Entanglements the Histories of TDR Martin Puchner

M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 13

Entanglements The Histories of TDR Martin Puchner

Taking stock of TDR in 1983, on the occasion of the release of T100, Brooks McNamara mused: “How long TDR will continue to exist is anybody’s guess. As little magazines go it is positively ante- diluvian” (1983:20; T100).1 More than 20 years later, TDR is still alive and kicking. Its 50th anniversary is a cause for celebration. The journal’s 50 years of continuous publication provide us with a unique record of the profound changes in the world of theatre and performance that have taken place in the past half-century. To be sure, the record is anything but neutral. TDR has been an engaged and, at times, polemical participant in the debates about performance, and has frequently changed its own modes of engagement. Should TDR represent new and experimental theatres or rather focus its attention on changing methods of analysis such as structuralist or performance studies analysis? Should it primarily record and analyze performance practices or seek to intervene and shape these practices as well? Should it be wedded to an antiacademic and antidisciplinary stance or become the official organ of a new discipline with a tradition and canon of its own? Taking into account the complex ways in which TDR has acted as a kind of participant-observer of the theatre scene, I will offer a layered history, isolating four distinct dimensions: 1. A history of the kinds of theatres and performances represented in the pages of TDR, a history of its objects of analysis; 2. A history of the changing methods of analysis that were brought to bear on different objects of study; 3. A history of the different functions the journal wanted to fulfill with respect to the theatrical culture it engaged; and 4. A history of TDR’s changing institutional relations and affiliations. What emerges from this analysis is that the journal was crucially shaped by the conflicts among these four dimensions, conflicts about the relation between objects, methods, functions, and institutional

1. Since the ﬁrst several volumes of TDR were not assigned T#s, the numbers that most people use to identify the issues, T100 was actually the 107th issue. I would like to thank Arnold Aronson, Philip Auslander, Jon McKenzie, Mariellen R. Sandford, and Richard Schechner for their invaluable help.

Martin Puchner is Associate Professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University and author of Stage Fright: Modernism, Anti-Theatricality and Drama (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002) as well as the forthcoming Poetry of the Revolution: Marx, Manifestos, and the Avant-Gardes (Princeton University Press, 2006). He has written introductions and notes to Six Plays by Henrik Ibsen (Barnes and Noble, 2003) and to The Communist Manifesto and other Writings (Barnes and Noble, 2005) as well as Lionel Abel’s Tragedy and Metatheatre (Holmes and Meier, 2003). He is coeditor of the forthcoming Norton Anthology of Drama, editor of Modern Drama: Critical Concepts (Routledge, forthcoming), and currently serves as the Associate Editor of Theatre Survey.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 14

relations. The debates about these relations are ongoing, which also means that the act of presenting their histories becomes entangled in projections about the future. Such entanglements, however, are precisely the kind of thing TDR has welcomed throughout its existence, and in this sense the histories told here are undertaken very much in the spirit of the journal itself. Objects When read with an eye toward the kinds of theatre and performance practices featured in the pages of TDR, the history of the journal might, in a preliminary way, be divided into four epochs. These epochs roughly coincide with the tenure of its various editors, an indication, certainly, of the crucial role these editors have played in shaping the journal. But, of course, editors need authors and it is the authors who ultimately make a journal into what it is. During the first 10 years or so, under the editorship of Robert Corrigan in the 1950s and early ’60s, TDR was dedicated to three areas: 1. modern drama; 2. the history of Western but also non-Western theatre; 3. engaged and political art. The interest in modernism concerned primarily the modern drama and theatre of the early 20th century, but this was a period of drama whose impact was felt well beyond World War II. The prewar classics of modern drama, including Henrik Ibsen, George Bernard Shaw, Anton Chekhov, and Luigi Pirandello, were debated with respect Thinking about the intertwined political, to such questions as the possibility of modern tragedy, a question explored in formal, religious, social, and cultural functions of theatre and historical terms. Such debates also related the and performance has remained TDR’s largely European prewar playwrights, who domi- nated the journal at this time, to the 20th-century primary interest to this day. What has drama in the United Stages, especially to Eugene changed, however, is the conception O’Neill, Tennessee Williams, and Arthur Miller. of what constitutes engaged art in the But TDR, in this early phase, was not only interested in reflecting on canonical figures. It also first place. introduced its readers to lesser known writers such as Michel de Ghelderode, Oskar Kokoschka, and Ernst Toller by publishing the plays and essays by these writers as well as critical articles dedicated to their work. It is important to note, however, that despite this emphasis on modern drama, TDR also valued historical depth. Indeed, Eric Bentley, who played an important advisory role during this period, warned the editors that TDR should not focus exclusively on modern drama in part because it would then overlap too much with the then new scholarly journal Modern Drama, founded by A.C. Edwards in 1958.2 TDR therefore featured articles on Greek tragedy (including the first contribution by Richard Schechner, in the summer of 1961, on Euripides’ The Bacchae [T12]), but also on other significant moments in theatre history, including essays on Calderòn, noh, Beaumar- chais, and performance history—for example, 19th-century Hamlet productions. This historical scope can serve as a measure for the journal’s subsequent development. Indeed, I will show step by step that all phases of TDR would imply, or even define themselves through, different views and investments in theatre history. The question of the contemporary and the historical is related to a second focus that shaped the journal during this first phase: engaged art. Thinking about the intertwined political, social, and cultural functions of theatre and performance has remained TDR’s primary interest to this day. What has changed, however, is the conception of what constitutes engaged art in the first place. In this early phase, the notion of “engaged” emerged in response to such figures as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, whose existentialist writings of and about drama, theory, and politics corresponded neatly with TDR’s own interests. One consequence of this combination of genres and modes was a

2. William Seymour Theatre Collection, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections. Princeton University Li- brary. Richard Schechner Papers/TDR Collection, box 96, folder 4. Much of the research for this article was done at the Richard Schechner/TDR archive at Princeton University. From

