See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308660184

Performance, Transformance, Informance

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 205

2 authors, including:

Luk Van den Dries

University of Antwerp
170 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Castellucci View project

From Act to Acting. The performative principles of Jan Fabre View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luk Van den Dries on 27 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Luk Van den Dries
Henk Oosterling

Performance,
transformante,
informance
On jurisdiction
Speaking and writing about th e a tr e is mostly done by
intuition. We grope blindly for words and concepts th a t
might f i t the things we have seen and experienced.
Theatre makers always innovate by using old th e a tre
c raft as a consequence of which the th e a tr e changes
continuously. Within this continuous transformative
process more appropriate concepts have to be found to
keep pace up in both language and thought with all
these evolutions. Theatre makers speak and think as
critics and spectators do. This polysemie search for
appropriate vocabularies and thoughts, for new
th e a tre concepts th a t can do justice to the current
t h e a tr e , is a t stake in this publication. I t consists of
Henk O osterling
is as s is t a n t pr of ess o r a t t h e
Philosophy De p a r tm e n t o f t h e
Erasmus University Ro tt e r d a m .
He te a c h e s d i a le ct ic s, French
con tem po ra ry t h o u g h t and
a e s th e ti c s . Next t o several books
on po li tic o- ph ilo s op hi ca l issues,
he published o book on
T h e a t e r g r o e p Hollondia: On t h e
Border ( 2 0 0 0 ) . He is c h i e f e d i t o r o f
I n t e r A k t a and i n i t i a t e d and
supervises t h e resea rch program
' I n t e r m e d i a l i t y . On t h e borders o f
Philosophy, Arts and P o lit ic s’ o f
t h e C e nt e r f o r Philosophy & Arts
(CFK).
Luk Van den Dries
is pr of ess o r in T h e a t r e Studies a t
t h e University o f fintwerp ( U I A ) .
His main fo cus is on d ev el op m e nt s in
co nt em po ra ry t h e a t r e . T o g e t h e r
w it h Jan Fabre he fo u n d e d t h e
reserac h c e n t r e Aisthesis t h a t aims
a t studyi ng t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f
t h e body in con tem po ra ry ar ts .
Curr en tly he presides t h e jury o f
the T he atrefestival.

papers delivered a t the seminar 'New Theatre

Concepts’ organised in the margin of The Theatre
Festival by the research centres Aisthesis (U IA -
Antwerp) and Center for Philosophy 6 Art (CFK, Erasmus
University Rotterdam) and an extensive interview with
Flemish th e a tr e directors Jan Fabre and Jan Lauwers.
Some new contributions are added to focus on the
concepts and performances discussed in this interview
and on Eric De Volder’ s piece Di e p in h e t B o s t h a t was
performed during the seminar.
Cr i t i cal i n f o r m a n c e
To stick closely to the th e a tr e in order to find a
suitable translation for it , is mainly a task the
reviewer gets the hang o f f . With regard to a changing
scenic practice, critics-as-writer formulate new
vocabularies. They inform the audiences by introducing
new perspectives and thoughts, embedded in
metaphorical comparisons. Most of the time their
impressions and evaluations are very personal. They
adapt their style and structure constantly to the
altered circumstances and the transformations within
th e a tr e practices. In short, they react with and within
language to a theatrical reality. In the intermediary
position t h a t they ta k e up professionally, they put a
specific language a t the a r t is t ’ s and the audience’ s
disposal. For the a r tis t, a t best this is a confrontation
with his personal perception and the associative
capacities his scenic narration opens up. Most of the
time the a rtist counts his financial blessings. For the
spectators, it can be o f help to te s t their personal
viewing experiences. For some it is an opportunity to
evaluate their specific and implicit aesthetic views. For
some reading a critique is an aesthetic experience in
its e lf t h a t suffices.
The best reviewers o fte n turn out to be fabulous word
acrobats: with the ease o f trapeze artists they swing
new concepts into the air, or pile up metaphors as high
as the pyramids. They scan language in pursuit of

