directors and theatre companiescanmake all sorts of creative decisions
about how to use the text ofHamlet, including using it in traditional
performances and creatively adapting it in unconventional ways, such that
the performance is radically distinctive. Perhaps, on extreme occasions, a
critic may object that‘That isn’tHamlet!’More often than not, though,
the objection will be:‘That’s a badHamlet!’or just‘That’s a bad play!’In
the former case, the critic evidently acknowledges that she has seen a
production ofHamlet, and in the latter case, the relation to theHamlet
play texts doesn’t seem significant. Where objections are made, it is often
to the particular way in which it has been done, rather than as part of a
universal view of what the text–performance relationship must be or what
the‘play’necessarily is. Where there is a suggestion that performances
ought to be faithful to play texts like a translation is faithful to the ori-
ginal or interpret the text in some way, this is probably best understood
not as a descriptive claim about what the text–performance relationship
necessarily is, but rather as an aesthetic claim about what the relationship
ought to be, whether generally or in this particular instance. In other
words: it is an open question whether philosophical discussions of the
text–performance relationship can add to the aesthetic debate outlined
above, or whether they merely mirror it in more complicated prose. And
if questions about the deep nature of the text–performance relationship do
not help us on with the aesthetic debate, then one may wonder what, if
anything, is really at stake here.^37
Conclusion
We have explored the question‘what is theatre?’by looking at typical
theatrical elements, by analysing proposed definitions and by comparing
theatre with other kinds of art. We also looked at the peculiar ways that a
play text can interact with a theatrical performance. It can be no surprise
that no single, clear, unambiguous, universal definition of theatre has
emerged. Afinal way to answer the question is just to explore theatre’s
variety exactly as we have done, to remind ourselves of itsflexibility and
its resistance to strict orfinal limitations.
Further Reading
Balme (2008: 1–62) and Lennard & Luckhurst (2002) both offer a helpful
starting point for those who have not thought about the variety of activ-
ities that go by the name‘theatre’; readers should also consult‘Further
Reading: General’, above. Those interested in pursuing philosophical
discussions of the nature of theatre should look at Saltz (1995) and
(2001a); Hamilton (2007); Woodruff (2008: Ch. 1).
16 What is theatre?