am fi Letnik / Volume Številka / Number 11. 1. te Revija za teorijo scenskih umetnosti Journal of Performing Arts Theory 2023 at er Ljubljana, 2023 am fi Letnik / Volume Številka / Number 11. 1. te Revija za teorijo scenskih umetnosti Journal of Performing Arts Theory 2023 at er AMFITEATER Revija za teorijo scenskih umetnosti / Journal of Performing Arts Theory Letnik / Volume 11, Številka / Number 1 ISSN 1855-4539 (tiskana izdaja) 1855-850X (elektronska izdaja) Glavna in odgovorna urednica: Maja Murnik Uredniški odbor / Editorial Board: Zala Dobovšek (Univerza v Ljubljani), Primož Jesenko (Slovenski gledališki inštitut), Matic Kocijancic (Slovenski gledališki inštitut), Bojana Kunst (Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, DE), Blaž Lukan (Univerza v Ljubljani), Aldo Milohnic (Univerza v Ljubljani), Barbara Orel (Univerza v Ljubljani), Mateja Pezdirc Bartol (Univerza v Ljubljani), Maja Šorli (Univerza v Ljubljani), Tomaž Toporišic (Univerza v Ljubljani), Gašper Troha (Univerza v Ljubljani) Mednarodni uredniški odbor / International Editorial Board: Mark Amerika (University of Colorado, US), Marin Blaževic (Sveucilište u Zagrebu, HR), Ramsay Burt (De Montfort University, GB), Joshua Edelman (Manchester Metropolitan University, GB), Jure Gantar (Dalhousie University, CA), Anna Maria Monteverdi (Universitŕ degli Studi di Milano, IT), Janelle Reinelt (The University of Warwick, GB), Anneli Saro (Tartu Ulikool, EE), Miško Šuvakovic (Univerzitet Singidunum, RS), S. E. Wilmer (Trinity College Dublin, IE) Soizdajatelja: Slovenski gledališki inštitut (zanj Gašper Troha, direktor) in Univerza v Ljubljani, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo (zanjo Tomaž Gubenšek, dekan) Published by: Slovenian Theatre Institute (represented by Gašper Troha, director) and University of Ljubljana, Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television (represented by Tomaž Gubenšek, dean) Prevod / Translation: Jaka Andrej Vojevec Lektoriranje slovenskega besedila / Slovenian Language Editing: Andraž Poloncic Ruparcic Lektoriranje angleškega besedila / English Language Editing: Jana Renée Wilcoxen Korektura / Proofreading: Maja Murnik in/and Jana Renée Wilcoxen Bibliotekarka / Librarian: Bojana Bajec (UL AGRFT) Oblikovanje / Graphic Design: Simona Jakovac Priprava za tisk / Typesetting: Nina Šturm Tisk / Print: CICERO, Begunje, d.o.o. Število natisnjenih izvodov / Copies: 200 Revija izhaja dvakrat letno. Cena posamezne številke: 10 €. Cena dvojne številke: 18 €. Letna narocnina: 16 € za posameznike, 13 € za študente, 18 € za institucije. Poštnina ni vkljucena. The journal is published twice annually. Price of a single issue: 10 €. Price of a double issue: 18 €. Annual subscription: 16 € for individuals, 13 € for students, 18 € for institutions. Postage and handling not included. Prispevke, narocila in recenzentske izvode knjig pošiljajte na naslov uredništva / Send manuscripts, orders and books for review to the Editorial Office address: Amfiteater, SLOGI, Mestni trg 17, Ljubljana, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta / E-mail: amfiteater@slogi.si Ljubljana, junij 2023 / Ljubljana, June 2023 Revijo za teorijo scenskih umetnosti Amfiteater je leta 2008 ustanovila Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo Univerze v Ljubljani./ Amfiteater – Journal of Performing Arts Theory was founded in 2008 by the University of Ljubljana, Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television. Revija je vkljucena v / The journal is included in: MLA International Bibliography (Directory of periodicals), Scopus, DOAJ. Izdajo publikacije sta financno podprla Agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije. / The publishing of Amfiteater is supported by the Slovenian Research Agency and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia. Kazalo / Contents Uvodnik 9 Preface 13 Gledališki eksperiment na Slovenskem (1966–1986) in njegovi odmevi / Theatre Experiment in Slovenia (1966–1986) and Its Resonance Branislav Jakovljevic Uprizoritvena pisava: na strani, okoli nje in zunaj nje 19 Performance Writing: On, Around and Off the Page 37 Tomaž Toporišic Dekonstrukcije nasprotja med reprezentacijo in prezentacijo od neoavantgarde do pomilenija: od Pupilije, Jesiha in Jovanovica do Zupancica, Živadinova, Frljica, Semenic in Divjaka 55 Deconstructions of the Opposition Between Representation and Presentation from the Neo-avant-garde to the Post-millennium: From Pupilija, Jesih and Jovanovic to Zupancic, Živadinov, Frljic, Semenic and Divjak 79 Gašper Troha Sodobna dramatika in vprašanje dedišcine neoavantgarde šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let 105 Contemporary Drama and the Question of the Neo-avant-garde Legacy of the 1960s and 1970s 126 Barbara Orel Uprizarjanje literature in bralne uprizoritve 147 Performing Literature and Staged Readings 161 Varja Hrvatin, Maša Radi Buh, Jakob Ribic GENERATOR:: za poljubno število bralnih uprizoritev 175 THE GENERATOR:: for Any Number of Staged Readings 189 Krištof Jacek Kozak Disput o petih paradoksih »poezije stranišca« s prologom in epilogom 203 Disputation on the Five Paradoxes of “Toilet Poetry” with a Prologue and an Epilogue 217 Gregor Pompe Glasbenogledališki opus Darijana Božica v kontekstu slovenske glasbenogledališke scene – izmik v literarno-dramsko v opreki z željo po institucionalnem Darijan Božic’s Musical Theatre Opus in the Context of the Slovenian Musical Theatre Scene: An Escape into the Literary-Dramatic in Opposition to the Desire for the Institutional 253 Nika Leskovšek Nemi liki: dramaticarke, ženska pisava in reprezentacija žensk(osti) v slovenskem dramskem eksperimentu (1966–1986) 275 Silent Characters: Women Playwrights, Women’s Writing and the Representation of Woman(liness) in the Slovenian Drama Experiment (1966–1986) 293 Recenzija / Review Tajda Lipicer Slojevit naboj komedije (Jure Gantar: Eseji o komediji) 314 Navodila za avtorje 320 Submission Guidelines 322 Vabilo k razpravam 324 Call for Papers 324 UVODNIK Pretežni del tokratne številke predstavljajo razprave, pripravljene na podlagi prispevkov na Amfiteatrovem simpoziju, ki je na temo »Gledališki eksperiment na Slovenskem (1966–1986) in njegovi odmevi« potekal 6. in 7. oktobra 2022 v dvorani Slovenskega gledališkega inštituta (SLOGI) v Ljubljani. Ideja o témi simpozija se je porodila ob nedavnem izidu zbornika Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (UL AGRFT in SLOGI, 2022), v katerem je urednik Blaž Lukan zbral skoraj 60slovenskih eksperimentalnih dramskih in uprizoritvenih tekstov iz obdobja modernizma (1966–1986) vec kot 30 slovenskih avtorjev. Raznovrstnim besedilom, ki so bila do sedaj razpršena po razlicnih literarnih revijah, casopisih in drugih izdajah, je zbornik spet omogocil vidnost, predvsem pa je izdaja, sicer pospremljena z obsežno urednikovo študijo, ponudila izhodišce tako za ponovni pretres in nove raziskave manj poznanih del dramatikov tistega obdobja kot za (ponovni) premislek o slovenskih uprizoritvenih praksah šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja. Še vec, odprla je zavest o tem, kakšen vpliv je imel gledališki