INTERRKTP4
 constructions t h a t can do justice to the power of
expression o f the artists. In t h a t way, they create
Per formance, tr an sfo rmanc e, informance On jurisdiction
word images t h a t echo what the th e a tr e maker wanted
to say on stage. However, in the vast space opened
within an echo, language reaches beyond sheer
information: as conceptual reflection it becomes
creative in transforming insights in and views on 'new
theatrical re a litie s ’ , as the Taormina Theatre Festival
of the European Community once phrased it.
Cr i t i c al t r a n s f o r m a n c e
Critics reinforce and enhance the th e a tr e vocabulary
permanently. They ought to be receptive to each new
theatrical challenge. They are curious about the
research procedures of th e a tre makers, and are
watchful for new approaches of young artists. This
means t h a t they are prepared to abandon time and
again what is familiar in the th e a tr e language. They
are willing to renounce fixed standards and co­
ordinates in order to concentrate on small changes,
new transformations, and unknown territories. Critics
are no treasurers of theatrical knowledge, they are
first and foremost explorers of areas for which the
terminology is still lacking. This means t h a t the critic
needs the heart to ta k e the risk of suggesting
concepts t h a t might turn out to be inadequate and
useless afterwards. Their transformative powers match
those of the artist: to g e th e r with them, they have to
seek without being on solid ground or without "recipes
in his inside p oc k e t” (dixit Brecht).
Cr i t i cal p e r f o r m a n c e
The framework o f The Theatre Festival for this
compilation o f essays on 'New Theatre Concepts’ is
pertinent for several reasons. The Theatre Festival
indeed presents every year the most 'in te re s tin g ’
productions o f th e past season in Flanders and the
Netherlands, A nine-headed jury of th e a tr e critics and
publishers makes the selection. Every year, they see it
as their task to te s t this exclusive, slightly vague
criterion from the ju ry’ s regulations, 'th e in te r e s t’ ,
against the th e a tr e productions o f t h a t season. The
inherently meaningless expression 'remarkable’ has to
be concretised in more specific criterions th a t indicate
why a certain production is selected. To substantiate
t h a t choice, th e jury every year draws up a report in
which each selected production is legitimised, fl
general S tate of the Arts about the singularity and
quality o f the past theatrical season precede specific
production-oriented arguments.
On this performative level informance and
transformance are a t work. Also the jury o f a festival is
permanently developing new concepts. At d iffe re n t
moments and levels of the selection procedure,
members of the jury construct arguments t h a t should
convince their fellow members and the th e a tr e circles
of the importance of various productions. Or a t least
of their choice. Conceptualisation of why a certain
theatrical phenomenon is suddenly th a t 'in te re s tin g ’
permeates all 'juridical’ activities: the individual
nominations of a certain production, the internal
discussion o f the jury in which each nomination is
2 INTERAKTA4
weighed, the final ju ry’ s report in which the results of
th a t internal discussion are explained. The
overwhelming th e a tre experience t h a t the nine
members of the jury have all individually gone through
does not suffice. They have to a rticu late th a t
experience, reflect upon it and enhance it by
arguments. By disagreeing they construct a shared
discourse, th a t should also persuade th e a tr e makers,
critics and audiences, but in the final instance of
course never can. Still a language has to be mould th a t
expresses the unique event and which has enough
force to seduce the doubters into other perspectives
or to convince them of the fa c t t h a t every intuition
and each evidently immanent quality most o f the time is
the product of a long-lasting forgetfulness.
Underneath most intuitions lurks a cultural-historical
determined discourse, t h a t hides a specific idea of
what the world and what man is and how both relate.
The selection procedure counts as a kind of
laboratory: new concepts of th e a tric a lity are proposed
and te s te d. For each single production and for the
selection as a whole, concepts are suggested th a t do
justice to the specificity of a certain theatrical
season. Ideally, one could conclude t h a t the reading
of the ju ry’s reports should give a clear insight into the
development of an adapted discourse for a
contemporary th e a tr e practice. That hypothesis is even
more legitimised because the reports as a te x t genre
are holding the balance between a critical-journalistic
practice t h a t sticks closely to a daily reception o f the
productions, and a more essayist approach th a t
describes the surge o f the seasons from a greater
distance. I t is exactly this middle position between the
approach o f phenomena and the conclusion of
tendencies th a t should give an insight into the