Martin Puchner here forward, citations for archive materials will list the box and folder numbers.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 15

particular interest in what Bentley termed “the theatre of ideas,” which was seen as a paradigm of political theatre (Bentley’s book, The Playwright as Thinker [1946; 1967], was the fullest articulation of this paradigm). It is not surprising, therefore, that Martin Esslin’s conception of what he dubbed the “theatre of absurd,” born from a reading of those two playwright-philosophers, Sartre and Camus, appeared in TDR in 1960 (T8). Indeed, existentialism was a philosophical position that frequently veered toward the theatre, often through the plays of the philosophers themselves, for example Sartre’s No Exit and Camus’s Caligula. In particular Camus used the actor to represent the human subject thrown into an ultimately meaningless and inexplicable life, a life marked by masks rather than by essences and resting on trapdoors rather than on firm ground. This theatrical current within existentialism was picked up by other playwrights, ranging from Samuel Beckett to Harold Pinter, who placed human figures in situations devoid of transcendence, giving rise to, in Esslin’s terminology, the theatre of the absurd. This interest in philosophical theatre distinguishes this phase of the journal from all subsequent ones, when such authors as Shaw, Pirandello, or Dürrenmatt disappeared from TDR’s pages and the “theatre of ideas” came to be regarded as quaint if not downright retrograde. This is not to say that other traditions and conceptions of a more overtly engaged theatre did not occasionally appear in the journal’s pages, especially political theatre. Harold Clurman urged the readers of TDR in 1959 (T6) to remember his Group Theatre in their conception of what political theatre should be. And one playwright-director occupied a special place in the journal’s formulation of political theatre: Bertolt Brecht. This place was due, at least in part, to the influence of Eric Bentley, the most important, though not uncontroversial, translator, interpreter, and popularizer of Brecht in the United States. A second phase began in the mid-1960s when TDR, under the first editorship of Richard Schech- ner (1962–1969), moved in 1967 from Tulane University in New Orleans to New York University. Tw o developments determined this second phase: a broadening of the scope of what counted as theatre and a changing conception of what counted as political theatre. At first, however, a different agenda seemed to concern the editors. The origins of the journal—as The Carleton Review in Carle- ton, Minnesota, where Corrigan was teaching before taking the journal with him to New Orleans in 1957—had raised its sensibility to the dominance of Broadway over the regional theatres, and one of the journal’s early agendas was a campaign on behalf of the regional theatre and in favor of decen- tralization. TDR would later give up on this program, realizing that regional theatres often put on a much more conventional repertory than even the most conventional Broadway theatres. In the meantime, however, TDR had begun to take note of the changing currents of theatre in New York City and became therefore more interested in that theatre. Coverage of the Bread and Puppet Theatre, the Living Theatre, and different forms of guerrilla theatre, as well as a special issue on “Black Theatre” (1968; T40), registered the effects of the civil rights movement and protests against the Vietnam War, which brought with them a new conception of political theatre. Indeed, Ronnie (R.G.) Davis coined the term “Guerrilla Theatre” in his 1966 TDR article of that name (T32). These theatres did not content themselves with representing the human condition of modernity, as the theatre of the absurd had allegedly done, or with the dialectically estranged theatre of Brecht. What they promised instead was a new form of activism that blended modes of political articulation taken from manifestos, street theatres modeled on demonstrations, and role play intent on undoing social hierarchies. The clearest indication of this new and radicalized understanding of political theatre was TDR’s engagement in a political critique of modern drama itself, for example of Luigi Pirandello. Instead of hailing him as a great modern dramatist, Erika Munk, during her brief tenure as TDR’s editor from 1969 to 1971, printed one of his fascist speeches (1969; T44). The The Histories of two prevalent trends of this period—an expanded notion of what counts as theatre and a changed notion of what counts as political theatre—were thus premised on one another: TDR shifted its focus away from modern drama because this drama no longer fit its new conception of engaged, political theatre.

Of the related projects advanced in the second phase, under the ﬁrst editorship of Richard TDR Schechner and the editorship of Erika Munk, only one was continued in the journal’s third phase,

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 16

which began when Michael Kirby took over the journal in 1971. Little interested in political theatre, Kirby concentrated only on the further broadening of scope. In his first editorial statement, he wrote: “It has been a long time since TDR was exclusively a drama review. [...] I would like to broaden the scope even more, including material on music, opera, kinetic sculpture, and any type of representation that is relevant to drama and performance” (1971:24; T50). This scope is announced on the front cover of the same issue, on “Asian Theatre,” which is subtitled: “folk, ritual, classic and proletarian theatres / aesthetics-politics-social change / cinema-music-dance / the impact of the West.”3 This telegraphic program as laid out in the subtitle, in fact, describes the entire third phase of the journal and was shared by many of the journals editors and contributors. Indeed, this expanded scope is the feature that distinguishes TDR most clearly from other theatre and performance art journals to this day. Even though this new scope may seem all-inclusive, for Kirby it originated in a particular form: the Happening. Kirby had first called attention to this new form in 1965 (T30), hailing it as an avantgarde art particular to the United States. The term “avantgarde” became central to the journal’s self-presentation. While previously the adjective “modern” had served to identify the drama and theatre most dear to the editors, this term was now being been replaced by “avantgarde.” The notion of the avantgarde had fueled the changing aesthetic and political values of the journal during its second period. Now, it implied a new understanding of the history and geography of the theatre. While earlier, TDR had measured contemporary tragedy and political drama against the classics of European modern drama, now it measured the New York avantgarde against the European avantgarde. This shift had one important consequence. In the 1950s, pre- and postwar modern tragedy seemed to belong more or less to a continuous tradition. The European avantgarde of the teens, ’20s, and ’30s, however, which was now being called the “historical avantgarde” by Peter Bürger and others, including Michael Kirby, was undeniably located in a remote time (see, for example, Bürger 1974). The project of creating a contemporary avantgarde in New York thus demanded that TDR formulate an attitude toward that historical avantgarde, which it considered to be its single most important predecessor. The result was a newly established “Historical Document” section, dedicated precisely to the European avantgarde, especially to futurism, expressionism, and dadaism. After a focus on the present, TDR was invested in history once more. What had changed was the historical object. Kirby did not return to the journal’s earlier deep history, from Greek antiquity via early modern drama to the 19th century, but created a specific history of the avantgarde, a history that was meant to bolster the claim that there was a new avantgarde emerging in the present. A fourth period in the history of TDR began in late 1985 when Richard Schechner took over the editorship once more. Kirby had edited TDR for 15 years. The journal had taken on his dedication to “objectivity” and his dislike for “opinion.” Schechner, in his second stint as TDR editor, wanted to change all that. During Kirby’s term as editor, performance studies was taking shape at NYU. Kirby was a member of the performance studies department, but he did not adjust his teaching or editing to what was happening around him. In a way this was appropriate: Kirby’s approach had been “performance studies” before there was any such formal designation. Where Kirby categori- cally disagreed with many of his colleagues, including Schechner, was in the matter of social, cultural, and political engagement. The questions were different than in the ’60s, TDR’s first political period. But the new questions were just as engaged—this time having to do with feminism, poststructuralism, electronic and digital media, interculturalism, and queer theory. And in a TDR Com- ment, Schechner strongly advocated a reconfiguration of the academic fields of drama and theatre. This period was marked by a programmatic change in name; TDR acquired the new subtitle “A Journal of Performance Studies” (1988; T117), which later became “The Journal of Performance Studies” (1993; T139). Of course, Schechner had been promoting what he called “intercultural per-