in dramski eksperiment na nadaljnji razvoj dramskega pisanja in uprizarjanja vse do danes, in ne nazadnje omogocila vzporejanje tega dogajanja z dogajanjem drugod po nekdanji Jugoslaviji in v zahodnem svetu. Prva številka letošnjega Amfiteatra tako prinaša osem izvirnih razprav v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku. Vec clankov se ukvarja z uprizoritveno pisavo, katere nove oblike so se pojavile v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja. Ceprav tradicionalne dramske forme niso odpravile, so korenito spremenile vlogo besedilnosti v gledališcu. Tako Branislav Jakovljevic obravnava raznovrstna razmerja med pisavo in uprizoritvijo. Pokaže razliko med množicnimi uprizoritvami, kakršne so se odvijale v Beogradu vsak 25. maj ob dnevu mladosti, in podobnimi performansi, ki so imeli v sebi subverzivni in estetski potencial. Na koncu prav to razliko, ki je pravzaprav razlika med umetnostjo in golo reprodukcijo oz. nakljucnim kombiniranjem elementov, Jakovljevic uporabi za razmislek o potencialih sodobne umetne inteligence, ki s ChatGPT-jem postaja izredno aktualna. O vprašanju dramskega besedila in gledališkega dogodka, praviloma v kontekstu slovenske drame in (eksperimentalnih) uprizoritvenih praks, pišeta Tomaž Toporišic in Gašper Troha. Prvi obravnava dekonstrukcije dramskega pri izbranih avtorjih od šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja do danes, ki izumljajo nove oblike redramatizacij in postdramskih medmedijskih prepletov. Drugi pa pokaže na tesno vez med sodobno dramsko pisavo in tradicijo modernizma, ki pa dandanašnji temelji na drugacnih izhodišcih. Ce je modernizem skušal preko nakljucja in dogodka priti do avtomaticne pisave in resnice, skušajo današnje avtorice preko postopkov kombinacije in manipulacije gledalca ustvariti mocnejši obcutek avtenticnosti in custvenega ucinka. Vec avtorjev razprav se loteva teoretskega umešcanja bralnih uprizoritev (Barbara Orel, Varja Hrvatin, Maša Radi Buh in Jakob Ribic). Obravnavani so tudi specificni vidiki: Krištof Jacek Kozak pretresa pozabljen dramolet Tarasa Kermaunerja, v katerem je zanimiv Kermaunerjev pogled na modernisticno poezijo. Gregor Pompe analizira glasbenogledališki opus Darijana Božica, da bi pokazal njegov bogati glasbenoscenski opus, ki je uvajal tedaj najaktualnejše modernisticne postopke, kakršne je v ZDA raziskoval John Cage; slovenska gledališka in glasbena scena pa je ob tem ostajalaskrajno sumnicava do opere, zato Božic vedno znova išce primerne žanrske oznake za svoja dela. Nika Leskovšek se ukvarja z reprezentacijo žensk(osti) oz. z njihovo odsotnostjo v zborniku Generator, ki morda kaže na patriarhalnost tedanjega dogajanja, ki je sicer potekalo v casu študentskih nemirov in zahtev po popolni svobodi posameznika. Številko zakljucuje recenzija Tajde Lipicer, ki obravnava Eseje o komediji Jureta Gantarja (MGL, 2022). Vabljeni k branju. Gašper Troha in Maja Murnik Ta številka revije je nastala v okviru raziskovalnega programa Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave (P6–0376), ki ga sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proracuna. PREFACE This issue of Amfiteater journal mainly comprises papers based on Amfiteater’s academic symposium on the theme Theatre Experiment in Slovenia (1966–1986) and Its Resonance, which took placeat the Slovenian Theatre Institute (SLOGI) in Ljubljana on 6 and 7 October 2022. The symposium’s theme was born alongside the recent publication of the anthology Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega številadramskih kompleksov (The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes, UL AGRFT and SLOGI, 2022), in which editor Blaž Lukan collected almost 60 Slovenian experimental dramatic and performance texts from the modernist period (1966– 1986) by more than 30 Slovenian authors. The anthology brought to light a variety of texts that had hitherto been scattered in various literary periodicals, newspapers and other publications. Supported by a comprehensive analysis by the editor, the works in the anthology serve as a catalyst for re-examining and conducting new research on the lesser-known works of playwrights from that period. The anthology also invites a (re-)evaluation of Slovenian performance practices during the 1960s and 1970s. It raisesawareness of the influence that theatre and dramatic experimentation have had on the further development of playwriting and performance up to the present day and opens up parallels between this development and other developments elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia and the Western world. Amfiteater’s first issue of 2023 thus brings us eight original papers in Slovenian and English. Several articles deal with the new forms of performance writing that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s. Although these new forms did not abolish the traditional dramatic form, they radically changed the role of textuality in the theatre. Branislav Jakovljevic discusses the various relations between writing and performance. He shows the difference between mass performances – such as those in Belgrade every 25 May on the Youth Day celebrations – and similar performances with subversive and aesthetic potential. Ultimately, this distinction represents the difference between art and the mere reproduction or random combination of elements, which Jakovljevic uses to reflect on the potential of contemporary artificial intelligence, which is becoming evermore pertinent in light of the latest developments with ChatGPT. In their papers, Tomaž Toporišic and Gašper Troha write about the question of the dramatic text and the theatrical event, particularly in the context of Slovenian drama and (experimental) performance practices. Toporišic discusses how selected authors from the 1960s to the present day deconstructed the concept of drama and invented new forms of redramatisations and post-dramatic intermediality. Troha demonstrates the close connection between contemporary playwriting and experimental texts from the modernist period. While modernism sought to arrive at automatic writing and truth through chance and event, today’s artists seek to create a stronger sense of authenticity and emotional impact through the procedures of combinatorics and manipulation of the spectator. Some of the contributors address the theoretical positioning of staged readings (Barbara Orel, Varja Hrvatin, Maša Radi Buh and Jakob Ribic). Some more specific aspects of theatre experiment in Slovenia are also addressed: Krištof Jacek Kozak examines an almost-forgotten playlet by Taras Kermauner, pointing out Kermauner’s interesting view of modernist poetry. Gregor Pompe analyses the musical theatre oeuvre of Darijan Božic to, on the one hand, demonstrate the Slovenian composer’s prolific work for the musical stage, which presented the most up-to-date modernist procedures of the time, such as those introduced by John Cage in the United States. On the other hand, the Slovenian theatre and music scene remained highly suspicious of opera, and Božic had to constantly search for more appropriate genre labels for his works. Nika Leskovšek deals with