From Radical Escapism to the Temptation of the Establishment!
Hatem Al-Tilili Mahmoudi
In the written text of the collective work “Street Theater: Theatrical Performance Outside Theatres” – which was translated into the Dhād language by Abd al-Ghani Dawood and Ahmed Abd al-Fattah and subsequently published by the Egyptian General Book Authority in 1999 – We read the following: “It is surprising, even astonishing, to find that history tells another story about the emergence of street theater, not far from the fact that the church was the midwife from which the first street theater was born in this country – England” (p.12). Indeed, it is crucial not to trust or accept the content of a single fragment without further examination. This excerpt presents the book as if it genuinely addresses the issue of the ontology of street theater and its historical paths, while in reality, it only provides a perspective on English theater. Moreover, it simplifies the birth of this theater to the influence of the church, which can be discussed from an anthropological standpoint if we move beyond the preconceived geographic framework set by the English map.
We truly cannot grasp the exact moment when the discussion about street theater began. However, we know that theater existed before its “institutionalization” and establishment by the Greeks. It was a spectacle in public squares, a celebration driven by a wild desire to imbue meaning into human existence and transcend the void. Nevertheless, this does not allow us to speak specifically about a theatrical form called “street theater.” The only common aspect is the performative play outside enclosed venues. Similarly, we cannot pinpoint the precise moment when the first theatrical performance that could be classified as street theater emerged. On the other hand, we can conceptually define this theater as inherently radical. Its performances occur suddenly and unexpectedly within a certain space, involving a transient audience that is compelled to engage in the creation of spectacle through interaction with its social and political concerns.
In this way, theatrical performance becomes explosive as it breaks free from the predetermined path outlined in the course of the performance. It becomes a performance subject to the site of spectacle, where the space is governed by its own conditions, and because of this, “unexpected reactions arise, and responses continuously alter the planned trajectory of the spectacle.” (The statement is by the German critic Erika Fischer.) The source of these reactions is the audience of the performance, the one crowded with the movements of actors, or more accurately, performers, who provoke and involve them in the creation of spectacle. With street theater, it is impossible to predict the trajectory of the spectacle or plan its workings. It is no longer the exclusive domain of its creators but also involves the audience. Thus, a game of democratization of theatrical achievement emerges. However, if street theater is tamed by theatrical institutions or regulated, it will not sustain or preserve its uniqueness. It is compelled to rebel and embrace freedom because it emerges suddenly without prior knowledge in a space of play, focusing on elements of surprise, strangeness, and altering the language of dialogue and scenery in public space.
It is a theater that migrates to an audience predetermined in advance, and it does not expect this audience to come to it. It is a theater that does not align with the aesthetic buffoonery, as it is a magnificent political and revolutionary spirit. To say that it carries a political spirit means that it falls within the framework of practical magnificence rather than aesthetic magnificence. But what is the difference between aesthetic buffoonery and this practical magnificence? To answer this question, we will give an example of a theatrical incident that is closely related to the current situation of our street theater, from which we can draw a critical variation. When the Avignon Festival hosted the Living Theatre group in the late 1960s, students were erupting in the French streets filled with rejecting slogans. No other theater group achieved what “Jack Lang” had in mind, which was to explode movements and texts and find a language that would express that student revolution. The surprise that shook the French public and was not well-received by intellectuals, including “Jean Vilar” – the festival director – was that this theater group coming from America did not adhere to the festival’s internal regulations. They took to the streets, joined the protesters, and only presented their show “Paradise Now” as a form of protest and incitement against the French authorities. The performance led by both “Julian Beck” and “Judith Malina” was actually a stream of angry slogans raised as follows: “Avignon Free Theater steals our imagination,” “What do the Communists want? “How can the anarchists find solutions? “Be prisoners of Avignon,” “Be the working class,” “Be black-skinned,” “Be Algerians,” “Form cells,” “Stop being afraid,” “Do it in reality,” “Do it now.”
What is revealed by this incident witnessed at the Avignon Festival during that period is that there is some sort of malfunction, a malfunction that is now defined through the division of the festival into two categories, it seems. The first category reduces theater to superficial buffoonery, while the second category critiques the world because it is deeply connected to existence. The first category points to the forms of commodification that theater art undergoes, as it becomes part of the vast market of goods, where the process of shaping humanity and flattening the world takes place by stripping it of the will to power. As for the second category, it carries a viewpoint that states that art is a “collective act of liberation.” Through it, it becomes necessary to involve “the masses within the antilogical play” (in the words of Italian thinker Toni Negri). Therefore, what the Living Theatre group has undertaken is nothing but an invocation of the practical sublime as the “legitimate field of revolutionaries” (in the words of Um Al-Zein Bencheikh El-Miskini). There is then a refutation of the aesthetic emptiness witnessed in theatrical art through rebellion against the laws of Avignon and the migration of theater to new arenas, which are the arenas of life. There is also a political stance that refuses to engage in the game of the market and instead travels with the angry crowds. This is what is meant by the practical sublime, where art liberates itself from the grip of reactionaries to be in the hands of revolutionaries.
