Does the above quote by Deleuze apply to Theatre? Or better yet: can it apply to theatre as an art form? I think it does apply. The state of contemporary theatre ranges roughly from the profit-driven musicals on Broadway to the more independent, thought-provoking theatre pieces. Yet theatre, as with any other art, is plagued by clichés. When Deleuze says “…it is first necessary to erase, to clean, to flatten, even to shred, so as to let in a breath of air from the chaos that brings us the vision,” he is undoubtedly referring to the need to escape clichéd art in order to create something new. But aren’t theatre-makers and artists continuously in the process of creating new pieces of theatre? Is that not what automatically happens with art?
Well, yes and no.
Art as entertainment, whether film or theatre, does not necessarily care about cliché or the new. Take James Cameron’s Avatar. Being the highest grossing film of all time, it has wowed audiences around the globe with its stellar advancements in 3D technology and filmmaking. It’s visual candy. As to plot, however, it couldn’t be more overused. Technologically advanced Imperial power seeks a rare commodity (ridiculously called ‘Unobtainium’), and invades a peaceful, nature-loving planet and its people. Pocahontas, Fern Gully and Dances With Wolves have the same plot. The same line of argument could be said of entertaining theatre musicals. There is something fundamental here that I have not discussed, and that is the question of what theatre does as an art form. The old mantra is that the theatre is the ‘mirror to life,’ that is, theatre is supposed to reflect the human experience back to us (the audience). By mirroring humanity back to itself, theatre in fact gives us an insight into humanity. It reflects. Against this notion of the theatre, Deleuze argues that all art is a matter of creating the new, one of composition, not reflection.
It is against this backdrop that the contemporary theatre scene (at least in Canada) can be seen as merely recycling over-used concepts, forms and ideas. It is not striving to the next level; rather it has halted, stopped still-fast and frozen. Contemporary theatre is frozen in place and it is happy to be there for the time being. As in the quote above, the contemporary theatre-maker needs to confront a world of abused, over-used and exhausted concepts and composition, in order to truly create something new.
The immediate question to be put forth to such a bold claim would be to ask: doesn’t this occur with every generation of artists? That is to say, is not each artistic movement eventually superseded by another, which revolts and retaliates against the previous one? Is this not indeed how the history of theatre and art in general has progressed?
There is truth in this objection; yet again I think Deleuze presents us with an interesting reply:
“Other artists are always needed to make other slits, to carry out necessary and perhaps ever-greater destructions, thereby restoring to their predecessors the incommunicable novelty that we could no longer see. This is to say that artists struggle less against chaos (that, in a certain manner, all their wishes summon forth) than against the ‘clichés’ of opinion.”
This point is crucial to grasp, I think. Deleuze is saying here that by acknowledging or recognizing the clichés of an art form, the artist is able to “make other slits,” that is, open up the space for the new amongst the exhausted and reused. The important thing to remember is that although it may seem that with each artistic historical epoch, the emerging generation will react against the previous, this reaction can only be transformed into something new if it recognizes clichés. It is the same with theatre, I think. The theatre of ‘telling the stories of the minorities and underprivileged” is a thing of the last century and so it belongs there. Theatre-makers, artists and theories working in the new century need to realize the old in order to be able to create the new. The theatre is in need of a transformation, a change. In a word: revolution. Deleuze called this process of transformation ‘becoming,’ meaning that art form has yet not realized its full potential. A calling, so to speak. Theatre is in the process of becoming, it is in need of revitalization in order to propel itself further. Yet it cannot do this ‘blindly.’ Who will heed the call?
