THEATRICAL COLLOQUIA DOI Number: 10.2478/tco-2018-0001 Theatre Performance in Postmodernism Radu TEAMPĂU Absract: The present paper aims to investigate, in brief, the controversial relationship between postmodernism and modernism; to outline, synthetically, the specific procedures of conceiving theatre performance in postmodernity; to analyze the performance narrative that, in postmodern era, reveals the indicible and the existential fragmentation. The research is carried out taking into consideration the end of postmodernism which was announced since the middle of the first decade of the 21st century. At the same time, besides the attempt to observe the phenomenon in its theatrical implications, the study pursues to delineate the decontextualization of theatricality from theatrical space and its recontextualization in sociopolitical space. In conclusion, the perspective beyond the end of postmodernity from which theatricality is evaluated intends to avoid the partisan thinking that any attempt to treat postmodernity requires. Key words: modernism, postmodernism, postdramatic, theatricality, multidisciplinary 1. Reflections on the relationship between modernism and postmodernism Much has been said about postmodernism and its relationship with modernism. It may easily be noticed that postmodernism gave birth to postmodernists even though they have never reached an agreement regarding an accurate definition of postmodernism. Taking, one by one, the definitions Assistant Professor, PhD, Babeș-Bolyai University, Faculty of Theatre and Television 187 THEATRICAL COLLOQUIA elaborated by both partisans and adversaries of postmodernism, seeking, in vain, a critically equidistant statement, it often seems that a proper explanation might be the following: postmodernism is what it is not. However, even this formulation doesn’t appear to be entirely appropriate to the phenomenon. Alain Kirby notes that prolonging the debate on postmodernism might suggest that: “postmodernism is contemporary, but the comparison actually shows that it is dead and buried.”1 In the same sense, we draw attention to the opinion of Tom Turner who claims that: “The Postmodernist age of anything goes is on the way out.”2 Of course, the examples may continue. However, the idea is that postmodernism, nowadays, faces tremendous challenges. Its manifestation as a cultural trend appears to be exhausted and therefore ways of overcoming it are being sought. Thus, we’ve come to deal with post- millennialism, trans-modernism, post-postmodernism, meta-modernism, digi- modernism, which is Kirby’s subsequent elaboration of his concept of pseudo- modernism, launched in 2006, in the article mentioned above. If postmodernism emerged as a cultural reaction to the fact that modernism involves or generates ideological-totalitarian behaviours, recently, taking into account Jordan Peterson’s criticism, postmodernism is confronting the same reproach. In fact, the unclear relationship between modernism and postmodernism has led to a continuous dynamic between these two cultural trends. “Modern and postmodern are terms that define rather complementary states of mind, which are, at the same time, in relations of rupture, continuity and interpenetration.”3 And yet, this relationship between the two poles, complementary or not, seems to remind us of the failure to avoid the state of 1 Kirby A., 2006, The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond, at https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond, accessed: 19.03.2018 2 Turner T., 2005, Essays on Cities and Landscapes - a Post-Postmodern View of Design and Planning, at https://www.gardenvisit.com/history_theory/library_online_ebooks/architecture_city_as_lan dscape/after_post_postmodernism, accessed: 19.03.2018 3 Cărtărescu M., 1999, Postmodernismul românesc, București: Humanitas, p. 107, our translation; original text: „Modern și postmodern sînt termeni care definesc mai curînd stări de spirit complementare, aflate în același timp în relații de ruptură, continuitate și întrepătrundere.” 188 THEATRICAL COLLOQUIA belligerence between classics/ancients and modernists, since the conditions of peace were unacceptable: “… to avoid a war, offered them the choice of this alternative, either that the Ancients would please to remove themselves and their effects down to the lower summit, which the Moderns would graciously surrender to them, and advance into their place; or else the said Ancients will give leave to the Moderns to come with shovels and mattocks, and level the said hill as low as they shall think it convenient.”4 Even postmodernism has the temptation to argue the cultural value on juvenile criteria, reducing everything to a generation-to-generation conflict. Time has passed, postmodernism, in its turn, has grown old, has