connection between concept development and
theatrical evolution.
Hypocritical e x p lo r a ti o n s :
criticising t h e critique
The striking fe a tu re of ju ry’ s reports1 is the language.
Apparently only very slowly these reports adapts
themselves to what is happening on stage. Despite the
fa c t t h a t the jury tries hard to stick closely to the
intrinsic and aesthetic shifts in the t h e a tr e , it is
remarkable t h a t their jargon sometimes sounds
conventional, even old-fashioned. At most they are
able to ta lk in negative terms about recent
developments, lacking positive descriptions. This is
especially true when it comes to style of play. There are
a handful o f criteria th a t are handed over.
Psychological realism still acts as a model against which
should be reacted. Descriptions of the 'n ew ’ style of
play wear themselves out in negative constructions:
genre 'n on-realistic’ . But also Bertolt Brecht’ s legacy
still strongly defines the perception o f acting. The
shattered illusion and the commented role are
qualifications th a t pop up regularly in the jury’ s
report. Third engine in the negotiations on quality of
style of play is Grotowski. His voice is heard whenever a
more 'mythical’ form of theatricality crops up: phrases
like 'r i t e ’ or 'r itu a l’ pop up immediately.
i . We w i s h t o t h a n k A r l e t t e S c h i j n s f o r h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e
j u r y ’ s r a p p o r t s in h e r f i n a l p a p e r : ' F o u r t e e n y e a r s ( 1 9 8 7 - 2 0 0 0 ) o f
j u r y ’ s r a p p o r t s o f t h e F l e m i s h - D u t c h T h e a t r e F e s t i v a l , fl d i s c o u r s e e
a n a ly s is ’ , U lfl, 2000.
 I t seems as if these three founding grammars of play
(realistic, epic and ritual) define all possible styles,
and th a t a renewal is only possible as a variant. The
jury’s reports illustrate this abundantly: phrases like
'natural distance’ , 'hilarious t h e a t r e ’ , 'composed
play’ , 'expressionist style of play’ , 'simplicity’ ,
’ stillness’ , 'reductio n’ , 'intimacy’ , 'suggestion’ , are
all attempts to quality the variants a t the level of
styles of play. They don’ t point a t sudden
transformations in the theatrical development, they
only indicate a t shifts within strongly established co­
ordinates.
In terestin g is also the a tt itu d e to the social/political
quality o f th e a tr e . In this area too, the jury’ s
a tt itu d e and vocabulary is constant, with elbowroom
for some variation. Involvement in social events,
reflection and comments on what is going on in the
world, are frequently pointed out in the jury’ s favour.
Theatre is not unrelated to reality, but should engage
itself with performances th a t give cause to reflections
on tensions within society, as long as it is not too
explicit, too moralising or too unambiguous. In line
with the shift towards the public/consumers the
current th e a tr e gives more freedom to the spectator,
and also the 'message’ should be formulated with as
much openness as possible. I t is in this respect th a t
changes in the vocabulary occur.
fit th e start o f the ju ry ’ s selections, from 1987
onwards, the phrase 'political t h e a t r e ’ is invariably
replaced by somewhat more vague and noncommittal
concepts such as 'socially relevant’ or 'en g ag ed ’
th e a tre . In the recent ju ry’ s reports, the term
'political t h e a t r e ’ is again used in full, although it is
filled in a t human level: it is a matter of 'minuscule
politics’2 . Perhaps a more adequate term, introduced
by French philosophers as Foucault, Deleuze and
Lyotard, is more fittin g : 'micropolitics’ . But still the
same argument counts: can we only grasp contemporary
theatrical phenomena by modifying existing phrases?
Making n e w s e n s e s : s e n s o r i t y ,
sensuality, interdisciplinarity,
rh y th m , body
That does not mean t h a t there is no evolution in the
theatrical discourse a t all in th e ju ry’ s reports o f The
Theatre Festival. Like we said before, they deal with
language very finely, and try to define as accurately as
possible why the selected productions are interesting.
Among other things, it is striking how o fte n the word
'e v e n t’ is used in the last jury’ s reports and how the
'te n s io n a l’ quality of pieces are valued: the 'e v e n t­
u ality’ o f th e a tr e is important, something is
happening, the spectator is bathed in conflicting and
confusing impressions. Less radical terms like
'montage’ , 'perform ance’ , 'fe e lin g ’ , 'atm osphere’ and
'excitement’ are more frequently used. A stronger
appeal is also made to 'sensority’ as a concept to grasp
the abundance o f impressions, th e evident importance
of sensuality, with its reception-aesthetic
connotations o f sensibility and sensitivity in all areas
o f the th e a tre .
Another recurrent conclusion is the crossing over
2. J u r y ’ s r e p o r t 1 9 9 » , p. 1 2 .
between d iff e r e n t artistic disciplines and media. Also
rhythm is a word th a t comes to the fo re , instead o f the
