Or how did the playwrights go wrong!
Hatim Al-Tlili Mahmoudi
From a theatrical perspective, we should not believe in that narrative claiming that we have turned into virtual beings despite the digital revolution that has dominated the world. Surrendering to this notion would be a bloody distortion that would sever the limbs of theatrical art and bury it in a coffin of its demise. This art does not exist outside the realm of blood and purpose; its essence lies in its eternal connection to humanity. It is born out of the human anxiety since the first sacrifice was signed in its name, and since the actor became the elevated substitute for this sacrifice, and since their presence was inscribed among social groups. To speak today of digital theater means that we are witnessing, in the face of farewell, the live encounter between the self and the other. It means that we are witnessing the hybridization of this art by distancing it from its true mission. The harsh truth that theater practitioners seek to overlook is that theater is a slow art, a tortoise in movement, and its lifespan exceeds that of monotheistic gods. Therefore, it is not meant to chase after the fast-paced lives of humans resulting from technology and terrifying technological advancements. Its true mission lies in staging the tragedies of this very life.
In such a case, it has become necessary to direct scathing criticism against any claim that defends the theater practitioners rather than the theater itself. They will not hesitate at all to defend their own existence while abandoning this art. There are many incidents that reveal the extent of the damage caused by theater practitioners to theatrical art, and we have a not-so-distant example from our era, approximately two and a half years ago, which serves as the best evidence of that. The terrifying question that sparked the debate among theater practitioners revolved around the following dilemma : Could technology be an alternative in light of the public space being frozen due to the recent pandemic ? However, this question was quickly rendered obsolete as life has relatively returned to theatrical art with the resumption of festivals and theatrical events.
The question could have been crucial in the history of theatrical art and its fate, as its mere posing and considering it as a possibility may reveal a tremendous desire among theater practitioners to continue, even if it leads to “distorting theatrical art” or emptying it of its essence.
This art was born out of human anxiety. Therefore, its true mission lies in reassuring humanity. But how can it achieve that when it is deprived of existence with the return of the human species to their homes and the emptiness of cities from human activity due to the intensified impact of quarantine measures on the world? It seems that the matter was settled from the beginning, as theater ends with the end of humanity and returns with its return. Thus, the moment it stopped is nothing but a sign of awaiting life and its return in its usual form. Unlike this art that delved into its loyalty to humanity, theater practitioners did not stop their attempts to keep theater running. And because they have become native inhabitants in the realms of digital, technology, and virtual worlds, they have brought this art with them to their new abode. Therefore, the question about technology as an alternative to the public space, which is the legitimate abode of theater, was raised.
This question was not meant to be seriously posed until the quality of being theatrical was stripped away from the theater practitioners, as they became mere citizens haunted by terror, no longer distinct from ordinary humans. More precisely, they lost what distinguished them unlike doctors, scientists, or philosophers who engaged in offering solutions to the world or attempting to interpret it. Thus, the erasure of theater from existence was decided, and the theater practitioners saw their creative fortresses collapse like the fall of Troy. They had no role left except that of mourners in the tragedy of the Trojan women, as written by Seneca. The theater practitioners lamented instead of singing. A grieving Noah, refusing catastrophe, only brought about a new catastrophe inflicted by them. It happened that another plague was born, no less dangerous than theater, a plague that found its fulfillment from within this art, as it was degraded in an explicit manner. Otherwise, how can we explain its dehumanization and its entrance into the realms of the digital ? Did humanity transform into mechanical beings or virtual numbers for this art, which has been intertwined with it for centuries, to transform accordingly ? Absolutely not, that never happened.
Indeed, the world as a whole has transitioned to residing in the digital space, which the theater rejects as a genuine artistic and aesthetic experience that can only be realized through direct interaction. Attempting to relocate it to the digital realm is a delusion practiced by theater practitioners in order to overcome their psychological fear in the face of the overwhelming reality. It was more like a theatrical consolation : summoning old works in the depths of the oceanic world, organizing virtual seminars and festivals. Yet, it was met with the mocking face of “Walter Benjamin,” and his resounding statement returned to the surface : the death of the aura, “In the moment when the artistic work is stripped of its essence due to purely technical reasons or factors, it loses its value and fades away”. There is no meaning in discussing theater without the physical presence where bodies unite, no meaning in discussing theater while sitting in front of computer screens, and no meaning in discussing theater without a live encounter between performers and audience. This is how the torture of this art form took place in the context of this conceptual war, after the pens of critics ignited with regard to this issue on both the Arab and global levels. It resulted in hundreds of articles scattered across social media platforms and theater-related pages. Yes, the body of this art form has been dissected as if it were a human body struck by the plague, suffering from the intensity of coughing and fever, and eventually, its lungs exploded due to that terrifying virus, Adorno said, “The self-realization that art had achieved after freeing itself from its ceremonial function and its likes, was nourished by the idea of humanity. But it became shaken to the extent that society became less humane “, Schiller wonderd : “What is the event that declares the entry of the savage into the realm of humanity ? And Al-Maskeeni answered, speaking of humanity as a captive of the terrifying “monstrosity that has absorbed every possible interpretation of the future of humanity as it is“.