become classic, and has lost, thus, the aplomb of its favourite arguments. And yet, paradoxically, even if the postmodern discourse/rhetoric claims the end of the modern values, a contrary intention, embedded in the substance of the postmodern argument, becomes noticeable: namely, the consolidation of modern values. Actually, postmodernism seems to be merely a staging of modernism’s end, and not the real end of it. Today, after the end of postmodernism, the relationship between modern and postmodern is becoming clearer. On the one hand, we may recognize a conflict similar to the one that placed Charles Perrault and Jean de la Fontaine one against the other; on the other hand, postmodernism was not a clearly conceived trend radically opposed to modernism. At one point in history, postmodernists represented the new ones, while the modernists represented the old ones. But non-combat positions between modern and postmodern may also be mentioned: “I do not mean to take my stand with the postmoderns against the (ancient) moderns.”5 However, in this context, it is interesting that postmodernism has not succeeded to detach itself completely from modernism. Moreover, it is noticeable that postmodernism is followed by modernism in its form of neo-modernism: “In the sixth edition of The 4 Swift J., 2007, The Battle of the Books and Other Short Pieces, at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/623/623-h/623-h.htm, published: January 15, 2007, accessed: March 21, 2018 5 Hassan I., 1982, The Dismemberment of Orpheus – Toward a Postmodern Literature, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, p. 261 189 THEATRICAL COLLOQUIA Language of Post-Modern Architecture, Jencks takes heart from his critics’ proclamation of the death of postmodernism and classifies them, deftly, as Neo-Moderns.”6 According to this paradigm, postmodernism appears only as a stage in the evolution of modernism. Like Updike, we doubt that postmodernism has touched “… the canonical permanence of Post- Impressionism or Post-Kantianism, for the reason that Impressionism and Immanuel Kant were phenomena more distinct and limited than modernism was. We still live in modern (from Latin modo, just now) times, and so will our descendants, until the dictionary falls to dust.”7 Even so, Umberto Eco identifies a permanence of postmodernism: “Actually, I believe that postmodernism is not a trend to be chronologically defined, but, rather, an ideal category – or, better still, a Kunstwollen, a way of operating. We could say that every period has its own postmodernism, just as every period would have its own mannerism (and, in fact, I wonder if postmodernism is not the modern name of mannerism as metahistorical category).”8 Therefore, postmodernism may be another term for mannerist-modernism. Due to these characteristics, we appreciate that an important aspect may be foreseen in the intimate fabric of postmodern philosophy, as Gemünden remarks: “Heiner Müller, whose Hamletmachine constitutes for many the post- modern play par excellence, has disqualified the term by saying, I cannot keep politics out of the question of postmodernism – but why should he?”9 Modern- mannerism, i.e. postmodernism, implies a cultural position that overcomes aesthetics and penetrates politics. There is no space here to analyze this dimension, but we keep in mind the information in order to be able to discern this relevant aspect of the relation between modernism – postmodernism – 6 Turner T., 2005 7 Updike J., 2012, Modernist, Postmodernist, What Will They Think of Next in Odd Jobs – Essays and Criticism, New York: Random House, p. 763 8 Eco U., 2014, Postmodernism, Irony, the Enjoyable in The Name of the Rose, translated from Italian by William Weaver / Richard Dixon, with the Author’s Postscript, New York: Mariner Books, p. 570 9 Gemünden G., 2001, Framed Vision – Popular Culture, Americanization, and the Contemporary German and Austrian Imagination, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, p. 39 190 THEATRICAL COLLOQUIA (...)10modernism. The political dimension is accessed in postmodernism through mass media. Obviously, if modernism appealed to written press, postmodernism appealed to radio, film and television, and (...)modernism to social networks. In this sense, we believe that, according to Kirby’s model of thinking, this is the easiest way to distinguish between the three steps of modernism: modernism, postmodernism, (...)modernism. The postmodern emphasis on metanarrative had as a secondary, deliberate or not, effect the apparent pulverisation of narrative itself and not just of narrative structures. But the narrative infrastructure resisted this assault. Perhaps, in terms of theatricality, the resistance to dismemberment was given precisely by the fact that the multidisciplinarity