the representation of woman(liness), or the absence of it, in The Generator anthology, which perhaps points to the patriarchal nature of the period, a time of student unrest and demands for complete individual freedom. The issue concludes with Tajda Lipicer’s review of the book Eseji o komediji (Essays on Comedy)by Jure Gantar (MGL, 2022). You are kindly invited to continue reading. Gašper Troha and Maja Murnik The issue is the result of the research programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” (P6-0376), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget. Gledališki eksperiment na Slovenskem (1966–1986) in njegovi odmevi / Theatre Experiment in Slovenia (1966–1986) and Its Resonance UDK 7.038.531 DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/18-34 Pojav novih oblik uprizoritvenih pisav v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega sto­letja sicer ni odpravil tradicionalnih dramskih oblik, je pa korenito spremenil vlogo besedil­nosti v gledališcu. V clanku zagovarjamo tezo, da je uprizoritvena pisava, osvobojena pravil dramske pisave in celo sintakse ter gramatike, v besedilno produkcijo vnesla ilokacijsko logiko. Clanek zakljucimo s preliminarnim razmislekom o razlikah med eksperimentalnimi strategijami pisave in najnovejšimi oblikami umetne inteligence za generiranje besedil. Kljucne besede: uprizoritvena pisava, performativnost, besedilna produkcija, ideologija, Jean-Luc Baudry, Rastko Mocnik, umetna inteligenca Branislav Jakovljevicje profesor na Oddelku za gledališke in uprizoritvene študije Univerze v Stanfordu. Njegov najnovejši knjižni projekt se imenuje Performativni dispozitiv: o ideo­loški produkciji vedęnja (Performance Apparatus: On Ideological Production of Behaviors). V njem zagovarja teorijo dispozitiva v uprizoritvenih študijih. Bil je tudi urednik in sopreva­jalec knjige Filozofija parohializma (The Philosophy of Parochialism) Radomirja Konstanti­novica v anglešcino in je avtor nagrajene monografije Ucinki odtujitve: performans in sa­moupravljanje v Jugoslaviji, 1945–1991 (2016), katere slovenski prevod smo dobili leta 2021. bjakov@stanford.edu Uprizoritvena pisava: na strani, okoli nje in zunaj nje Branislav Jakovljevic Oddelek za gledališke in uprizoritvene študije, Univerza Stanford 1. Uprizoritev – besedilo Med dokumenti, povezanimi s praznovanjem dneva mladosti, ki jih hranijo v Arhivu Jugoslavije v Beogradu, je v dokumentu št. 114/II, mapa št. 21, predlog za stadion­sko predstavo Titova mladina (Titova omladina), ki ga je spomladi leta 1972 predložil Rista Mitkovski, ucitelj telesne vzgoje iz Makedonije. Libreto Mitkovskega kar preki­peva od konvencionalnih podob, ki se uporabljajo v tovrstnih spektaklih, med drugim vkljucuje jugoslovansko zastavo, ki bi jo orisali s telesi telovadk, oblecenih v rdeco, belo in modro. Vendar pa predlog vsebuje tudi nekaj inovacij: kot izvirni prispevek Mitkovskega k repertoarju množicnih uprizoritev bi lahko šteli posebno prehodno vajo, ki jo je poimenoval »Obrat propelerja«. Ne glede na inovacije in klišeje pa gre nedvomno za drzen poskus neznanega navdušenca nad množicnimi predstavami. Na zacetku sedemdesetih let so množicne proslave ob dnevu mladosti vsako leto prire­jali že vec kot cetrt stoletja in organizacija spektaklov, ki sose odvijali na stadionu Jugoslovanske ljudske armade v Beogradu, je delovala kot dobro naoljen stroj. Ceprav je bil vsako leto objavljen odprt razpis za predloge, se je izoblikoval nabor ustvarjal­nih ekip piscev, skladateljev in koreografov, ki so se redno prijavljali na razpis in tudi dobivali narocila. Proti takšnim profesionalcem Mitkovski ni imel nobenih možnosti. Slaba tri leta prej, poleti leta 1969, je izšla druga številka revije Rok: casopis za književ­nost, umetnost in estetsko preucevanje resnicnosti,v kateri sopredstavili še eno zvrst umetniškega dela, ki je za glavni vizualni material uporabljaloenega od državnih sim-bolov. Slovenska umetnica Dreja Rotar je slovensko razlicico celotnega uradnega na­ziva jugoslovanske države, Socialisticna federativna republika Jugoslavija, uporabila kot nekakšno readymade besedilo za svojo likovno pesem / konceptualno delo. Nje-no delo uvaja celoten razdelek revije, posvecen delovanju slovenske neoavantgardne skupine OHO. Blok, posvecen skupini OHO, je obsegal še strip Marka Pogacnika, clanke Pogacnika, Rastka Mocnika in Francija Zagoricnika, fotografsko dokumentacijo s pre­lomnega hepeninga Triglav terizcrpen nabor primerov likovne poezije clanov skupi­ne. Razdelek se je zacel z delom Dreje Rotar na dveh straneh, koncal pa z Zagoricni­kovo serijo Tapete. Tako kot Rotar je tudi Zagoricnik svoja dela ustvaril na bankpost papirju, vendarje v nasprotju z njo pri ustvarjanju vizualnih vzorcev uporabil samo locila. Zagoricnik v delih raziskuje ucinke ponavljanja, v prvi vrsti znakov na strani, pa tudi vzorcev, ki prehajajo z ene strani na drugo, Rotar pa na levi strani revije poudarja gibanje: sredinostrani zaseda velik krog, tako da ostaja prostor za besedilo samo na obrobju, na desni strani pa je krog zapolnjen z besedilom, robovi pa so prazni. Slika 1: Dreja Rotar: Brez naslova, Rok,št. 2 (1969) Dela Mitkovskega in Dreje Rotar so nastala skoraj socasno v Jugoslaviji, pri tem sta oba uporabila graficne strategije, ki presegajo in kljubujejo diskurzivnosti besedila. Vendar ima pri tem vsak od njiju drug namen, dosežeta pa tudi povsem razlicne rezul­tate. Ce zacnemo z najocitnejšim: prvi prihaja iz najjužnejše, druga pa iz najsevernejše republike socialisticne Jugoslavije. Ceprav bi lahko bila omemba izvora voda na mlin razpravi o neenakomernem gospodarskem razvoju in kulturnih razlikah med republi­kami v jugoslovanski federaciji, velja opozoriti, da besedili sicer zastopata razlicni kul­turi, ki pa ju ne opredeljuje geografija ali etnicna pripadnost. Prvo delo pripada žanru množicnih proslav, ki jih je podpirala in spodbujala sama država. Kot take so bile de­ležne izdatne podpore s strani državnih institucij, prek množicnih in elektronskih me-dijev ter javnega izobraževalnega sistema pa so lahko dosegle najširše možno obcin­stvo: v idealnem primeru vse državljane Jugoslavije. Drugo delo pa je bilo objavljeno v obskurni reviji za književnost in umetnost, ki jo je ustanovil pisatelj Bora Cosic, ki je bil tudi njen urednik skupaj z majhno skupino umetnikov in pisateljev, in se je v celoti financirala sama. Prvo delo je torej spadalo v glavni tok ideološke kulturne produkcije v Jugoslaviji, drugo pa se je nahajalo na njenem obrobju, na porajajoci se alternativni umetniški sceni. Kljub temu ne gre zanemariti podobnosti med obema besediloma, saj morda niso nic manj pomembne kot razlike. Tako, na primer, obe besedili izvira­ta iz jezikovnih skupnosti, ki sta bili loceni od prevladujocega srbohrvaškega jezika.1 Obe sta tudi prevzemali simbole, ki so izhajali iz državnega ideološkega arzenala. Ne nazadnje se zdi, da pri obeh delih igra pomembno vlogo uprizarjanje: pri prvem gre za libreto, namenjen pripravi dejanskega živega spektakla, drugo pa združuje vizualno in verbalno gradivo z namenom, da bi doseglo performativne ucinke na straneh revije. In to je šele zacetek. S casovne razdalje polovice stoletja želim pokazati ne le, da ti besedili pripadata razlicnima uprizoritvenima kulturama nekdanje Jugoslavije, am-pak kako sta bili vpeti v širše zgodovinske, umetniške in ideološke smernice, katerih pomen tudi dandanes ni zgolj antikvaren. Sami po sebi besedili pricata o dvoumno­stih, ki so relevantne tudi za sodobno kulturo. Te dvoumnosti se ticejo odnosa med besedilom in uprizarjanjem. Med drugim se ob tem zastavljajo naslednja vprašanja: kako pri uprizarjanju pride doprodukcije pomena, kaj tvori besedilo uprizarjanja, in morda najpomembnejše, kakšni so pogoji besedilne produkcije uprizarjanja (in pri uprizarjanju)? 