3. While Kirby set forth his plan for his editorship in the editorial comment in T50, the issue was published during the editorship of Erika Munk and was guest edited by the Sri Lankan scholar A.J. Gunawardana, a graduate student in what was then the Department of Drama at NYU, who began work on the issue with Richard Schechner. Martin Puchner

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 17

TDR Editors formance” since editing a special issues on “Performance Robert Corrigan: 1955–1962 Theory” in 1979 (T82) and on “Intercultural Perfor- mance” in 1982 (T94). The changes marked by this new Richard Schechner: 1962–1969 name concerned primarily the three other dimensions of Erika Munk: 1969–1971 my history—the method, function, and institutional af- Michael Kirby: 1971–1985 filiation of TDR. In terms of its object of study, Schech- ner primarily confirmed and expanded the changes made Richard Schechner: 1986–present since the 1960s, namely the program of an ever increasing scope, although he placed greater emphasis on overtly political performances than Kirby. In terms of the objects of analysis, therefore, the performance studies era of TDR was not a break with the past, but its confirmation and logical conclusion. However, the journal did experience important changes in the 1990s, when it began to champion a new group of performance artists and writers, especially those associated with postcolonial performance, for example Guillermo Gómez-Peña, as well as queer and feminist performance. Equally important was the fact that the ’90s saw a much more open embrace of various new media and technologies. Philip Auslander and Jon McKenzie, for example, wrote on such topics as virtual performance, Laurie Anderson, and the Electronic Disturbance Theatre. This new interest reflected the increasing use of new technologies by such groups as the Wooster Group, but it also raised questions about the future orientation of the journal. Should TDR become a new media journal with an emphasis on specific events and installations? Should it continue to prize the live actor who engages a live audience? The ephemeral nature of live performance had given the journal much of its identity over the decades: relating this identity to old and new forms of recording and to technological performance became one of the journal’s challenges. The analysis of TDR’s objects of study confirms the self-declared program of a continual broadening of its scope from Europe to all corners of the globe, including Africa and Latin America as well as South and East Asia. However, there seems to be one price to be paid for this expansion: history. The journal’s interest in history, first in Greek tragedy, and European drama and finally, under Kirby, in the historical avantgarde, fell largely by the wayside. Some authors associated with TDR, such as Joseph Roach and Tracy C. Davis, have been trying to rectify what they perceive as the erasure of history in performance studies more generally. Nevertheless, TDR still publishes essays on pre-1900 performance history very rarely. This partial disappearance of history, one should add, is part of a larger trend in intellectual and cultural studies in the United States that favors geographic and cultural difference over historical difference. And, of course, TDR can’t be expected to do everything, and depends on the interests and writing produced by its contributors. Every choice for something is also a choice against something else. Nevertheless, the occasion of writing this history of TDR has impressed on me the need for TDR to develop its own understanding of performance history on a theoretical, methodological, and practical level, one tailored to its particular agenda and program, what one might call interhistorical performance. An emphasis on interhistorical performance would imply a series of methodological adjustments and changes. Such changes touch on many of TDR’s key beliefs, for example its particular conception of political activism, but also its relation to texts and documents. But a more nuanced understanding of performance history would do more than simply fill a gap. It would increase TDR’s ability to locate and evaluate the contemporary. Perhaps a look at the history of TDR itself can serve as a reminder of how closely different conceptions of the present and the future are bound up with conceptions of the past.

Methods The Histories of The struggle over objects of study, over which arts TDR should promote and analyze, was implicated in a second struggle, over the methods of analysis that should be brought to bear on these arts. From this perspective, one can perceive a gradual move away from modes of inquiry derived from literary

analysis and philosophy, which had been employed by many of the authors of the ﬁrst phase, includ- TDR ing Martin Esslin, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Barzun, Lionel Trilling, Umberto Eco, and Eric Bentley.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 18

Even though some of these authors continued to write for the journal—Eric Bentley’s first contribution appeared in 1958 and his most recent one in 2005, making him the journal’s most long-standing contributor—the tone and style of analysis changed in the later ’60s. TDR tried to infuse theatrical analysis with political efficacy, making it akin to opinion pieces on such questions as civil rights or the Vietnam War. While TDR had always cared about some form of political theatre, in the late ’60s its own methods of inquiry were beginning to be driven by political activism as well. In shifting its interest toward a new political theatre, TDR developed a new vocabulary for analyzing these theatres, emphasizing not the old “theatre of ideas” but the social formation of these new groups, their grassroots forms of organization, and their modes of activism. One of the effects of this new politics was an embrace, on the part of TDR, of a style of writing informed by the manifesto, this most activist and political of genres. In the 1970s Kirby brought the activist methodology advanced by Schechner and Munk to an abrupt halt. This did not mean, however, that he wanted to abandon the avantgarde and simply return to the 1950s. But he did not believe in the political efficacy of critical writing. Instead, he promoted a mode of analysis he called alternatively “formalist” or “structuralist.” Borrowing from important structuralist theoreticians such as Roland Barthes, Kirby wanted to create, for the first time in the journal’s history, a consistent and programmatic method. One cornerstone of this method was the avoidance of all value judgments and an aspiration toward a precise, descriptive, and analytical style. This agenda brought Kirby in direct collision with the practice of reviewing. His personal aversion to the theatre review was in fact one of the motivations for his structuralist method. Kirby’s denigration of criticism came to the fore in two special issues that dealt directly with questions of method. In one, entitled “Criticism,” Kirby felt the need to defend the choice of topic by calling it an “anomaly” (1974:3; T63). And his own contribution to the issue is called, not surprisingly, “Criticism: Four Faults” (59–68). A similar issue, on “Theatrical Theory,” sought to distinguish between criticism, which Kirby rejected, and theory, which he accepted, but Kirby had difficulties keeping the two apart. Even though structuralism, for Kirby, defined a method of inquiry, he also used it, confusingly, to describe a particular kind of experimental performance art. The double function of the term was symptomatic of the importance of method over object: a type of theatre event was named after a method of analysis. In the fourth phase, under Schechner once more, TDR abolished Kirby’s descriptive analysis and instead developed and propagated a new method, derived from anthropology and sociology, which came to be known as the performance studies method, as practiced at NYU, but also at Northwest- ern University and elsewhere. The collaboration between Victor Turner and Richard Schechner which began in the mid-1970s and continued until Turner’s death in 1983, constituted an important backdrop for the journals new methodological orientation. Fieldwork, participant-observers, a vocabulary borrowed from the analysis of rituals and concerned with the social-cultural functions of performance, an emphasis on actions rather than on representations: these were some of the key concepts associated with this method. Turner, who had until this time published exclusively in an- thropological venues, placed several essays in TDR and even published a book highlighting connec- tions between ritual and theatre studies—From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play (1982)—its title adapted from one of Schechner’s essays (“From Ritual to Theatre and Back” [1974]). As the 1980s and ’90s wore on, however, performance studies methods underwent a number of significant adjustments with new methods such as postcolonial studies, critical race theory, and, more recently, globalization studies supplying guidelines and vocabularies for TDR writers. The same was true of gender and queer theory. While Kirby still had had to defend his 1980 “Women in Performance” issue (T86) for “segregating” women to a special issue, the first issue under the new subtitle A Journal of Performance Studies (1988; T117) included new forms of gender analyses and commentaries by Karen Finley and Peggy Phelan. And while the 1978 “Analysis” issue (T79), under Kirby’s editorship, included an awkward debate about “gay analysis,” the ’90s saw regular contribu- tions on such topics as transsexual striptease by Morris Meyer (1991; T129) and AIDS performance by John Edward McGrath (1995; T146). Despite these changes, which tracked larger cultural and intellectual developments, some authors perceived a relative lack of abstract theory, a complaint Martin Puchner