more general phrase 'musicality’ . Apparently, force,
drive and energy are supposed to be basic principles of
the theatrical experience. Here and th e re , inroads are
made on the still very semiotic discourse o f th e a tre
criticism. In s te a d of looking for meaning and decoding,
every now and then there is spoken in terms of bodily
experience. These are indeed only minor changes th a t
give insight in marginal adjustments of the established
conceptual th e a tr e frames.
Beyond o p p o s i t io n s
In general, standard concepts are still strongly
influencing critical reflections on contemporary
th e a tre . New terms o fte n arise as negatives o f existing
categories, forcing the discourse into antithe tic a l
positions: either empathy or alienation, either
comment or going along with the role. Apparently, a
'categorical’ vocabulary catches up with a practice,
which deals much more compliantly with tensions -
rather differences than oppositions - without paying
too much a tt e n t io n to 'purity of s tyle’ . The ju ry’ s
permanent search for a new th e a tr e avant-garde - and
the conclusion t h a t there is not such a thing and t h a t
young th e a tr e makers stay within the lines, drawn by a
previous avant-garde - presupposes and time and again
reveals this oppositional, even dialectical way of
thinking: either tradition or modernisation. A more
' t a i n t e d ’ th e a tr e practice, which combines mainstream
elements with other ingredients or which even uses
existing modes of expression virally, escapes from the
established borders o f the avan t-g ard e framework,
used by the jury to grasp the theatrical tendencies. I t
turns out to be extremely d iffic u lt to develop new
frameworks t h a t are adapted to the needs o f the
th e a tr e today, not in the least because it asks for a
non-psychological and non-dialectical approach.
Language might be much slower than th e a tr e practice,
but conceptuality and reflection is presupposed by
both o f them. We are f a r - o f f from Adorno’ s craving for
a form of criticism t h a t runs in fron t o f the practice. I t
is an illusion t h a t criticism is able to establish
prospective frameworks t h a t leave room for artists to
create new work. Creativeness has its own medium.
Reflectivity has its own medium.3 We are beyond the
dialectical idea th a t theory opposes - or leads -
practices. In s te a d o f 'th e o ry ’ it is fa r more instructive
to use terms like 're f le c tio n ’ or 'conceptuality’ .
Tracing an d m ap p in g :
a postdram atic cartography
There is need for the th e a tr e practice to be followed
daily, as well as for a more perspective view. The
critical activity of permanently being a tte n tiv e to
pointing out theatrical changes is a necessary
condition for an updated discourse on th e a tre .
Changes in course and shifts o f emphasis in the oeuvre
o f individual th e a tr e makers need this impressionistic
criticism. But it is a t least as important to connect the
outcome of these circumscriptions in order to figure
out concepts th a t hold across individual differences
3. Se e f o r a m o r e d e t a i l e d e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h i s ' m e d i u m - s p e c i f i c
r e f l e c t iv it y ’ : P o l i t i e k g e v o e l i g . I n t e r m e d i a l i t e i t in t h e a t e r , d a n s e n
l i t e r a t u u r . Henk O o s te rlin g G R ichard de B ra b a n d e r ( r e d .) ,
I n t e r P k t a 2, CFK, R o tte r d a m 199 9 .
INTERAKTA4
and t h a t give an idea of what th e a tr e looks like in a
certain place or time. Given the proper distance,
pointillist details built a conceptual landscape. To this
end, one has to look back a t the th e a tr e for decades.
This retrospection not only presupposes concepts, but
also produces new concepts in which the individuality
o f a whole generation of th e a tr e makers, of
movements and genres within the global development
of the performing arts can be grasped, A more
generous scale, capable of mapping the d iff e r e n t
perspective lines, should be used, rather than zooming
in on the detailed s tre e t map.
I t is useful to distance oneself every now and then
and to look a t the scenery from bird’ s-eye view.
However, these broad perspectives in the
contemporary th e a tr e landscape are not th a t easy to
pin down: we are standing right in the middle o f them.
Moreover, in post-modern times we are more interested
in differences than in resemblances. Every e f f o r t to
summarise and create an overview is supported by the
paradoxical insight th a t we can only value as long as we
are involved. This tension marks every retrospective
analysis. Given this paradox, intersections in the
theatrical tr a f f i c can be constructed, and a
conceptual framework denoting a global theatrical
evolution comes into being. I t is exactly this search for
new frames - we are using the plural on purpose, for
there is always more than one frame a t work a t the
same tim e -w h ic h necessitates to answer in language
to the changing th e a tr e practice. By being open to new