As we refer to this example from the perspective of the transformation of aesthetic sublimity (the grotesque theatricality) attributed to the philosopher Kant, to practical sublimity attributed to the Italian thinker “Tony Negri,” our intention is to reconsider what is happening now in the face of this theatrical phenomenon known as street theater, especially since it has permeated our theatrical lives. We have witnessed its presence in many Arab cities such as Tunisia, Iraq, the Far Morocco, Egypt, and others. Is there a practical sublimity in these Arab experiments? Does this theater, which flows through the veins of our theatrical lives, embody a revolutionary orientation that experiences the fate of the catastrophes occurring in some of these cities? What is the need for street theater if it deviates from its main purpose? Can this designation be applied to this theater, or is what is happening a mere distortion of its essence, orientations, and aesthetic, intellectual, and political arguments?
The astonishing aspect of this matter is that we now see institutions in our cities supporting this theater, such as the Tunisian Association for Street Theater or the Street Theater Festival in Baghdad. Even the Sharm El-Sheikh International Festival for Youth Theater dedicated a complete segment of its program to this theater in its previous edition. How can we trust the protest of this theater if we see it subject to the rules of the institution or to some kind of carnival? Does it have the power to penetrate this institution in which it resides and operates? Since when has the institution been receptive to such ideas? Most likely, what is happening is a form of domestication and contamination of its essence with the approval of theater practitioners themselves who have imposed this theater on themselves. Thus, there is a kind of negotiation between these theater practitioners and the theater institution, a negotiation that revolves around positioning policies within the theatrical landscape. However, the radical inclination of this theater is merely a political maneuver that will inevitably eradicate the essence of this theater.
A question arises with great force: Do we need artistic experiences that go beyond the limits of aesthetic beauty in our Arab and African cities? It seems that this theatrical dilemma is the one we should strongly address. Since the recent revolutions witnessed in many of our countries, progressive political systems alone have proven insufficient to confront extremism and terrorism. Therefore, it became imperative to raise the banner of art as the aesthetic constitution capable of dispelling darkness.
In this regard, street theater was closest to embodying this concept in the public sphere. We should remember the Tunisian experience of “Art Despite Me” that emerged during the early stages of the Tunisian revolution. Through its theatrical performances in the streets and open spaces, it carried a revolutionary and creative energy that contributed to exposing extremism and revealing fascist and reactionary practices. This experience was so impactful that the members of this group faced harassment and threats. It was a pioneering experience that did not last as it fell victim to institutional constraints.
The practical aspect is for the public space to witness such an experience, where its performances merge with the masses who reject a particular social or political order, even if they are subjected to oppression. Thus, the boundary between the performers and the audience disappears, and the spectators become active participants, contributing to the creation of the performance. This way, the scenography of the political or artistic event transforms in the public space, and this is one of the roles of street theater as an art intimately connected to the concerns of the masses and directly addressing their issues outside the confines of traditional theater, where plays are presented in enclosed halls and end once the performance concludes.
What practical excellence street theater can offer is its ability to address the existential issues of a particular group of people and protect it from falling into the realm of deceit and artistic deception. If this theater were to be orchestrated by a festival or supported by a political or theatrical institution, it would be a distortion that affects its essence and mission. Unfortunately, there are experiences that claim to represent street theater and classify themselves within this framework, but in reality, they are not. How else can we explain theatrical performances that take place in the street with pre-written scripts? How can a performance classify itself as street theater when the actors’ lines are ready-made, even though the text should ideally emerge from the interaction with the audience, who themselves contribute to the aesthetic and theatrical penetration of the public space?
The essence of street theater lies in its dynamic interaction with the public, where the performance is shaped through the encounter with the audience. It should not be a pre-packaged, rehearsed play performed in the streets. The authenticity of street theater lies in its ability to reflect the pulse of the people and respond to the ever-changing social and political dynamics. It is the space where spontaneity, improvisation, and direct engagement with the audience are paramount. Therefore, any attempt to institutionalize or commercialize street theater risks diluting its essence and compromising its transformative power. It is through the genuine connection with the public, addressing their concerns and involving them in the creative process, that street theater can truly fulfill its potential and make a meaningful impact.
To have “Street Theater” in our Arab cities is an important artistic event, but we should not be reassured by the experiences we witness, as they often involve a distortion of the conceptual understanding of this theatrical form. Street Theater is primarily associated with practical excellence, and this excellence resides in the revolutionary arena of the masses.