2. Stožec ... Mitkovski v libretu na petnajstih straneh zasnuje vizijo množicnega spektakla, ki obsega sedemnajst enot, razdeljenih v tri glavne vaje, poleg tega pa še velicastne prihode in odhode nastopajocih, prehode, menjave pa tudi obvezne kompilacije folklornih plesov. Naslov je pod nekoliko konstruktivisticno podobo na naslovnici knjižice izpisan z roko in v cirilici, ves preostali del dokumenta pa je napisan na pisalni stroj in v latinici. V pripovednem delu partiture avtor meša razlicna narecja srbohrvaškega jezika, napacno sklanja samostalnike, uporablja nepravilne spolne oblike in meša glagolske spregatve. Precej skrbneje so sestavljeni deli scenarija, v katerih ne uporablja diskurzivnega jezika in namesto tega posega po vizualni tipografiji. Tu se izogne konvencionalni naravi jezikovnega znaka; v ospredje postavi vizualno razsežnost crke ter zmožnost svoje naprave za zapisovanje, se pravi pisalnega stroja, za organiziranje tovrstnih elementov v vecje geometrijske enote. Mitkovski ni bil izvedenec za književnost, temvec za telesno vzgojo, relativno malomarnost pri jezikovni in literarni plati scenarija pa je nadoknadil s spretnostjo v zapisu uprizoritve. Zato imamo lahko Titovo mladino za vzorcni primer uprizoritvenega besedila. 1V Socialisticni federativni republiki Jugoslaviji se jejezik, ki ga je govorila vecina prebivalcev Srbije, Hrvaške, Bosne in Hercegovine ter Crne gore, imenoval srbohrvašcina ali hrvaško-srbšcina. Po razpadu skupne države pa je vsaka od novonastalih držav svoje narecje razglasila za samostojen jezik: bosanšcino, hrvašcino, crnogoršcino in srbšcino. Slika 2: Titova mladina, zapis uprizoritve Prve teoretske razmisleke o uprizoritvenem besedilu kot posebni in edinstveni gle­dališki obliki pisave je prispevala gledališka semiologija. Patrice Pavis je v knjigi Je­ziki odra, enem prvih uspešnih semioticnih poskusov vzpostavljanja dialoga z meto­dologijami, ki se uporabljajo v gledališki zgodovini in uprizoritvenih študijih, odprl vprašanje »spektakelskega besedila« kot »partiture, v kateri so vsi scenski sistemi uprizoritve artikulirani v prostoru in casu« (Languages 18). Meni, da se gledališka semiologija ne bi smela omejevati na obravnavanje dramskih besedil, temvec bi se morala ukvarjati z »diskurzomuprizarjanja, z nacinom, kako uprizoritev zaznamuje sosledje dogodkov, dialog vizualnih in glasbenih elementov«. Skratka, Pavis trdi, da bi morala gledališka semiologija za predmet preucevanja vzeti »uprizoritveno bese­dilo« in »nacin, kako je le-to strukturirano in razdeljeno« (prav tam 20). Precej let kasneje se je v kratkem geslu o uprizoritvenem besedilu v Gledališkem slovarju izkazal za precej manj programaticnega. Opredelil ga je kot »odnos med vsemi v predstavi uporabljenimi oznacujocimi sistemi, katerih razporeditev in interakcija oblikujeta re-žijo«; k temu pomenljivo dodaja: »uprizoritveno besedilo je potemtakem abstrakten in teoretski, ne pa empiricen in prakticen pojem« (Pavis, Gledališki 741). Iz tega bi bilo mogoce razbrati, da se živa predstava v svoji diahronosti in casovni zamejenosti po eni strani inherentno upira odvisnosti semioticne analize od sinhronega pristopa k lingvisticnim strukturam; po drugi strani pa tudi priznava degradacijo dramskega besedila kot dolocujoce znacilnosti sodobnega gledališca. Pojav uprizoritvenega besedila, ki je v nekaterih primerih privedel do preseganja kon­vencionalnega dramskega besedila, ni odpravil procesa oznacevanja, ki se skriva v sa­mem jedru tradicionalnega gledališca. Michael Kirby, pionir raziskovanja hepeningov in drugih zvrsti, ki jih je poimenoval »novo gledališce«, je tip gledališca, ki temelji na literarnem scenariju, poimenoval »referencialno gledališce«. Po njegovem mnenju je v »uprizoritvah, zgrajenih po takšnem modelu [...], namen vsakega elementa nositi pomen ali pripomoci k dekodiranju tega pomena,« zato je predlagal shemo v obliki trikotnika ali stožca, po kateri se pomen nahaja »na zgornjem oglišcu. V prenesenem pomenu se torej dviga nad vsemi drugimi elementi ali vidiki predstavitve; vsi ostali so tu samo zato, da podpirajo pomen« (Kirby, A Formalist 33). Pri tem se »vsi ostali« nanaša na vse materialne elemente na odru, od rekvizitov in kulis do igralcev, ki se nahajajo pri dnu stožca, pomen pa se, nasprotno, zgošca v tocki, ki presega material-nost odra. Slika 3: Diagram stožca Paradoks referencialnega gledališca je v tem, da gledalca vabi, naj gleda skozi materialne elemente gledališke reprezentacije in s tem ugleda nematerialno in povsem simbolno instanco. Kirby namiguje, da se v gledališcu stožec prevrne na stran: »lahko bi rekli, da gledalec gleda skozi osnovno stranico trikotnika, skozi ves material, ki tvori uprizoritev, za vsem tem pa se skriva pomen, ki je najpomembnejši« (33). Teatrologija in uprizoritveni študiji druge polovice dvajsetega stoletja so umik dramskega besedila z vrha reprezentacijskega stožca razglasili za dehierarhizacijo gledališca. Vplivni teksti so drug za drugim za ta preobrat peli hvalo avantgardi. Naj zadošca zgolj nekaj primerov. VZDA je gledališki režiser in raziskovalec Richard Schechner v spisu »Drama, scenarij gledališce in uprizoritev« (»Drama, Script, Theater, and Performance«, prvic objavljenem leta 1973), enem od spisov, ki so utemeljili novo akademsko podrocje uprizoritvenih študijev (angl. performance studies), predlagal redefinicijo osnovnih gledaliških pojmov, ki se vsi nanašajo na razlicne oblike zapisov. Razlikoval je med »dramo« kot literarnim besedilom in »scenarijem« kot »necim, kar obstaja pred vsakim udejanjenjem« (Schechner, Performance 70). Pri tem se scenarij opira na nebesedilno vrsto pisave: gre za »osnovno kodo dogodkov«, ki, drugace kot pri drami, ni posredovana prek medija pisave (in branja), temvec »od ene osebe do druge« (72). Na drugi strani oceana, predvsem v Nemciji, kjerje državna podpora omogocala pogoje za razcvet drzne in dinamicne gledališke scene, so raziskovalci v izzivu, ki ga je novo gledališce postavilo hegemoniji dramskega besedila, prepoznali širjenje izraznih možnosti odra. Najbolj znan med njimi je Hans-Thies Lehmann, ki je trdil, da »postdramsko gledališce ni samo novi nacin uprizoritvenega teksta (kaj šele novi tip gledališkega teksta), marvec je tip uporabe znaka v gledališcu, ki obe plasti gledališca temeljito prežame s strukturalno spremenjeno kvaliteto dogodkovnega teksta« (Postdramsko 105, avtorjev poudarek). V vsej tej zgodbi o obracanju drame na glavo, ki prevladuje na obeh straneh Atlantika, pa nihce ne omenja, da to ni privedlo do