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 19

made even within TDR itself, for example in a review of Janelle Reinelt and Joseph Roach’s 1992 collection of essays, Critical Theory and Performance. The author of the review, David J. DeRose, writes: Now, nearly halfway through the 1990s, critical theory continues to play an ever-increasing role in the discourse of performance scholarship and theatre history. And yet, compared to such related ﬁelds as literary criticism, ﬁlm theory, anthropology, and art history, theatre and performance scholarship has been relatively laggard in fully assimilating current theoretical vocabularies into the mainstream of its critical discourse. (1994:189; T142)

To this day, TDR promotes theory not as an end in itself, but as a tool for the analysis of particular objects. The distinction I have drawn between TDR’s objects of study and its methods of analysis isolates the two areas that register most clearly TDR’s meandering path. It also helps identify the difference between the journal’s two main sources of inspiration: avantgarde art, as object; and performance studies, as method. Nevertheless, these two categories often informed one another. Schechner, for example, claimed that an avantgarde sensibility migrated from theatre (i.e., from an object), where it has been waning, to theory, and therefore precisely to such ventures as TDR (1986:5; T109). This way, the study of intercultural performance could be seen as a “natural heir” to the avantgarde (1982:4; T94). Indeed, TDR started the broadening of its scope when it began to define itself as an avantgarde journal in the ’60S. The avantgarde heritage still fuels the journal’s activist stance, its dedication, announced in the note to contributors to be found on the website, to progressive performances within a “political and social context” (TDR 2005). However, even though a “progressive” performance studies thus presents itself as an “heir” to the avantgarde, this should not distract from the fact that the one, avantgarde, is an object of analysis, and the other, performance studies, a method. As method it can be, and has been, applied to the most conventional Broadway theatres, the very type of theatre the avantgarde, “progressive” and “politically and socially relevant” theatre has routinely rejected. Conversely, one could speculate that perhaps some avantgarde theatres may not be best served by a performance studies approach. In other words, a politically progressive attitude might fuel modes of analysis but not predetermine the selection of objects of study. Indeed, there are many examples of progressive analyses of nonprogressive objects of study: Karl Marx’s study of Ger- man idealism, Leon Trotsky’s analysis of Russian futurism, Foucault’s analysis of the Enlightenment, and Jameson’s analysis of the 19th-century novel are but some examples. Indeed, one might argue that these analyses derive their brilliance and their importance from having broken the feedback loop of method and object. This double heritage raises other questions as well. Even if TDR wants to privilege progressive performance, to what extent can the model of the avantgarde developed in the 1960s, its particular mixture of manifesto-driven rhetoric, political efficacy, and transgressive performance, still work now and in the future? This question was first raised in the ’90s, in debates about postmodernism. Philip Auslander, in part critiquing Schechner’s thesis of the demise of the avantgarde, published by PAJ not TDR (Schechner 1982:17, 69),4 had argued for a new form of postmodern political art in Theatre Journal (Auslander 1987). The article sparked several rounds of discussion in TDR between Schechner and Auslander, who were joined by Johannes Birringer and John Bell (T115; T118; T122), a discussion that led the journal to more openness with regard to postmodern theatre. Now that the category of the postmodern no longer has the force it did in the 1980s and early ’90s, the question of the avantgarde must be addressed anew even as a new manifesto-tone can be heard in some quarters of globalization studies, such as in Michael Hardt and Toni Negri’s Empire (2000)

or in the activities of the Electronic Disturbance Theatre (see Jill Lane, Coco Fusco, Amy Carrol The Histories of [2003; T178]). Does it make sense to forge a conception of a new or third avantgarde (what, in the terminology of some, would be a neo-neo-avantgarde) to capture these phenomena? With its roots deep in both the historical avantgarde and the avantgardes of the ’60s, TDR is particularly TDR 4. “The Decline and Fall of the (American) Avant-Garde: Why It Happened and What We Can Do about It” by Schech- ner originally appeared in Performing Arts Journal (1981:48-63).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 20

