• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

This article was downloaded by: [Thomas Crombez] On: 14 April 2014, At: 10:15 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Contemporary Theatre Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gctr20 Canonisation in Contemporary Theatre Criticism: A Frequency Analysis of ‘Flemish Wave’ Directors in the Pages of Etcetera Thomas Crombez Published online: 04 Apr 2014. To cite this article: Thomas Crombez (2014) Canonisation in Contemporary Theatre Criticism: A Frequency Analysis of ‘Flemish Wave’ Directors in the Pages of Etcetera, Contemporary Theatre Review, 24:2, 252-261, DOI: 10.1080/10486801.2014.885896 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10486801.2014.885896 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Contemporary Theatre Review, 2014 Vol. 24, No. 2, 252–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10486801.2014.885896 Canonisation in Contemporary Theatre Criticism: A Frequency Analysis of ‘Flemish Wave’ Directors in the Pages of Etcetera Thomas Crombez Introduction was ‘the bail that the actress has to post in order to be admitted to the stage’.1 ’ There is a remarkable scene in Jan Fabre s theatre As is evident from this example, theatre makers production The Power of Theatrical Madness, which from the ‘postdramatic’ generation of the 1970s premiered at the Venice Biennale in 1984. Six and 1980s are often highly conscious of their rela- fi – performers, ve men and one woman who make tionship with the avant-gardes of the twentieth cen- it clear in this scene that they are certainly not to be tury. (I here understand ‘postdramatic’ in the broad ‘ ’– viewed as actors undress their upper bodies and sense as introduced by Hans-Thies Lehmann in his start to run, but without moving from the spot. 1999 book; that is, of experimental work in the Their actual performance is that they simulta- performing arts that can no longer be said to belong neously, while panting and sweating, have to to the neo-avant-gardes of the post-war decades.)2 demonstrate their knowledge of recent theatre It is, however, a remarkable fact that this avant- history. garde connection is quite absent from contempor- ‘ ’ fi 1967 , the rst one cries. Another one replies: ary theatre criticism that discusses the work of Fabre ‘King Lear, Royal Shakespeare Company, Peter 3 Downloaded by [Thomas Crombez] at 10:15 14 April 2014 and his colleagues. ’ Brook. As the performance continues, all the high In order to explore this asymmetrical presence of points of avant-garde post-war theatre (already the avant-garde – highly visible in the work itself, but partly canonised) are reviewed: Marat-Sade by much less so in reviews and essays – this article will Peter Weiss and Peter Brook (1964); Dionysus in take a closer look at the experimental generation of ’69 by Richard Schechner and The Performance Group; The Constant Prince by Jerzy Grotowski and the Laboratory Theatre; the Living Theatre; 1. Luk Van den Dries, ‘Jan Fabres Theatertrilogie: Minimal Jean-Louis Barrault; Heiner Müller. Music en Gesamtkunstwerk’, Etcetera, 2.8 (1984), 24–26 The historical references function as a kind of (p. 25). Unless otherwise mentioned, all translations from passphrase. After all performers have been pushed Dutch-language sources are my own. off the stage, only one, Els Deceukelier, is pre- 2. Hans-Thies Lehmann, Postdramatisches Theater (Frankfurt: Verlag der Autoren, 1999). vented from climbing back on. Whenever she 3. At that moment, the most important platforms for theatre tries, the other actors push her back, shouting: criticism included national and regional newspapers (such as De ‘1876’. Finally, she is able to utter: ‘Richard Standaard, De Morgen, De Financieel-Economische Tijd, De Gazet van Antwerpen, and De Nieuwe Gazet), and radio Wagner, Ring des Nibelungen, Bayreuth Fest-spiel- stations such as Radio 1, Omroep Brabant (later Radio 2), haus.’ As Luk Van den Dries remarked, the phrase and Studio Brussel. © 2014 Taylor & Francis 253 CTR DOCUMENTS Flemish theatre directors who started out in the Jan Lauwers … in other words, with the 1980s. Apart from Jan Fabre, this group also well-known mantra of five or six names.7 included Jan Lauwers, Guy Cassiers, Ivo Van Hove, Jan Decorte, and Luk Perceval. Together with the My take on the Flemish Wave focuses on how it was remarkable new elan in choreography (Anne Teresa seen (or not) as a contemporary avant-garde, and De Keersmaeker, Wim Vandekeybus, Alain Platel), how it related to earlier avant-gardes. In doing so, I they became more widely known as the ‘Flemish will also try to address Jans’s concerns and shed new Wave’. light on how the process of canonisation took place The special issue of Contemporary Theatre in the case of the Flemish Wave. This will be done Review from November 2010 that focused on this through an innovative methodological approach, group has thoroughly examined how the artists’ which I will clarify in the next section. individual careers, and their artistic trajectories, have developed.4 But the term ‘Flemish Wave’ itself is also a fascinating example of how canonisation has operated in performing arts history. At first, the Methodology expression was used mostly in the Netherlands, because many of these young makers could find I will approach the theatre directors who were part of better working conditions there than in their own the Flemish Wave by analysing an important slice of country.5 Later it was increasingly regarded as a the critical discourse that accompanied their produc- mere marketing label, especially by local Flemish tions. This slice more particularly does not concern critics; but still the term has succeeded in establish- the traditional platforms of criticism (i.e. national ing itself as an appropriate label for historicising that newspapers and radio stations) but rather a new per- episode.6 forming arts magazine, called Etcetera, which was Today, in 2013, both participants and scholars launched in January 1983 with the explicit aim of are starting to raise questions about the accuracy of charting the new tendencies in Flemish performing the term. Moreover, it could very well be that the arts, and which continues to be published today. The term not only designates a particular group of magazine may be considered to have been the spring- artists, but simultaneously obfuscates other trends board for the new generation. Hence, an examination in the performing arts landscape. Generational of its critical discourse can shed light on the processes labels tend to obscure the different temporalities of canonisation at work during this period. that were (and are) at work in the history of the The methods I will employ to analyse the critical fi avant-garde. In a 2010 interview, Erwin Jans for- discourse of Etcetera come from the emerging eld mulated this reflection when assessing the context of digital humanities. In 2011, the back issues of of the 1980s as the ‘wonder years’ of Flemish per- Etcetera for the period of 1983 to 2008 were fully forming arts: digitised and made searchable by the University of Antwerp.8 This digital collection contains more So there are people who do not fit into the than 2,500 articles by 657 different authors, total- story of ‘in the early 1980s everything began ling more than five million words of text. Hence, it Downloaded by [Thomas Crombez] at 10:15 14 April 2014 anew’. There are also people who started at is eminently suited to quantitative sampling for other times and followed a different line. […] research on theatre criticism. Using this corpus as If you want to write history, you should the basis for my analysis, I will attempt to single out quantitative trends in canonisation. watch out for that kind of narrowing labels. Thus, in the first step of this article I will compare It is true to some extent, but some people are the mentions of the new and experimental generation excluded. If not, the theatre of that time with those of the older and more mainstream genera- coincides with the names of Jan Decorte, tion of theatre directors working at the Flemish muni- cipal theatres. From this comparison, a number of 4. ‘Border Collisions: Contemporary Flemish Theatre’, special interesting tendencies appear, especially the strong issue of Contemporary Theatre Review, ed. by Peter M. Boenisch and Lourdes Orozco, Contemporary Theatre Review, 20.4 (November 2010). 7. Lieve Aerts and Karen Kerff, ‘Misschien ligt de avant-garde nu 5.

Load more

  11

Copy Link