Theater is a Bastard Art

"Theater is a bastard art," one of my professors once said in our Theater History graduate class. It is an amalgamation of all the other arts – literature, visual arts, music, dance, and even multimedia arts. It is for this reason that it usually develops last in terms of movement in the arts. It has a rich and long history and tradition that extends way back into pre-historic rituals. But what is interesting to note is how the theatrical tradition arrived from that prehistoric period to its present day practice.

In my relatively few years of practicing in the theater as an actor, I have come across numerous studies on the craft of acting. One that struck me the most is Stanislavsky’s Method of Acting. It comes as no surprise that he is known as the ‘Father of Modern Acting,’ after all he was the first to place a systematic process into the practice of acting, which is still studied and applied to this day. The manner by which he arrived at this system reminds me of the method described by Descartes in his ‘Discourse on the Method for Reasoning.’  Stanislavsky was seeking a means to consistently recreate the more inspired performances that he observed from his favorite actors. He was unsatisfied by whatever was written about acting during his time. He broke down the acting process from preparation to performance and studied it carefully until he is able to arrive at what he deems a method to an inspired or truthful performance. He worked on exercises to develop the actor's imagination and how to work within the given circumstances of the play. He developed activities to cultivate and access sense and emotional memory to help the actor create a performance that is as much as possible consistent and closer to the truth of the character. He was primarily working on making the internal emotions bring out the truth of the character portrayed by the actor.

Despite the fact that he was able to come up with this initial system, he was still unsatisfied with his own theories and continued researching and questioning his findings. In the latter part of his career, he was developing his ‘Methods of Physical Action,’ which is in somehow in contrast to his initial method of acting. He proposed that external actions may also help develop the internal emotional being of the character. He was working from the outside in. This theory was developed by future other great theater theorists like Grotowski in his Experimental Theater and Meyerhold's Biomechanics.

There are similar instances in the history of theater and its theories that various principles would come about and the next generation will react to it either positively or negatively. The end product is a new theory in performance that only pushed the boundaries of theater studies. This constant construction and deconstruction of ideas are important in the study and development of theater. The Theatre Libre of Andre Antoine was formed in his desire to bring theater into a more naturalistic practice. Artaud's Theater of Cruelty was initiated by the surrealist formation in reaction to rationalism. Without the ever evolving ideas toward theater and performance, we might not have the theater we right now.

It should be encouraged that all scholars and practitioners of theater must always continue challenging ideas and principles that preceded them. Not matter how ridiculous or far-fetched it may be. Even if they go against existing theater theories. The same way the Feyerabend advocates an anything goes approach to theories. Otherwise, how could we have possibly come about what we now call as The Theater of the Absurd, which defies logic and common sense. 

Theater thrives in the combination, deconstruction, reconstruction and alteration of the different arts. It constantly challenges conventions and traditions to come up with a theater that is more now and alive. Future thinkers would be wise to follow suit. 


Theater is a bastard art. That is what my professor said. It may hold true. Or maybe I might just challenge it.