well-positioned to relate these new alliances between performance and globalization to the history of the avantgardes in the 20th century. Functions The battle between objects and methods can be rethought through yet another history, namely a history of TDR’s intended and actual functions within the culture field. During its first phase, its function was one of presentation and reflection, of furthering the circulation of modern dramatists and of directing critical insight to their work. TDR wanted to present the plays and essays of dramatists and to add to them critical and reflective analyses by major intellectuals and academics. The changes in object and method that occurred in the 1960s also brought with them a changing conception of TDR’s function. TDR no longer wanted to present and reflect, but to propagate and intervene. Schechner argued, for example, that TDR needed to supply the unifying and energizing ideas, which the new theatre artists were apparently not capable of generating themselves (1963b:10; T22). His 1968 manifesto, “6 Axioms for Environmental Theatre” (T39), is a primary example of the new manifesto-driven style of the journal during that period. TDR wanted to become the van- guard of the new theatre arts and this new self-understanding was reflected in the use of manifestos, with the full interventionist, polemical, and political force implied by this most typical of avantgarde genres. Indeed, the use of the manifesto caused considerable tension and controversy among the editors and readers. For example, Robert Corrigan, no longer involved in TDR, returned to its pages to attack the manifesto as being too political (1964:16; T24). Even though “6 Axioms” was primarily concerned with the theatre, Corrigan’s sense that a manifesto-driven, avantgarde sensibility would blur the dividing line between art and politics was certainly right. TDR’s use of manifestos uniquely reflects the overlap between analysis and political intervention. By the late ’60s, TDR featured political manifestos, and many of the street theatres it promoted as well as many of the articles it printed were influenced by manifestos. Kirby’s structuralist method, introduced as a reaction against methods inspired by politics, also implied a critique of the manifesto-function of TDR. Under Kirby, the task was not to intervene but to record: TDR wanted to become the magazine of record of the avantgarde. Description was to serve strictly as a documentation of both present and past performances. The most symptomatic issues, in this regard, are the ones on “Historical Performance” (1982; T93) and “Reconstruction” (1994; T103). These issues fulfilled the journal’s investment in history and, more importantly, they exemplified the importance of documentation for the future of performance. These two issues, together with Kirby’s “Historical Document” section, and his documentary style more generally, could be used as a point of departure for rethinking TDR’s current and future relation to history. One might consider, for example, Joseph Roach’s program of reconstructing genealogies of performance (1993; T139), a powerful paradigm for a conception of history tied to embodied performance events, as a continuation of Kirby’s interest in historical performance and reconstruction. Historical performance and reconstruction directly address the question of how single performance events, which constitute the focus of so much theatrical and performance analysis, are related to one another, how they can form series, traditions, and histories. It is only by dealing with these questions that a proper performance historiography can be developed. Kirby’s documentary function, despite its many advantages, had significant limitations. While in the 1960s, TDR could freely influence, attack, and shape different theatre practices, Kirby restricted the journal to documenting what was out there already. And this became a problem since the fer- ment of the 1960s was in retrenchment during the 1970s. TDR seemed doomed to register the demise of the avantgarde. This tension between wanting to document theatre and wanting a particular kind of theatre to document comes to the fore in two manifesto issues, one called “New Perfor- mance and Manifestos” (1975; T68) and the other, an anniversary issue, “Dreams, Proposals, Manifestos” (1983; T100).5 Soliciting manifestos was, of course, an egregious violation of Kirby’s

Martin Puchner 5. For a more extended discussion of TDR’s changing attitude toward the manifesto, see Puchner (2006).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 21

own documentary style. And yet Kirby employed it in order to stimulate an avantgarde that was clearly in decline. Indeed, even the contributors seemed to be confused by the sudden change from documentation to manifesto polemic. In order to clarify his position, Kirby circulated a letter: We have begun to worry that our guidelines for writing manifestos were not sufﬁciently clear. “Dreams, Proposals, Manifestos” was intended to suggest something more than the description of a planned performance. [...] Nor do we want articles to seem like publicity for coming attractions. Although we don’t expect artists to be analysts or theoreticians, we would appreci- ate it if the articles for T100 were more than mere descriptions of particular projects now being developed. At the same time, we expect the articles to have a practical aspect that would not be there if we had asked critics to write for the issue. (95, 6)

Kirby is forced to abandon his descriptive doctrine, admitting that the manifestos he was calling for were to be more than “the description of a planned performance.” Theory, critique, manifesto, and performance could not be kept apart. When Schechner took over from Kirby in 1985, he promptly reimagined the function of TDR. Once more TDR could intervene actively; once more it could respond to politics at large, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to September 11; once more TDR was able to take an activist stance and engage theatre practice. At the same time, a second change with regard to function made itself felt: TDR had become the quasi-official organ of performance studies. From now on, decisions over the objects and methods would no longer be just decisions over the course of one journal, but decisions over the direction of a discipline. This most recent development requires a fourth history, a history not of the journal’s objects, methods, or functions, but a history of its institutional affiliation and configuration. Institutions Since the late ’50s and early ’60s, TDR had sought to present itself as a nonacademic journal, even though many of its editors and authors were professors and the journal was underwritten by universities and university presses. As early as 1959, Eric Bentley removed his own academic affiliation from the journal’s head and urged Robert Corrigan to do the same, declaring in a letter dated 5 March: “Let us not stun the new buyer with academic allusions!” (96, 2). This anti-academic stance reflected the journal’s rapidly increasing subscriber base, its success in reaching a wider audience. In 1963 the journal’s circulation reached 7,000 (92, 1), steeply increasing its advertising revenue. But this increase was nothing compared to what TDR would achieve in the late ’60s, when TDR had become the largest theatre journal in English. In August 1967, the journal could boast a circulation of 20,000, including a subscriber list of 8,500 and 1,200 library subscriptions (93, 1). TDR had managed to reach an audience outside the narrow confines of the university. In the 1970s, however, a long and painful retraction followed. In 1975 circulation had shrunk to 15,000 (94, 2), by 1986 to a mere 4,243, and by 1994 to 3,725 (1994:7; T144). At present, individual subscribers number only about 500 and the total circulation, globally and including libraries and bookstore sales, is under 2,000. This does not properly measure readership, however. In the increasingly digitized world, TDR is readily available online where most students and professors read it via Project Muse or JSTOR or Ingenta or as part of their university library collection. In the year from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005, 25,225 TDR articles were viewed via Project Muse—up over 5,000 from the same period the previous year. Over 10,300 articles were viewed through Ingenta. But this does not change the fact that at least in size and readership, TDR had become an academic journal once more. Perhaps because of this contraction, TDR has since toned down its earlier anti-academic The Histories of stance, in part by defining and naming itself as part of a research program, a “studies.” In the ’90s, TDR regularly published proceedings from the international performance studies conferences and became the place for debates over the direction of this new discipline. The fact that TDR became something of the house journal of NYU’s performance studies department was thus the culmination

of a long process of institutionalization. Indeed, over the course of the journal’s history, many edi- TDR tors, including Corrigan and Schechner, had been involved in institution-building in crucial ways.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 22