strmoglavljenja hierarhije produkcije pomena, temvec je zgolj spremenilo njene pogoje. V spisu »Drama, scenarij, gledališce in uprizoritev« ter v številnih drugih spisih iz sedemdesetih in osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja Schechner trdi, da na vrhu Kirby-jevega namišljenega stožca nimamo vec dramatika, avtorja »drame«, temvec režiserja kot avtorja »scenarija«. Lehmann z natancno razdelavo strategij in tehnik postdram­skega gledališca razširi položaj avtorja od režiserja tudi na koreografe, oblikovalce, vi-zualne umetnike in uprizoritvene kolektive. V Postdramskem gledališcu v tematskem sklopu, posvecenem izraznim sredstvom novih gledaliških praks, besedilo postavi ob bok drugim temeljnim prvinam uprizoritve, kakršne so prostor, cas, telo in mediji. V ta namen pa je bilo treba »besedilo« zreducirati na govorjeni jezik oziroma odrsko izreko in odsotnost le-te. V tem pristopu manjkata dve pomembni podrobnosti. Prvic,postdramsko gledališce ni posttekstualno. Detronizacija literarnega besedila v gledališcu ni pomenila izlo-citve besedila iz uprizoritve, temvec ga je osvobodila omejitev, ki so na zahodu veljale za dramsko pisavo že vsaj od Aristotelove Poetike. V tradicionalnem gledališcu lite-rarno besedilo ni le nosilec pomena, je tudi posoda tradicije, ki jo vnaša v produkcijo pomena. In drugic, to, da literarno besedilo odstavimo z »vrha« stožca referencial­nega gledališca, še ne pomeni, da odstranimo pisavo iz uprizarjanja, temvec jo samo sprostimo na doslej nepricakovane nacine. Ce postdramsko gledališce sploh kaj uki­ne, je to enosmerno razmerje med pisavo in predstavo. V novih oblikah v živo izvaja­ne umetnosti, kot so hepeningi in performansi, pisava poteka v vse smeri, vkljucno z neposrednim obratom konvencionalnega vrstnega reda med pisavo in uprizarjanjem: uprizarjanje se vraca v pisavo in s tem spreminja samo strukturo in namen produkcije besedila. Cetudi nenadni razcvet novih oblik performativne pisave ni trajno spreme-nil nacina, kako nastajajo in se pišejo gledališke igre, je vnesel radikalno spremembo v razumevanje besedilnosti v gledališcu. Iz literarnega dela in privilegiranega nosil-ca pomena je bilo besedilo zreducirano na funkcijo strukturalnega sredstva. Resnic­no dehierarhizirano gledališce ne nadomesti »drame« s »scenarijem« ali s kakšnim drugim privilegiranim besedilom ter ene vrste avtorja (dramatika) z drugo (režiser, producent itd.), temvec razglasi, da je kot tekst mogoce uporabiti karkoli: tako kot dramsko igro lahko za tekst vzamemo tudi kak vsakdanji uporabni predmet pa tudi posneto glasbo,kos oblacila, roman ali telesa nastopajocih, zbranih v prostoru, kjer pa v procesu nastajanja uprizoritve niso vec odlocilne njihove vešcine, temvec njihove iz­kušnje, vedęnja, odnosi in želje. Ena najpomembnejših posledic razširitve razumevan­ja pisave v uprizarjanju tako ni bila vzpostavitev nove hierarhije v gledališcu, temvec izziv, ki ga je proces snovanja pomenil za »avtorsko« gledališce in hierarhizirane reži-me odrskega uprizarjanja nasploh. 3. ... in površina O razmahu uprizoritvene pisave, ki je nastopil z razcvetom uprizoritvenih oblik, ki so izpodbijale referencialno gledališce, pricajo antologije, kakršna sta 700 strani obsegajoca zbirka Scenariji: predloge za uprizarjanje (Scenarios: Scripts to be Per­formed, 1980), ki jo je uredil Richard Kostelanetzin je crpala predvsem iz ameriške neoavantgarde, ter Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih komplek­sov (2021) Blaža Lukana. Tovrstno pisanje zagotovo presega posamezno kulturo ali jezik in luc sveta bi lahko ugledale (in bi tudi morale!) še številne druge podobne an-tologije uprizoritvenih besedil. Že bežen pregled na obstojece antologije pokaže, da uprizoritvena pisava ni kak poseben slog, ki bi sledil nekemu predpisanemu naboru pravil. Prav nasprotno, kot kaže, so ta besedila dokaz vrocicnega raziskovanja ne­štetih nacinov, kako se oddaljiti od konvencionalne dramatike. Uprizoritveno bese­dilo je tako lahko vizualni, glasbeni zapis, nacrt za hepening, eksperimentalna igra, strip (kot na primer Animacija rdecega konja (Red Horse Animation) Leeja Breue­rja) ali kakršna koli kombinacija gradiv, ki jih uporabijo pri nastajanju predstave in njenem dokumentiranju. Pavis v kratkem geslu v Gledališkem slovarju predlaga, da uprizoritveno besedilo »predstavo pojmuje kot reduciran model, pri katerem opa­zujemo obdelavo smisla« (741). To pa lahko trdimo za vsako besedilo, ki je namen­jeno uprizarjanju, od Ikeinih navodil za sestavljanje pohištva pa do manevrskih na-crtov v teatru vojaških operacij. Posebnost produkcije besedil, ki jih obravnavamo, je tako v razmerju med pisavo in uprizarjanjem. Ni presenecenje, da Jean-Louis Baudry v pomembnem clanku »Pisava, fikcija, ideolo­gija« (»Écriture, fiction, idéologie«), ki pa je le redko predmet razprav, saj ga je napisal še pred vplivnimi besedili o filmskem aparatu, za ponazoritev »metafizicnega modela spoznavanja« (21) uporabi enak geometrijski lik kot Kirby. Tudi tu naletimo na lik, ki »bi bil podoben stožcu, katerega edini vidni del je osnovna ploskev, ki predstavlja za­mejeno površino. Vse tocke osnovne ploskve so povezane z eno samo, nevidno piko, z vrhom, ki pa je umešcen v neskoncnost. Neskoncnost se nahaja zunaj ploskve, onkraj nje. Vsaka tocka zamejene ploskve je projekcija vrha na osnovno ploskev« (21). Zato spoznavanje, se pravi razlocevanje pomena ali branje, »pomeni poskus precenja crt, ki vrh povezujejo s tocko na osnovni ploskvi« (21). Konica stožca oznacuje položaj »avtorja« in »dela«, ki ga podpira ne samo kultura, ampak tudi pravna ureditev. Prek kategorij, kakršni sta avtor in delo, se produkcija pomena nelocljivo poveže z eko­nomsko produkcijo. Vprašanje produkcije pomena, ki se odraža v gledališkem režimu referencialnosti, potemtakem ni omejeno zgolj na estetiko reprezentacije, temvec v precejšnji meri tudi na njeno politiko. V nasprotju s Kirbyjem (ki najverjetneje ni ve­del za clanek »Pisava, fikcija, ideologija«, ko je pisal knjigo Formalisticno gledališce) in drugimi kritiki literarnega ali »dramskega« gledališca Baudry kot alternativo hie­rarhicnemu modelu produkcije pomena predlaga ploskev. V tem modelu je neskoncnost, ki se dotika vrha stožca, premešcena v brezmejnost nezamejene ravnine, ki vsebuje množico izjav. Po tej shemi pomen ne nastaja s pre­hodom od neskoncne ali transcendentalne tocke k vidni in otipljivi osnovni ploskvi (z Gillesom Deleuzom bi lahko temu rekli ravnina imanence), temvec prek interakcije med besedili. Na ploskvi tako bližina in sorodnost nadomestita razdaljo in prenos. Tu je »vse izjavljeno, vsak tekst, ki ga razumemo prek razmerij, ki jih vzdržuje z drugimi izjavami, z drugimi teksti, se tako zdi kot razširitev ploskve«in je potemtakem »od­govoren za vse izjave, s katerimi se mu križajo poti« (Baudry 22). Na tej »brezmej­ni ploskvi«, ki nima »ne osi ne središca«, pisava ne reprezentira vec »polja realnosti zunaj sebe«, temvec postane »aktivni del teksta, ki se nenehno izpisuje« (22). Ena glavnih posledic takšne preusmeritve produkcije pomena je izginotje »subjekta, vzro­ka pisave« (22). To pa radikalno spremeni sam koncept pisave. To ni vec »stvaritev izoliranega posameznika; ne moremo je vec obravnavati kot lastnino tega posamezni­ka, ampak se, nasprotno, [...] kaže kot ena partikularnih manifestacij splošne pisave« (22). Baudryjev pojem splošne pisave,ki je po eni strani brez avtorja, po drugi pa se neposredno povezuje z drugimi besedili in drugimi oblikami besedilnosti, je izjemne­ga pomena za uprizoritveno pisavo. Kaj se torej dogaja na ploskvi? Kako deluje takšna besedilna in uprizoritvena produkcija? 