frameworks and exploring them, it is possible to
distance oneself from old viewing and judging habits.
In this way, standards t h a t have become silted in and
obvious through many years’ use can be brought under
discussion again.
A radical methodological analysis o f frameworks of
contemporary th e a tre terminology inevitably ends up
posing questions on mankind and world views: th e a tre
always reflects the position o f th e individual in
society, the destiny o f th e body in a culture, the value
o f the unknown versus the familiar, in short,
existential tensions and social-political dilemmas,
characteristic o f a juncture. These philosophical
enterprises - anthropological, epistemological and
political - are the selfreflective touchstones of every
conceptual e f f o r t to map the th e a tr e landscape of
recent decades.
Hans-Thies Lehmann’ s P o s t d r a m a t i s c h e s T h e a t e r
(1999) is an impressive a tte m p t to see th e wood for the
trees. To describe, explain and in terpret all this,
Lehmann uses all kinds of concepts. These concepts
should be able to express the singularity of the current
th e a tr e and the way in which th e a tr e makers have
given form and content to th e questions o f man and
world. I t is the firs t work th a t tries to gain an insight
into the specificity of most recent th e a tr e
developments on a vast scale. I t is one o f those few
books th a t want to understand the individuality of
current th e a tr e . Not by dwelling upon various
particular routes or by losing its e lf in a survey o f all
sorts of movements, but by g etting down to the very
root o f what is happening on stage these days.
INTERHKTB 4
New c o n c e p t s :
tensional explorations
Enough reason to deal with this publication a t great
length. We linger over the question whether Lehmann’ s
study has created a framework with which
contemporary th e a tre can be understood, or whether
th a t framework should be laid on the table or
completed with other more tapering categories. For
th a t purpose, his analytical conceptual framework is
screened critically from d iff e r e n t points o f view.
Several contributors will throw more light on the
necessity of an adapted conceptual framework for the
contemporary th e a tre practice.
This collection of essays consists o f two parts. Part
one takes Lehmann’ s undertaking as a starting point.
Part Two focuses on Flemish th e a tr e and consists of an
interview with Jan Fabre and Jan Lauwers as they are
both discussed a t length in the book P o s t d r a m a t i s c h e s
T h e a t e r . To what e x te n t does Lehmann’ s discourse
contribute to the experience of th e ir works, according
to them? Three essays follow this interview: two
concerning work of Fabre and Lauwers and one on Di e p
in h e t b o s o f Eric De Voider.
In Part One Suzanne Winnacker in accepting the
primacy of the actoral expression poses the question
on the urgency of new concepts, when everything stays
d iff e r e n t, as in th e case o f a rt. She briefly comments
on Lehmann’ s idea of the crisis o f the subject. To her
Lehmann is reflecting upon the potentials o f crisis
within the idea and the construction o f drama itself.
She embeds this existential and epistemological
tension - canonised during the past decades - already
in the Greek tragedy th a t distanced its e lf from myth.
The subject, she cites Lehmann, exists in the
inbetween and this is a tensional force th a t can never
be covered by any concept.
Henk Oosterling’ s contribution also starts with the
tragedy and focuses too on the 'primacy’ of tension.
He aims a t enhancing and expanding the notion o f the
Greek p ro tag on ist/actor, called the 'h ypokrites’ . In
order to throw more light on contemporary tendencies
to mix and in teg rate d iff e r e n t artistic disciplines and
media, and to understand the search for new
engagement in theatrical practices, he introduces
concepts a s 'informe’ , 'interm ediality’ , 'hypocritical’
and 'inb etw een ’ . With this minimal concept he
interrogates Lehmann and evaluates the work of
Theatergroep Hollandia.
Emil Hvratin focuses on other tensions th a t reveal the
inadequacy of thinking in oppositions. In search o f the
ultimate and paradoxical goal o f the avant-garde - the
reconciliation o f life and art - he deconstructs the
opposition between private and public and configures
both in his neologism 's p e c ta c to r’ , bridging the abyss
between spectator and actor. He tak e s the
performance art B i o m e c h a n i c s N o o r d u n g by Dragan
Zivanidov as a te s t case for his search for the 'terminal
spectactor’ .
Maaike Bleeker also takes Lehmann’ s book as a
starting point in her article on perspective. In making
an argument for the discursive structure o f 'just
looking’ she agrees with Lehmann t h a t in postdramatic
th eotre there is a multiplication of frames. But she 'i n t e r ’ lacks the reassuring comfort of a clear-cut
also throws up the question whether Lehmann really reality and an unshakable moral foundation. As such