Corrigan, in fact, was the first dean of NYU’s School of the Arts (later the Tisch School of the Arts) as well as the founding president of the California Institute of the Arts (Cal Arts). At the same time, there are still traces of TDR’s previous anti-academic attitude. Some contributors and readers I have spoken to prefer to think of performance studies as an anti- or paradiscipline that resists institutional histories, canons, norms, and conventions as they necessarily accompany academic disci- plines. In this manner, performance studies—and TDR—try to have their cake and eat it too. It was, perhaps, because of this long-standing anti-academic attitude that an institutional history of performance studies arrived relatively late in the pages of TDR and met some resistance. Jill Dolan had urged performance studies to accept its status as a discipline in 1996 (T152), and Shan- non Jackson launched an extensive research project into the disciplinary history of performance studies (2001; T169). The history of TDR shows thus both the origin and development of its anti- academic stance, but also the journal’s continual ties to academic institutions. TDR’s anti-academic stance must be understood largely as a position within academia, and not one outside of it. Perhaps one might take the institutional history of this journal as an occasion to question the opposition between avantgarde and academia, a position on which at least part of this anti-academic attitude has been based ever since Bentley (who, it should be noted, put his money were his mouth was by giving up his post at Columbia University to devote himself to his work as a writer). TDR demonstrates that journals and projects with avantgarde aspirations may find their niches within the U.S. academy; they may even be sustained, however uneasily, by certain universities. This, perhaps, is the most significant difference between the U.S. avantgardes and the European ones, which continue to define themselves in opposition to the academy. Theatre, Anti-Theatre, and Performance Despite the many changes, turning-points, and breaks, there are surprising continuities in the journal’s history. The two longest-standing theatre-makers to be featured in TDR are, perhaps surprisingly, not those most readily identified with the journal, such as the Living Theatre or Grotowski, but Brecht and Artaud. As already indicated, Brecht occupied a central position during the first phase of TDR through Bentley’s singular influence on the journal through the early ’60s. However, many of the journal’s subsequent changes were curiously tied to Brecht as well. When Erika Munk took over the journal, she published a partially inherited special issue on Brecht (T37). In her editorial and correspondence, she expresses some unease about this, wanting to feature new, political, radical, and activist theatre and not an author who had been championed by TDR for more than a decade. Trying to salvage the situation, Munk writes: “Perhaps it is time to deal with Brecht as he dealt with all the authors he used for his own ends, to go beyond literal interpretation of his ideol- ogy and style, to produce him in a way that will make vivid again for a new generation the profound questions he raised for a past one” (1967:21; T37). Brecht keeps returning, however, decade after decade, for example under Kirby in 1975, and he also reappears when Schechner introduces the name change to “A Journal of Performance Studies” in 1988. However, Brecht’s treatment in 1988 registers TDR’s interest in a differentiated feminist idiom, through Elin Diamond’s important article “Brechtian Theory/Feminist Theory: Toward a Gestic Feminist Criticism” (T117). Once more, in the late 1990s, an issue was devoted primarily to Brecht (T164), and not even, as one might expect from TDR’s interest in intercultural performance, on Brecht reception and adaptation outside Germany or even outside the West, but on Brecht in Germany, guest edited by TDR Contributing Editor Susanne Winnacker. Through all the different changes, TDR seems to have held onto this one figure, firmly rooted in the tradition of modern drama that constituted TDR’s first object of inquiry. Even when TDR abandoned its interest in modern drama and the philosophical theatre of the absurd, Brecht continued to function as a model for a politically efficacious theatre. Indeed, TDR’s continued investment in political efficacy could be attributed to the ongoing significance of this one playwright-director. Artaud’s first text, on the Theatre of Cruelty, appeared in 1958 (TDR 2, 3), one year after the first Brecht text. And while the high ’60s did not pay attention to Artaud, he was featured in the 1970s Martin Puchner

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 23

and reappeared in Richard Schechner’s important special issue on intercultural performance in 1982. Artaud continued to be an object of interest in the 1990s, for example through a long article subtitled “The Legacy of the Theatre of Cruelty” by Helga Finter in 1997 (T156), and he played an important role in articles on other topics, for example in Anthony Kubiak’s “Performance and Its Double in American Culture” in 1998 (T160). While Brecht provided TDR with a model of political efficacy, Artaud’s emphasis on a physical theatre fueled the journal’s continued investment in the act of live performance, but also in non-Western theatre. Like Artaud and other modernists, TDR’s contributors traveled to observe different kinds of ritual practices that seemed to them more striking than Western dramatic theatre. Indeed, those who have accused TDR of a certain exoticism at various moments in its history might have recognized in this tendency a kinship to Artaud. In fact, it was not until 2001 that a critical eye was cast on Artaud’s form of Orientalism with regard to the Balinese theatre, in an article by Nicola Savarese (T171). Brecht and Artaud informed TDR’s investment in political efficacy and non-Western theatre respectively, but they can also serve as tools for understanding what continues to be TDR’s most controversial position: its critique of the theatre. Even though the theatre has remained an important part of TDR’s objects of analysis, the term “theatre” has become increasingly suspect to a number of its readers and authors, who have relied more and more on the term “performance.” At least originally, this term was used to designate the kind of theatre that was unhinged from a dependence on dramatic literature. Because performance and performance studies have become so well established among the authors and readers of the journal, it is worth noting how gradual the shift from theatre to performance actually was. Until the mid-1980s, performance seems to designate primarily two things, non-Western theatre and Western performing arts such as dance or Happenings. The first meaning emerges in a special issue on “African Performance.” Kirby explains the title thus: “In titling the issue, we have used the term ‘performance’ rather than ‘theatre.’ [...] Performance is a larger category than theatre. All theatre is performance, but not all performance is theatre (1981:2; T92). And he goes on to distinguish between the two on the basis of whether a performance is intended to have an “effect on the spiritual/metaphysical world,” concluding that most of the objects described in the issue belong to the subset of performance that is not theatre. The second meaning of performance is evident in a special 1985 issue on “East Village Performance” (T105). Here, Kirby does not feel the need to defend or define the term “performance” and its relation to “theatre.” On the contrary, the short introduction to that issue uses the two terms more or less inter- changeably, concluding with the sentence: “Let’s look at performance on the Lower East Side for its particular esthetic, stylistic, and sociological characteristics, and for what these may tell us about theatre in general” (4). When it comes to the performing arts in New York City, it seems, “theatre” tends to move from the restricted to the overarching position, so that particular “performances” may tell us something about “theatre in general.” While in the case of non-Western theatre, “performance” and “theatre” designate different and conflicting categories, in the case of New York, “performance” is a capacious category that includes all kinds of art forms within it. Only in the 1990s did the term “performance” become charged with the full polemical force it has today, signifying a principled opposition not only to drama but also to many forms of theatre. This polemical meaning emerges, for example, in Schechner’s notorious prediction that the theatre would become the “string quartet of the 21st century” (1992:8; T136). Although Schechner himself later partially retracted the statement (2000:5; T165), Philip Auslander recently conceded that Schechner had been right (2005:5; T185). As someone who actually likes (and plays) string quartet, I am tempted to point out that this form has become an increasingly choreographed event, for example in the case of the Kronos Quartet, and might lend itself well to a performance studies analysis. (In an article on the work of Denise Stoklos in 2000, Diana Taylor mentions the Kronos The Histories of Quartet in passing [2000:7; T166]). The best term for this polemic surrounding the theatre is “antitheatricalism.” I use this term with some hesitation, since it has traditionally served to accuse and expose supposed enemies of the theatre with the hope of saving the theatre from its threatened destruction. In other words, antitheatri- TDR calism has been seen as a prejudice that must be overcome. A primary exponent of this tendency was

