The methodological situation in modern theater, however, erratic and curious. To cite one example. In 2004, international conference, the famous German theater critic, author of three volumes of the “Semiotics of theatre” Erika Fischer Lichte gracefully and convincingly proved that the Director is not the author of the text. The deciding argument was the relationship of stage and auditorium the audience is always not the same as yesterday, they just re affect the actors, and for that reason alone is why artists today can’t repeat yesterday’s text, and this means that the hall is coauthor of the text and, therefore, directed to the sole authorship claim is not entitled.

7 resorting to unusual and even dangerous for themselves argumentation, semiotics here parted almost with his main units. But the question of authorship was only pushed. Maybe the usual for us the formula of “Director the author of the play” all wrong? Maybe the Director writes not the text, as invariant? Or the play and the performance is actually different things? Anyway, this is one of the incidents that makes you think that signs and significance in art and in theatre in particular. Tolstoy, who dealt with such reliable signs, as words, and was not a fan of metaphors, I have noticed that it is not in words, but in the clutch of words.

By the end of the twentieth century, the awareness of this fact has become almost universal. And even those who recently not just protected, but developed a semiotics of the theater, turned to other horizons. This time the creative experience, which attracted the attention of science, widely and willingly delivered very mixed group of phenomena, involving, on the one hand, happenings, a variety of “shares” and performances, with another elitist experiments on theatre, by Jerzy Grotowski personally, his followers and allies. Significant was and a keen interest in non-European theatre or forms, and extensive development of non verbal theatre. Now, developing ideas of performativity, the same as E. Fischer Lichte ready not just to talk about the atmosphere of the play, refer to the charm of the actor, but even to neglect those hard link between the sign and the value, which essentially was based semiotics.

This, however, should not be understood as a return to max Herman and generally theater. “In the art of performance rightly writes E. Fischer Lichte, the body of the performer… generally ceases to be used for presentation of dramatic character and perceived primarily in its phenomenal. The key is for the actor becomes not “play the role” and “to be” to be one of the participants of the event, others and equal participant becomes a spectator. There is a unique event of their meeting, and this event undoubtedly effective. Not every performance is a performance, but every performance 8 performance. This means that a performance is an action in which the actors do not play where they are, for example, cause themselves injury, that is where they are, according to the traditional view, just not the actors, just like the viewers here are not traditional theatergoers.

Fischer Lichte loyal, but cautious with regard to attempts to submerge the theatre in cultural studies. But, apparently, semiotic and “performativity” approaches in this area between them noticeably close. Theater work can and should be viewed as a kind of symbolic system. But despite all the attention to the specificity of the theatrical sign, semiotics was also joined theater to other communications, and the theatre turned to science, not specifically its artistic side. When I emphasize the commonality between performance and theatre work, and thus safely extend the scope of the term “theatre”, the theatre loses again this time and “artistic image”, and the difference from the game of life.

It turns out that markup not such an innocent thing, he really methodologically oriented and, together with the very methods requires reflection. I will say without equivocation: in the light of our history claim to universality or a single scientific give gloomy memories, and in the light of common sense call humor. In science, any method the thing is essentially flat, so it is good, then and need. Each method should give, and certainly gives the opportunity to explore one of the many “planes” that intersect and create a scientific picture of the object. Theatre is a complex phenomenon, with a fanciful volume, and one for study is required, according to sociologists, the battery methods. This creates new problems for example, when it is required to combine the results obtained in different ways, however, this approach seems more sensible than hoping to invent the key to all the doors at once.

This hope, however, we are not leaving. In contrast, the methods developed in the twentieth century, with all their diversity, in the last decades tend to integration, because you get a common philosophical base and, thus, cannot apply for a new one, certainly not private status. Obviously, for example, that poststructuralist, initially posing as a 9 methodological justification of one only of postmodernism, today a modest role to be satisfied and then I did not have the right. In fact, if all so called literary texts are indistinguishable from life because life is no less, but no more than the text, if the question is about whether I, indeterminate or irrelevant, if I just sign myself, then the claim that the primary meaning, as irrefutable as the fact that fleet footed Achilles cannot catch the tortoise. It is equally clear that for this system of thinking is most suspicious just and just art in General sense, which is recognized only in the case when the principal bad infinity.