Of the three words comprising the title of this work, explanations need all three. The preposition “to” in accordance with the directions of grammar, first, requires that the owner added “about…”, and, second, it captures the intention of the author to move in that direction, where, as it seemed, this question can be answered. Thirdly, and lastly, “to theory” is “theory” says not so much about the modesty of the author, but to move in that direction would have seemed too long.
What will be implied by “theory” also required clarification, because in our field theory is called a variety of things extracts from history, problematic, blend of aesthetic concepts and process recommendations established practices of the theater, methodological studies, and sometimes just the lyrics, saturated with scientific words.
There is no doubt that, for example, the first ideas of epic theatre a wonderful and deep theatrical theory. No more recent theoretical concept not entitled to these thoughts around, but still there is the theory of the theater of Brecht, not the theory of theatre. And even more obvious that the theatre methodology deals with the ways in which knowledge is produced about the theater, including the theoretical, and the theory of the theatre is part of this knowledge.
The third word is the theatre. What he is is the first and main question which should be answered by the theory of the theatre. The answer can be born only at the end of the notoriously difficult thought of what the sources of the theater (or what we call theater) eats with whom and how to contact, what it consists of, what its properties, 5 which forms it adopts or may adopt.
The theory of the theatre is not a philosophy of the theater, General art history, adapted for theatrical purposes; on the other hand, the theory and not the technology of theatre; it describes no methods of its making, and what is being done. But to become a theory needs to know where and how it is connected with the philosophy of theater, and General art history; does it have something to with the theories of the other arts, the history of thought about the theatre. And, of course, first and foremost, and the most natural way, with the science of the history of theater.
No theoretical work can’t be written without philosophical, aesthetic, methodological, historical and theatrical, and many other prerequisites. They were with me. They all in our business, not a postulate, conjecture, and a simple enumeration of them is highly dubious tribute to the academic. But since no other possibility is, the ones that seem to me the main, still be called.
I proceeded, first, from the assumption that the theater was not invented in vain. Without that, humanity could not see and aesthetically evaluate some very important aspects or properties of his life. When it became clear that the theatre is suitable for performing these urgent problems, mankind has decided to preserve the theater. And to keep, had to develop. But to develop is not necessarily to do better and more perfect, rather, perhaps to make theatre more theatre.
Theatre is not eternal and not infinite, including on the possibilities and meaning. It is limited and, therefore, certain. He’s kind of. To him, therefore, it can be, it can be run (in our time, this is not uncommon), and the flight it’s not fall and not rise, as most believe the fugitives, just care in other areas of spiritual or just culture, where the theatre a lot.
Entirely agree that on the stage everything but, in addition to the signs and values, in the theater there is also a spiritual meaning which says something to the mind and heart and which, contrary to the modern illusion, often described, vividly, just the old “philosophical” methods.
That theatre art, especially the art of the self, not a postulate. I proceeded from hypotheses, according to which it can be and is art. In this case the theatrical sense, like every other art, has a fan, a bunch of meanings, among which, most likely, there is no main. But, on the other hand, theatrical image not unlimited, so the audience’s understanding of his creative and artistic freedom set boundaries on stage. When the theatre art, his major work, the play, is all that there is in any other work of art: there are pieces and collecting them in the system structure, there is content, there is form and there is a language of substance which is made form and which reprimanded the contents. But such systems, contents, forms, and languages like nowhere else.
Almost against the wishes of the I offended methodological debate of the last decades. Maybe this should not regret it: methodology is not a theory, but they certainly are connected. Strict semiotics, for example, offered the researcher the performance focus only on what is happening on the stage, to see what is happening as the text, to see nothing except the text, and the text to understand how the phenomenon of language. As a language and it can and should understand, but it is not only the language. Strict hermeneutic, which again was appealed to the senses, forced them to look for any theatrical sense only in the hall. It also seems to me to be extreme: the meaning is more likely to occur on the stage, and between her and the audience.