.

Beck, Julian and Judith Malina. Paradise Now. New York: Vintage Books, 1971.

A clear example of their work together, the ensemble spirit, and the ‘script’ of
Paradise Now.

Biner, Pierre. The Living Theatre. New York: Horizon Press, 1972.

More details about Beck and Malina’s life, theories and work; chronological and
written with a sense of humor.

Free, Adult, Uncensored/ The Living History of the Federal Theatre Program. John

O’Conner and Lorraine Brown, eds. Washington, D.C.: New Republic Books, 1978.

A great source for pictures, quotes and names of those involved in the F.T.P.

Halm, Ben B. Theatre and Ideology. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1995.

Various essays concerning different ideologies concerning the importance, use

and theory of theater.
Jones, Phil. Drama as Therapy/ Theatre as Living. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Wonderful text for understanding the concepts and applications of Dramatic Therapy.

Lau, D.C. Lao Tzu. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.

Provides insight into the philosophy of Lau Tzu.

Liberty Deferred and Other Living Newspapers of the 1930’s. Lorraine Brown, ed.

Fairfax: George Mason University Press, 1989.

Wonderful source to understand the Living Newspaper idea; actual scripts are extant.

McCaslin, Nellie. Theatre for Children in the United States. Oklahoma: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1971.

Julya Mirro Oberg 22

 Text does as it advertises: various applications and importance of theater for children.

Neff, Renfreu. The Living Theatre: USA. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1970.

A more conservative view of the Beck/Malina world and theories.

New Republic. September 16-25, 1991. “The Use and Abuse of Multiculturalism,” pp. 31-
34.

By Robert Brustein.

An article which provides information concerning the idea of multiculturalism and

its use in modern society.

Read, Alan. Theatre and Everyday Life/ An Ethics of Performance. New York: Routledge,

1992.

Great introduction discerning between good and bad theater, what theater is,
and a text full of ideology for modern society and theater professionals alike.

Reynolds, David. Naikan Psychotherapy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

Text delves into what Naikan Psychotherapy is and why it is relevant to society,
Schechner, Richard. The Living Book of the Living Theatre. Greenwich: New York Graphic

Society Limited, 1971.

This text is composed of a forward by Schechner and a mass compilation of pictures

with no page numbers or text (other than a few script notes).

Tytell, John. The Living Theatre/ Art, Exile, and Outrage. New York: Grove Press, 1995.

A much less objective view of the Beck/Malina work, arranged chronologically.

Julya Mirro Oberg 23

 Works Consulted

Beacham, Richard C. Adolphe Appia/ Texts on Theatre. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Bruch, Hilde. Learning Psychotherapy. Cambridge: University of Harvard Press, 1974.

Harpers. September 1991. pp. 24-5.

Hobgood, Burnet. Master Teachers of Theatre. Southern Illinois: University Press, 1988.

Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 76, May 1979. “Could Our Beliefs be Representations in Our

Brains?” pp. 225+. By Collins.

Journal of Popular Culture. Vol. 16, Summer 1982. “Elite, Popular, and Mass Literature:

Julya Mirro Oberg 24

 What People Really Read” pp. 99+. By Peter Nagorney.

Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 34, 1978. “Beliefs About Males” pp. 5+. By Cicone and
Ruble.

Murdock, Maureen. Spinning Inward: Using Guided Imagery with Children for Learning,

Creativity, and Relaxation. Boston: Shambhala, 1987.

Starr, Anthony. The Art of Psychotherapy. New York: Methum, 1980.

Julya Mirro Oberg 25