4. Od ilokucijske k ilokacijski pisavi Eden kljucnih trenutkov v procesu spodkopavanja moci, tradicionalno pripisane av-torju, je nastopil, ko je John Cage v proces glasbene kompozicije uvedel aleatorne po­stopke. Podobno kot Merce Cunningham v plesu, Jackson MacLow v poeziji in George Brecht v vizualni umetnosti je Cage postavil pod vprašaj primat odlocujocega uma pri ustvarjanju glasbenih partitur. Po njegovem zgledu so Iztok Geister, Marko Pogacnik in Rastko Mocnik, uredniki zvezka »Programirana umetnost« revije Problemi, ki je izšel januarja 1970, za dolocanje vrstnega reda besedil, ki so jih sprejeli v objavo, uporabili kar fizicno težo besedil. »Prispevke (clanke, fotografije, slike) smo dobesedno stehtali s kuhinjsko tehtnico starejše izdelave, ne elektronsko. Gradivo smo potem razvrstili od najtežjega do najlažjega« (»Breaking Point« 23). Pri sprejemanju nakljucnosti in drugih postopkov za odpravljanje ali omejevanje avtorskih odlocitev poudarek ni bil toliko na anonimizaciji avtorske avtonomije, ki oblikuje umetniško delo, temvec bolj na spodkopavanju konvencionalne linije vzrocnosti pri njegovi produkciji. To nacelo je jasno razvidno iz Mocnikovega prispevka v omenjeni številki revije, dela z enostavnim naslovom Drama. V preambuli v enem samem stavku razglasi: »Vsa­ko dramsko besedilo je program« (Lukan101). Dramska pisava se namrec od drugih literarnih oblik loci po pragmaticni usmerjenosti k predstavitvi v živo. Sicer vsaka vrsta pisave predpostavlja doloceno vrsto branja, a uprizoritvena pisava naslavlja me-hanizem za dešifriranje, imenovan gledališce, ki ga sestavljajo izurjena telesa, arhi­tekturne strukture, zapletena mašinerija in visoko specializirani predmeti. Mocnik te osnovne lastnosti uprizoritvenega besedila ne postavlja pod vprašaj, temvec jo izpelje do njene koncne posledice. Prostor, telo, kretnjo, glas in gib prepozna kot elementar­ne lastnosti uprizoritve, v nadaljevanju pa vzpostavi osnovna pravila kombiniranja in urejanja le-teh v sintagmatske verige. Zvest cageovskim nacelom kompozicije in uprizarjanja nakaže, da mora biti »program« njegove drame »kar se da tog«, obenem pa mora ohraniti nakljucnost, ki je v srciki vsake predstave (101). Najnazornejši pri­mer takšnega pristopa je znamenita skladba 4‘33‘‘, pri kateri je Cage s pomocjo na­kljucnih postopkov dolocil trajanje vsakega segmenta izvedbe. Vendar pa je odrekanje avtorstvu povezano z zahtevo po tem, da je treba tako nastalo skladbo izvajati neo­majno natancno in zvesto slediti partituri. Ceprav mnogi menijo, da 4‘33‘‘ ne zahteva dejanske izvedbe in da lahko trajanje s pomocjo štoparice »izvede« kdor koli in kjer koli, je Cage vztrajal, da je treba skladbo izvajati z vsemi pritiklinami tradicionalnega klavirskega koncerta: z glasbilom, v primernem prostoru, z glasbenikom in pred ob­cinstvom. Le pod temi pogoji skladba 4‘33‘‘ v celoti izpolni zahteve Cageovega kreda o tišini kot vsakem zvoku, ki ni nameren. Z drugimi besedami, ceprav zelo široko odpre referencno polje, je delo 4‘33‘‘ še vedno referencialno. Ceprav lahko partituro obrav­navamo kot avtonomno umetniško delo, na primer vizualno, pri izvedbi (ali uprizo­ritvi) ohranja vse lastnosti glasbenega zapisa, ki se iz enega medija (diskurzivnega, notnega, vizualnega) prenese v drugega (izvedba/uprizoritev). Na tej tocki se Mocnik oddalji od cageovske estetike. Drama in Generator spadata v konstelacijo uprizoritvenih besedil, ki se poslužujejo ponavljanja in variacije kot glavnih organizacijskih nacel. Generator, ki je na podrocju deestetizacije uprizoritvenega besedila radikalnejši od Drame, po formalni plati spo­minja na številna postcageovska in fluxusovska dela, ki so se posluževala novih oblik notnega zapisa in so bila skoraj brez izjeme namenjena uprizarjanju. Do nadaljnje radikalizacije razmerja med notnim zapisom in uprizarjanjem je prišlo s preobliko­vanjem položaja teksta v konceptualni umetnosti konec šestdesetih in na zacetku sedemdesetih let. Ce so »besede« in »stavki« zmožni nadomestiti umetniške objek­te, kot je trdil Sol Le Wit, to zagotovo velja tudi za uprizarjanje. Povedano na kratko, razlika med fluxusovskim delom Dicka Higginsa Vsemu svoj letni cas (To Everything Its Season, 1958) in konceptualnim umetniškim delom Vita Acconcija Dvanajst minut (Twelve Minutes, 1967) je v tem, da je v prvem primeru koncna referenca še vedno uprizoritev v živo, tudi ce delo ne bi bilo nikoli uradno uprizorjeno. Ceprav se poslužujeta enake permutacijske logike in sta sina papirju zelo podob­ni, ti deli predstavljata dve zelo razlicni obliki razumevanjaodnosa med besedilom in uprizarjanjem. Kot nekateri drugi konceptualni umetniki, na primer Dan Graham, tudi Acconci vzpostavlja »samogenerativno strukturo«, ki je neodvisna od kakršne koli materialne inscenacije (Kotz135). Drugace od Higginsa, cigar uprizoritvena be-sedila sobila, ne glede na formalne razlike med njimi – miniaturne igre, verzne drame, scenariji za dogodke, partiture dogodkov – namenjena uprizarjanju, je Acconci svoje performanse iz zgodnjih sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja imel za nadaljevanje dela na podrocju poezije, s cimer se je ukvarjal neposredno pred tem. Performansov ni pojmoval kot predstavitve svojih pesmi v živo, temvec kot nadaljevanje konceptual­ne prakse, ki jo je sprva razvil na papirju. Govoril je, da je zapis na strani uporabil »kot izhodišce dogodka, ki se nadaljuje zunaj strani« (nav. po Kotz 165). V referencialnem gledališcu vsaka oblika zapisa, od literarne drame do vizualne partiture, predpostav­lja proces prenosa iz enega medija v drugega in ta prenos udejanja inherentno meta­foricno razmerje med tekstom in uprizoritvijo. V praksi Acconcija in številnih drugih konceptualnih umetnikov in umetnikov performansa pa je tekst nelocljivo povezan z uprizoritvijo, njun odnos pa je performativne narave. Pri tem tekst ni performativen zato, ker bi prevzel nekatere lastnosti performansa, temvec zato, ker se ne nanaša na objekt zunaj sebe, temvec se vedno vraca k sebi. S tem besedilo sprejme enega najzahtevnejših pogojev umetnosti performansa, ki od umetnika zahteva, da zavzame hkrati položaj tako ustvarjalca kot umetniškega objekta. Nasprotje referencialnega ni nereferencialni, temvec samoreferencialni performans. Mocnikov Generator, ki se bolj sklada z Acconcijevimi pesmimi kot pa z libreti Higginsovih hepeningov ali parti­turami dogodkov Georgea Brechta, je eno tistih besedil, pri katerih se dogodek zacne na strani papirja, kasneje pa seoddalji od nje, s tem pa zabriše vrzel med besedilom in uprizarjanjem. S tem tekstualizira stvari in dogodke, ki mu prekrižajo pot, in se, ravno obratno, podvrže pogojem (umetniškega) objekta in (umetnosti) performansa. Ceprav