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 24

Jonas Barish, whose notion of the “antitheatrical prejudice” has been taken up recently by Stephen J. Bottoms (2003), who detected in TDR’s particular antitheatricalism another prejudice, namely that of homophobia. Although I do not want to deny that a few formulations published in TDR can be accused of homophobia, just as the term “performance” implied a critique of the artificial and the fake and thus can be aligned with the history of antitheatricalism Barish outlines, I find it important to differentiate the main thrust of TDR’s antitheatricalism from either of these two.6 As I have argued elsewhere (Puchner 2001, 2002), there are many forms of antitheatricalism, most of which are not to be confused with a simple hatred of the theatre. Indeed, many forms of antitheatricalism have been an extremely important and productive element of theatre history, and TDR is indeed a good example of this thesis, since all of its editors, with the exception of Erika Munk, and many of its contributors, including and especially Richard Schechner himself, have spent considerable time and energy creating what, for all intents and purposes, is still most readily described as theatre events. Bottoms mentions, as one example of antitheatricalism, Michael Fried. This is a fortuitous choice, since Fried’s antitheatricalism, which is primarily directed against minimalist sculpture, is accompanied by a praise of precisely the two figures I identified as TDR’s most long-standing favor- ites: Brecht and Artaud. Indeed, Brecht’s work can be read in an antitheatrical vein, driven by what he himself called his “distrust of the theatre” (Brecht [1931] 1966, 17:991), and everything associated with the estrangement effect can be seen as a way of undoing the kind of theatricality Brecht associated with Wagner. A politically progressive theatre thus had to take the form of a specific antitheatricalism.7 Artaud, on the other hand, pushed his dedication to the theatre so far that it became more and more difficult to realize his vision of theatre in the theatre, making necessary at least a partial displacement from the actual theatre to the genre of the manifesto. It is as manifesto that Artaud’s metaphysical theatre was realized and exerted its influence, for example in the pages of TDR (1958; TDR 2, 3). Brecht’s political antitheatricality and Artaud’s manifesto-driven hyperthe- atricality are thus the two poles that define TDR. Brecht represents an antitheatricalism that turns the theatre against itself so that out of this self-critique a more effective and efficacious theatre may arise. Artaud, by contrast, explodes the theatre in a way that leads to a diffusion of theatricality in rituals, films, radio pieces, and manifestos. In the context of TDR, antitheatricalism should therefore not be understood as some kind of moral critique of the theatre, but rather as a moment of self- critique that leads to the theatre’s rejuvenation. There is another Artaudian heritage, however, that has played a less salutary role: his critique of drama and of literature more generally. In his recent book on New York underground theatre, for example, Stephen J. Bottoms (2004) argues that TDR’s antitextual prejudice made it oblivious to the emergence of a new crop of playwrights associated with such venues as LaMaMa E.T.C. and Caffe Cino. By the same token, TDR featured articles on African ritual, but neglected acclaimed African playwrights such as Wole Soyinka. In part, this critique of drama was the result of the journal’s continual expansion of scope, from drama, to theatre, to performance. But this expansion also led it to actually critique and denigrate its earlier object of study, namely the dramatic text. Indeed, TDR still lists, in the guidelines for submissions, not only an expansive and inclusive list of performances on which it encourages submissions, including video and performance in everyday life, but ends this ever more inclusive list with a final exclusion: “We are not interested in drama as such—the analysis of play texts without reference to their actual life in performance.” The opposition, in this sentence, between drama or text on the one hand, and “actual life” on the other, is indicative of a deeply rooted antitextualism that presumes that the text in and of itself, “drama as such,” is dead, so many dead letters on paper, and that it is only through performance that it can be awakened, resurrected, and endowed with “actual life” once more.

6. The two articles in question are Richard Schechner’s “Who’s Afraid of Edward Albee” (1963a; T19) and Donald M. Kaplan’s “Homosexuality and American Theatre: A Psychoanalytic Comment” (1965; T27). 7. A more elaborate version of this argument can be found in Puchner 2002, 31ff. Martin Puchner