Luk Van den Dries, Henk Oosterling

can handle the loss of reality and authentic ity so " i t is political th e a tr e t h a t does not shun
characteristic for this dissemination. Criticising this ambivalence” .
still metaphysically burdened position she - as is done
in all the other c o n trib u tio n s - focuses on a tensional Performance
in-between of the seer and the seen, hoping t h a t this This ambivalent experience does not only involve the
awareness will produce modes of 'productive looking’ senses, but also the senses o f all senses: thought.
th a t can function as micropolitical forces within Thought, however, does not coincide with the Mind.
postdramatic th e a tre . The mind always matters. Nor can thought be identified
Part Two starts with a conversation with Fabre and by the canonised categories of academic discourse.
Lauwers. As Lehmann’ s research concerns developments Thought is first and foremost: information as
in the contemporary European performing arts, the transformation, i.e. performance. As such
question is raised whether current interesting th e a tre conceptuality is a never-ending movement o f thought
realisations in Flanders and the Netherlands f i t easily t h a t gradually can turn into a physical experience and
into Lehmann’ s categories. The topics th a t have been a bodily awareness. According to us, new concepts in
discussed in the above contributions are concretised. A th e a tr e are only adequate in adapting to this
lot of topics are spoken about in the interview: the movement.
crossbreeding of visual a rt, performance, th e a tr e and
science, the specific reflectivity of bodies,
differences between American and European reception-
aesthetics, the role o f critics, the specificity of art
discourse and the influence of conceptuality in th e a tre
practices. Finally new connections between th e a tre
and politics are extensively discussed.
Jurgen Pieters uses contemporary French philosophical
concepts to evaluate th e ambiguities in Jan Lauwers’
S n a k e s o n g Trilogy. Using Lyotard’ s term 'fig u r a i’ ,
Bataille ’ s category of 'transgression’ and th e Kantian
theme of the 'sublime’ he focuses on the transgressive
features of Lauwers’ work to come to the conclusion
th a t Lauwers situates us on outer limit, on a border
t h a t , although it appears to be a bridge, o ffers no
passage: "There is only the bridge, and the realisation
th a t realising is unbearable” .
The dark quality of Lauwers’ trilogy is met by the
lighter but nevertheless 'shadowy’ quality t h a t Ellen
Stijnen traces in De Volder’ s grotesque 'p o litical’
statement on the Dutroux a ff a ir . She concentrates as
well on the methodological approach as on the content
of this echo of the body, t h a t is identified as its
subconscious. Eventually DeVolder redefines the
structure of tragedy. The chorus is no longer an ideal
spectator as a mouthpiece for the people, but the
main protagonist its e lf like th e professional wailers in
the marital and funeral rituals. This is exactly the
function of the group o f women in Di e p in h e t b o s . They
phrase our sorrow and our incomprehension; they try to
find words for the inexpressible.
According to Luk Van den Dries Fabre’s work te s tifie s
of a never-ending metamorphosis. Fabre’ s serial work,
his processing and repetitions are all articulations of
digestive systems: Fabre reworks his ideas over and
over. Beside this methodic impulse the crossbreeding of
d iffe re n t artistic media and disciplines also has a
pedagogic motivation: a th e a tr e practice is a practice
o f learning and discovering. Writing a metamorphology
of this oeuvre consists of mapping the movements of
hybrid bodies. Applied to As l o n g a s t h e w o r l d n e e d s a
w a r r i o r ’s s o u l , premiered in Bogota: neither man nor
doll, perhaps both man and animal or in terms of some
other contributions: a tensional in-betw een. This

INTERAKTAi 5
View publication stats