ni nobene metode za takšno izmenjavo med besedilom in nebesedilnim, se zdi, da Generator ponuja opazen primer uprizoritvenega besedila, ki preizkuša robove reprezentacijskega polja (v tem primeru strani). Mocnik ni umetnik ali dramatik, temvec filozof in sociolog (in v tem pogledu ni nobena izjema: zavracanje referencialnega gledališca je odprlo uprizoritveno pisavo tudi negle­dališcnikom: slikarjem, kiparjem, glasbenikom, filozofom, kritikom ...) Ko so Mocnika v nedavnem intervjuju s Sezginom Boynikom vprašali o povezavah s skupino OHO in nje­govem zgodnjem delu pri številki Problemov o programirani umetnosti, je to navezal na svoje poznejše delo na podrocju filozofije in sociologije literature. Pri tem je še posebej zanimivo ukvarjanje z delom francosko-litovskega semiologa Algirdasa Greimasa, cigar semioticno teorijo je Mocnik uporabil pri sociološki analizi poezije Franceta Prešerna. Vspisih, kakršna sta »Umetnostno v literaturi« (1983) in »K sociologiji slovenske knji­ževnosti: Prešeren v nizu ideoloških menjav« (1983), Mocnikovo nagnjenost k diagra­matizaciji, ki je ocitna že v Drami in Generatorju, prevzame posebno obliko Greimasove predelave Kleinove cetverke, ki jo je lingvist uporabil pri raziskovanju kompleksnih se­mioticnih razmerij, ki se upirajo osnovni strukturi znaka: Slika 4: Algirdas Greimas: Elementarna struktura pomena Razmerje med oznacevalcem in oznacencem naceloma temelji na opoziciji, Kleino­va cetverka pa ponuja možnost vzpostavitve mnogoterih odnosov v procesu ozna-cevanja. Greimas je Kleinovo cetverko predelal v elementarno strukturo pomena, pri cemer zgornji par sestavljajo predpisi (pozitivne zapovedi) in prepovedi (negativne zapovedi), spodnji pa oznacuje niz inverzij le-teh: ne-prepovedi in ne-predpise. Di-namika znotraj te »elementarne strukture pomena« je organizirana okoli dveh vrst disjunkcije: disjunkcija nasprotij (ki jo oznacuje crtkana crta) in protislovij (ki jo oznacuje polna crta). Kleinova cetverka ponuja alternativo binarni opoziciji kot kljuc­ni lastnosti jezikovnega znaka. Greimas to ponazori s preprosto semiotiko semaforja: ce zelena luc pomeni predpis, rdeca luc pa prepoved, lahko rumena luc pomeni bodisi ne-predpis ali pa ne-prepoved, glede na vrstni red, v katerem se pojavi (Greimas 92). Binarni znaki sepovezujejo v oznacevalne verige, Kleinova cetverka, kot jo je zasnoval Greimas, pa je zmožna vzpostaviti polja oznacevanja. V tem smislu ponuja razdelavo procesov produkcije pomena, ki potekajo na ploskvi, se pravi v modelu, ki ga Baudry ponuja kot alternativo stožcu. Pri tem je pomembno, da se v Kleinovi cetverki, tako kot v Acconcijevi poeziji, pritisk vrši na robove kvadrata. Ce je Acconcijev performans nadaljevanje (in ne prenos) besedilne prakse, ki se zacne na strani, Kleinova cetverka omogoca vzpostavitev razmerij, ki se širijo prek meja izhodišcnega grafa, kot je po­kazala Rosalind Krauss v razpravi »Kiparstvo v razširjenem polju« (»Sculpture in the Expanded Field«). Mocnik gre pri branju Prešernove poezije v nasprotno smer od raziskovalcev, ki Klei­nov diagram uporabljajo kot splošno interpretativno shemo (med drugimi Krauss in tudi Greimas sam). Namesto da bi sledil trajektorijam, ki se širijo iz glavnih tock in se razrašcajo v mreže pomenov, se, ravno nasprotno, zdi, da se osredotoca na ostanke binarnega znaka v tej shemi, ki se nahajajo na presecišcu diagonalnih crt v središcu grafa. S pomocjo takšnega pristopa Mocnik prepozna in razvije specificno strukturo Prešernove pesmi, za katero je, kot trdi, znacilno prazno polje v samem jedru. Pri tem predlaga, da je ta manjkajoci element »oznacevalec, ki bi lahko bil ucinkovit«: Tako je oznacevalec pesmi razglašen za neucinkovitega, estetskega, kar pomeni, da tam ne more delovati nic performativnega; ni nobene ilokucijske moci, diskurz je »etio­liran«, kot bi rekel Austin, ima zgolj to estetsko, blokirano oznacevalno delovanje. Po moji takratni teoriji naj bi se celotna pesem vrtela okoli tega oznacevalnega elementa, okoli necesa, kar se ne oznanja [...]. (Mocnik, »Breaking Point« 25) Mocnikovo Dramo in v še vecji meri Generator lahko razumemo kot popolno inverzijo strukture estetskega oznacevalca, ki jo je razkril v Prešernovi romanticni poeziji. Tu ilokucijsko moc nadomesti dolocena ilokacijska logika, logika permutacije in multipli­kacije, ki uprizoritev postavlja kot podaljšek in nadaljevanje besedila (in vedno tudi obratno). Permutacijske operacije so kljucni element tudi pri obeh primerih uprizoritvene pisa­ve, ki smo ju omenili na zacetku clanka. Kljub temu pa vsako od besedil predpostav­lja drugacen, ce ne celo povsemnasproten status uprizarjanja. V libretu Mitkovskega spektakel doseže vrhunec z vajo pisave, v kateri se abstraktni liki, ki jih oblikujejo telesa telovadcev na nogometnem igrišcu, spremenijo v prepoznavne oblike in bese­de. Podobi zastave, ki jo izoblikujejo telesa gimnasticark, sledi ime predsednika re­publike, ki ga izpišejo telesa nastopajocih moških: »Moški izoblikujejo besedo TITO« (Mitkovski8). Raba teles nastopajocih za ustvarjanje besedil je bila uveljavljena kon­vencija v socialisticnih množicnih uprizoritvah vse od zacetkov v Sovjetski zvezi pa do Jugoslavije in drugod. Tej osupljivi literarizaciji uprizoritvene pisave so razisko­valci performansa posvecali razmeroma malo pozornosti. V enem redkih poskusov, da bi jo umestil v širši kontekst estetskih pojavov, jo je Bora Cosic v knjigi Mešani mediji (Mixed Media, 1970), ki se precej zgleduje po Fluxusu in je, tako kot revija Rok, samostojna avtorska publikacija, opisal kot »telopis« (7). Diskurzivno organizirana telesa sotelesa, ki ne pišejo in ne berejo, temvec so napisana in dana v branje. Tekst in uprizarjanje združujejo tako, da ustvarijo vrtinec, ki se upira logiki oznacevalca, obe­nem pa tvorijo še posebej vpadljivo utelešenje pisave. Kar pa še ne pomeni, da delo Rotarjeve in druga podobna dela poskušajo doseci raztelešenje pisave. Telo ni samo po sebi odporno proti moci jezikovnega znaka in ravno telopis to dokazuje. Vtovrstni tekstualizaciji telesa lahko prepoznamo prazno formo uprizoritvene pisave. Koncni rezultat ni tekstualnost, ki bi jo tvorila telesa, temvec ravno nasprotno: podre­ditev uprizarjajocih teles oznacevalnim strukturam, ki so jim tuje. Gre za demonstraci­jo estetizacije teles, katere rezultat je »manjkajoci element«, prazen prostor v središcu oznacevalne strukture, identicen tistemu, ki ga je Mocnik prepoznal v romanticni poe­ziji (in v tem lahko vidimo, kako zelo pomembna je tesna povezava med romantiko in doloceno vrsto množicnih performansov). Delo Rotarjeve pa ta proces obrne, saj lite-rarizira in naredi viden prav manjkajoci element v središcu ideološke reprezentacije. Telopis predstavlja lažno uprizoritveno pisavo, besedilo Rotarjeve, prikrajšano za živo prisotnost teles, pa vzpostavi uprizarjanje pomena s pomocjo dislokacije ideološkega teksta. Ilokacijska moc tega gibanja tvori njegovo uprizoritev. Kolikor se v njem besedilo uprizarja neodvisno od vsake možnosti in potrebe po transmediaciji, gre pri brezimnem besedilu Dreje Rotar za zgleden primer uprizoritvene pisave. 