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 25

TDR’s Pauline denunciation of the dead letter had its price. It meant, for example, that it was slow in absorbing or responding to those important intellectual forces such as deconstruction that were developed in philosophy and literature departments in the 1970s, ’80s, and 90’s. At the same time, it has impeded, I think, the journal’s ability to formulate a full-fledged method of performance historiography. It is only by reconsidering this antitextualism, by formulating a more constructive understanding of texts (as well as other traces and forms of documents), that such a performance historiography can be developed. Despite the journal’s widespread and polemical critique of literature and text, these excluded entities have returned in a variety of guises and forms. In T39 of 1968, the very issue that presented Schechner’s “6 Axioms” manifesto, we find Jacques Polieri’s “Le Livre de Mallarmé: A Mise en Scène,” which is indeed, as the title promises, a mise-en-scène of Stéphane Mallarmé’s The Book, the conceptual staging of an entirely textual theatre by the Symbolist poet. But it was not until the 1990s, when the antitextual stance was fully institutionalized, that a full-blown debate about the text erupted, triggered by William B. Worthen’s essay on text and performance (T145), even as some authors, such as Peggy Phelan and Elin Diamond (T117), were introducing to TDR the influential work of Judith Butler and poststructuralism, which was ultimately derived from an expanded textu- alist paradigm. While the text is still sometimes denigrated, for example by Dwight Conquergood in 2002 (T147), there is one other area in which the journal has become more inviting of the written word: the book review. While earlier, TDR had privileged performance reviews over book reviews, I see antitheatricalism as a productive it began a radically expanded section dedicated to force, as a critical or self-critical extensive book reviews in 1992, a section that was first edited by Carol Martin and Ann Daly and edge inherited from modernism and more recently by Martin alone. the avantgarde. If there is a danger While TDR’s antitextualism, in my opinion, has associated with it, it would be that this to be overcome, I see antitheatricalism as a productive force, as a critical or self-critical edge inherited productive form of antitheatricalism from modernism and the avantgarde. If there is a turns into a destructive one. But on danger associated with it, it would be that this the whole, this antitheatricalism is productive form of antitheatricalism turns into a destructive one. But on the whole, this antitheatri- something that needs to be preserved calism is something that needs to be preserved so so that TDR can continue to invent that TDR can continue to invent new theatres. In fact, I will end my history with a plea for an ex- new theatres. panded and radicalized form of antitheatricalism: just as TDR moved from theatre to performance, so it should move from antitheatricalism to anti- performance-ism. What I mean here is that TDR might pay more systematic attention to moments when different types and forms of performance encounter limits and, more importantly, turn against themselves. Are there situations and areas of study in which one can no longer speak of performance? Where it would be useful to conceptualize a term that points to the limits of performance, a kind of counterpart or opposite pole that would then allow the term “performance” to become part of a difference (to speak in a structuralist vein), an opposition, a resistance against which it then has to establish itself? The concept of performance, in other words, needs both general and particular counterterms through which it can gain terminological precision and contour. Depending on the context, possible candidates for such a counterterm might be stasis (the limit case of temporality and movement), being (the limit case of phenomenality), life (the limit case of liveness), death (the other limit case of life and liveness), singularity (the limit case of repeated behavior), among others. The Histories of In searching for such terms, performance studies would become a critique of performance in the (Kantian) sense of an inquiry into the limits of performance. Performance studies should engage in such a critique not for the purpose of denigrating performance, nor of giving rise to an anti- performance prejudice, but for the purpose of increasing the power of the term. I already see such a critical turn in performance studies in Phelan’s notion of performance as disappearance (1992), TDR

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 26

Roach’s discussion of the carnivalesque and the law (1993; T139), Auslander’s critique of liveness (1999), Worthen’s insistence on textuality (1995; T145), Jackson’s critical genealogy of the discipline (2001; T169), and McKenzie’s distinction between different types of performance (2001). It is therefore not a matter of undoing what has hitherto been done, but of pushing these critical reﬂections further, of inscribing in the very heart of performance studies the category of anti-performance.

References Auslander, Philip 1987 “Towards a Concept of the Political in Post-modern Theatre.” Theatre Journal 39, 1:20–34. 1999 Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. New York: Routledge. 2005 “No-Shows: The Head Count from the NEA.” TDR 49, 1 (T185):5–9. Bentley, Eric 1967 [1947] The Playwright as Thinker. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Bottoms, Stephen J. 2003 “The Efﬁcacy/Effeminacy Braid: Unpacking the Performance Studies/Theatre Studies Dichotomy.” Theatre Topics 13, 2:173–87. 2004 Playing Underground: A Critical History of the 1960s Off-Off-Broadway Movement. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Bürger, Peter 1974 Theorie der Avantgarde. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Brecht, Bertolt 1966 [1931] Gesamelte Werke. 20 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Corrigan, Robert 1964 “TDR Comment.” Tulane Drama Review 8, 4 (T24):13–16. DeRose, David 1994 “Critical Theory and Performance.” Edited by Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach. TDR 38, 2 (T142):189–91. Kaplan, Donald M. 1965 “Homosexuality and American Theatre: A Psychoanalytic Comment.” Tulane Drama Review 9, 3 (T27):24–55. Kirby, Michael 1971 “A Statement of Policy.” The Drama Review 15, 3 (T50):23–4 1974 “The Criticism Issue: An Introduction.” The Drama Review 18, 3 (T63):3–4. 1981 “African Performance Issue: An Introduction.” The Drama Review 25, 4 (T92):2. 1985 “East Village Performance: An Introduction.” The Drama Review 29, 1 (T105):4. McNamara, Brooks 1983 “TDR: Memoirs of the Mouthpiece, 1955–1983.” The Drama Review 27, 4 (T100):3–21. McKenzie, Jon 2001 Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance. New York: Routledge. Munk, Erika 1967 “TDR Comment: The Relevance of Brecht.” The Drama Review 12, 1 (T37):20–21. Phelan, Peggy 1992 Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. New York: Routledge. Puchner, Martin 2001 “Modernism and Anti-Theatricality: An Afterword.” Modern Drama 44, 3:355–61. Martin Puchner

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021 M189TDR_11249_ch02 2/16/06 9:25 AM Page 27

2002 Stage Fright: Modernism, Anti-Theatricality, and Drama. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2006 Poetry of the Revolution: Marx, Manifestos, and the Avant-Gardes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Roach, Joseph, and Janelle Reinelt, eds. 1992 Critical Theory and Performance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Schechner, Richard 1963a “Who’s Afraid of Edward Albee.” Tulane Drama Review 7, 3 (T19):7–18. 1963b “TDR Comment: TDR 1963-?” Tulane Drama Review 8, 2 (T22):9–14. 1974 “From Ritual to Theatre and Back.” Educational Theatre Journal 26, 4. Reprinted in Essays on Performance Studies, New York: Drama Book Specialists, 1977. 1981 “The Decline and Fall of the (American) Avant-Garde: Why It Happened and What We Can Do about It.” Performing Arts Journal 5, 2:48–63. 1982 The End of Humanism: Writings on Performance. New York: PAJ Publications. 1982 “Intercultural Performance.” The Drama Review 26, 2 (T94):3–4. 1986 “TDR Comment: ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING.” TDR 30, 1 (T109):4–8. 1992 “TDR Comment: A New Paradigm for Theatre in the Academy.” TDR 36, 4 (T136):7–10. 1994 “TDR Comment: ‘I No Longer Subscribe to TDR.’” TDR 38, 4 (T144):7–9. 2000 “TDR Comment: Theatre Alive in the New Millennium.” TDR 44, 1 (T165):5–6. Ta ylor, Diana 2000 “Denise Stoklos: The Politics of Decipherability.” TDR 44, 2 (T166):7–29. TDR 2005 “About TDR.” (October). Turner, Victor 1982 From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications. The Histories of TDR

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dram.2006.50.1.13 by guest on 28 September 2021