We must not overlook that this issue has not been raised before – the issue of theater, technology, and the end of humanity on the theatrical stage. These years have shed light on the horror experienced by theater practitioners, and now it is gradually fading with the return of life, relatively speaking. In the past – perhaps since the designer and theater practitioner “Jordan Grek” objected to the actor and replaced him with a puppet, or perhaps since the moment technology flourished and engulfed human life – it has been raised from an undoubtedly aesthetic angle and from the perspective of the relationship of this inclusive art that draws from philosophy, humanities, visual arts, and technology, employing them in its discourse, as it is constantly ready to demolish itself and renew itself with the renewal of human life. Yes, it is characteristic of theater to smuggle what does not belong to its essence, but it is not characteristic of it to migrate to another art form. Therefore, the issue of the integration of technology, digitization, and virtualization into its realms is nothing more than an investment from its part, provided that it does not negate the actor from the stage and the theatrical process. The actor, as the elevated substitute for the ancient sacrifice, and the actor, as the essence of the Dionysian origin of theater.
It is possible to say, in the words of the French critic Patrice Pavis : “It can be said, in the words of the French critic Patrice Pavis, that theater cannot be protected from any means of communication, and that ‘the artwork in the age of technological reproduction’ (Benjamin) cannot escape the economic and social technological control that determines its aesthetics. The contamination of aesthetics and technology is inevitable, whether it is an influential interaction between communication media technologies or a strong desire to preserve the privacy or poverty of theater (Grotowski). The time for artistic conservatism has passed “. Through this passage, we observe that what is happening is a matter of aesthetics, specifically related to the end of artistic purity and its expansion into other domains such as television, cinema, the digital realms of the internet and algorithmic networks. This provides us with a new understanding of the presence of theater in the public sphere and alternative concepts of theatrical performance. However, it does not at all negate the presence of the actor on stage or replace them because doing so would fundamentally transform theater into something else and strip it of its essential humanity, which has been its secret and immortal elixir since its inception.
It is the loud cry of Alfred Jarry that has risen, saying : “We must eliminate hideous things of extreme ugliness, absurdly closed off, cluttering the stage in vain, and by that, I primarily mean the set and the actors”, The intention behind this vision is to negate the human actor, and once that happens, it signifies a radical shift towards the dominance of machinery and technological control, leading humanity to dwell in the cities of the digital realm, where humans become mere virtual numbers. However, this does not apply to theater, as stated by Abdul Karim Bouchi : “a vital act, is an allegiance to Dionysus, as Nietzsche confirms. This Greek god is the god of joy, ecstasy, and dance, in contrast to the god of gloom, tranquility, and weakness“. Yes, it is impossible to deny the interaction between theatrical art and technology today. However, this interaction is primarily subject to the form of our modern existence in the world, and secondarily subject to the nature of this art as constantly self-destructive, carrying the questions and anxieties of humanity, and granting itself the right to renewal. Therefore, when it appears to us in these modern times, it has offered new intellectual and aesthetic perspectives by harnessing and employing technological advancements, particularly in the realm of scenography.
The question of humanity in theater is not a recent one, but rather ancient, dating back to the inception of this art form. Therefore, it will always remain inherent in the presence of the human actor on the stage. Otherwise, we would be talking about the emergence of a different art form that is not theater or cinema. Yes, Erica Fischer-Lichte in her book titled ‘The Aesthetics of Performance’ brings us to a matter of utmost importance, stating : “Alan Harrison, the head of the so-called Ritual Residue Group at the University of Cambridge, went even further, attempting to establish a direct genetic link between ritual and theater”, The ritual is nothing but that mythical/religious event in which humans are taken by a creative spiritual force to express their concerns about the phenomena of the world. And for theater to originate from this ancient womb is a radical sign of its belongingness to the human essence, no matter how much human life transforms with its residence in the heart of the digital forest.
In such a case, we should not impose conceptual reductions on theater. The digital art, as it currently fills the realms of virtual existence, belongs to a “transient time” in the words of Bencheikh Al-Husseini. Although it is capable of providing vast spaces for creativity, such as connecting arts and cultures and deconstructing origins by showcasing the margin, it cannot engulf theater. The latter is an earthly art, just like humans who were created from clay.
Indeed, theater is not a digital phenomenon, and the stage is not a dwelling place for screens and computers. Theater is what one human being says to another in a direct communicative form. Theater is the expression of public issues that aim to engage with the tragedies, sufferings, and experiences of humanity in a beautiful manner.