5. Postscriptum: O novi generaciji generatorjev Ko sem na zacetku oktobra 2022 na Amfiteatrovem simpoziju obizidu antologije Ge­nerator Blaža Lukana predstavil zgodnjo razlicico tega clanka, se mi še sanjalo ni, da se je zacela razvijati povsem nova industrija, ki temelji na ustvarjanju jezikovnih, vi-zualnih, zvocnih in kodirnih vsebin. A prvi znaki so se že kazali. Avgusta istega leta je odjeknila novica, da je na tekmovanju likovnih umetnin na državnem sejmu v Ko­loradu zmagal neki oblikovalec iger z delom Théâtre D‘opéra Spatial,ki jenastalo s pomocjo generatorja podob umetne inteligence DALL-E. Nekaj tednov po simpoziju v Ljubljani je OpenAI, prav tisto zagonsko podjetje, ki je pripravilo tudi DALL-E, pred­stavilo ChatGPT, jezikovni generator, ki je po moci in ucinkovitosti brez para. ChatGPT dalec presega podobne klepetalne robote, kot sta Siri in Alexa, in dokazal je, da je spo­soben ustvariti znanstvene clanke na ravni dodiplomskega študija, pesmi, osnovno kodiranje in celo glasbene kompozicije. Naslednjih nekaj mesecev so mediji obširno porocali o dogajanju na podrocju umetne inteligence. Kot številne druge visokošolske ustanove je tudi moja univerza pohitela in pripravila nove smernice, ki naj bi prepre-cile ali celo onemogocile goljufanje pri izpitih in seminarskih nalogah (ironicno pri tem je, da je univerza, kjer sem zaposlen, odlocilno prispevalak zagonu in ohranjanju digitalne industrije, znane kot Silicijeva dolina). Zdi se, da bodo akademski clanki, kot jih poznamo, kmalu koncali na smetišcu zgodovine. Ni presenecenje, da sem zadnjih nekaj mesecev veckrat razmišljal o Mocnikovem Generatorju in novih programih za generiranje besedil. Ali vstopamo v strukturalisticno utopijo samogeneriranega bese­dila brez avtorja, ki se producira v neskoncnost? Ali tako deluje tisto, cemur Baudry pravi splošna pisava? Tecejo šele prvimeseci strojno generirane besedilnosti, zato je prezgodaj, da bi lahko ponudili dokoncne odgovore na ta in številna druga vprašanja. Kljub temu pa nekaj stvari že lahko razberemo. Umetna inteligenca, ki generira besedila, slike, video in zvok, se od Generatorja in drugih praks konceptualne umetnosti razlikuje po tem, da deluje po nacelu pregledovanja in sortiranja ogromnih kolicin podatkov, ne pa po nacelih permutiranja omejenega števila informacijskih enot. Umetna inteligenca omejuje in izkljucuje nakljucnost, cilj umetniških praks, ki jih raziskujem v clanku, pa je povecati obseg kombinacij s tem, da nakljucje postavi v ospredje (ChatGPT sicer lahko napiše pesem v dadaisticnem slogu, vendar pa ne ve, kakšen je njen namen). Pri tem se je pomembno zavedati, da so generatorji umetne inteligence mimeticni stroji; odlikujejo se v »igri imitacije« Alana Turinga, ne razumejo pa, kaj daje živost antimimeticnim praksam. Naslednje nic manj pomembno dejstvo je, da se umetna in-teligenca priklaplja na cloveško potrebo po produkciji pomena, tako da tudi vsebina, ki je sama po sebi nesmiselna, zacne izžarevati pomen ob srecanju z bralcem. Namen konceptualne umetnosti in besedilnih praks je bil tovrstni avtomatizem pri produkciji pomena postaviti pod vprašaj. V tem smislu je umetna inteligenca centripetalna, kar pomeni, da razpršene informacije zbere v eno samo žarišce pomena, nasprotno pa je bil cilj Generatorja, kot smo videli, preizkušati konceptualne meje besedila in pri tem razsredišciti pomen, se pravi, da gre za centrifugalno delovanje. Umetna inteligenca ne odpravi ideje avtorstva, temvec idejo avtorske funkcije aktualizira do mere, kakrš­ne prej nismo poznali. Ker so generatorji umetne inteligence mimeticni, skušajo ljudem ugajati, kot so opazili že prvi uporabniki. Odlikujejo se pri odgovarjanju na vprašanja s tem, da povzemajo prejete ideje, shranjene v gigabajtih spletnih podatkov, ki jih pregledujejo. Ko pridemo do kriticnega poizvedovanja, pa se izkaže, da so le okorni stroji. Zdrugimi besedami, znajo izvrševati, ne znajo pa uprizarjati. Novi programi umetne inteligence se zdijo kot tisto prazno, cisto estetsko središce Greimasovega diagrama, le da razširjeno do ne­slutenih razsežnosti. Vbistvu gre za ideološke stroje in kot taki so sorodnejši poreklu stadionskih spektaklov kot pa besedilnim in umetniškim praksam, s katerimi jih druži zgolj formalna podobnost (pomislimo na libreto Mitkovskega in vizualno pesem/per­formans Dreje Rotar). Nekaj pa je gotovo: v trenutku pisanja tega clanka, marca leta 2023, je vprašanje »generiranja« kakršne koli vsebine (besedilne, vizualne, zvocne, vi­deo itd.) veliko zapletenejše, kot je bilo še, ko sem ta clanek zacel pripravljati. Bibliografija Acconci, Vito. Language to Cover a Page: The Early Writings of Vito Acconci, ur. Craig Dworkin, The MIT Press, 2006. Baudry, Jean-Louis. »Écriture, fiction, idéologie.« Tel Quel, št. 31 (jesen), 1967, str. 15–30. Cosic, Bora. Mixed media. Samozaložba, 1970. Greimas, A. J., in F. Rastier. »The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints.« Yale French Stu­dies, št. 41, 1968, str. 86–105. Higgins, Dick. Jefferson’s Birthday. Something Else Press, 1964. Kirby, Michael. A Formalist Theatre. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987. Kotz, Liz. Words to be Looked At: Language in 1960s Art. The MIT Press, 2007. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramsko gledališce. Prev. Krištof Jacek Kozak, Maska, 2003. Lukan, Blaž, ur. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. SLOGI in AGRFT, 2021. Dokumenti Slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, 103. Mitkovski, Rista. Titova omladina. Neobjavljen rokopis. Arhiv Jugoslavije, fond št. 114/II, fascikel št. 21, 1972. Mocnik, Rastko, in Sezgin Boynik. »Breaking Point of Structures: From Concrete Poe­try to Partisan Print. Interview with Rastko Mocnik by Sezgin Boynik.« OEI, št. 90– 91. Sickle of Syntax & Hammer of Tautology: Concrete and Visual Poetry in Yugoslavia, 1968–1983, ur. Sezgin Boynik, 2021, str. 19–25, 30–32. Pavis, Patrice. Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of Theatre. Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982. —. Gledališki slovar. Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 1997. Rotar, Dreja. [brez naslova]. Rok: casopis za književnost, umetnost i esteticko ispitivanje stvarnosti, Beograd, 1969, n. p. Schechner, Richard. Performance Theory. Routledge, 1988. UDK 7.038.531 DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/36-52 While the emergence of new forms of performance writing in the 1960s and 1970s did not eliminate traditional forms of drama, they radically transformed the role of textuality in the theatre. This article argues that when liberated from the rules of dramatic writing and even syntax and grammar, performance writing brings an illocationary logic into textual production. The article concludes with a preliminary consideration of differences between experimental writing strategies and the latest text-generating AI. Keywords: performance writing, performativity, textual production, ideology, Jean-Luc Baudry, Rastko Mocnik, artificial intelligence Branislav Jakovljevicteaches in the Department of Theater and Performance Studies, Stanford University. Hismost recent book project isPerformance Apparatus: On Ideological Production of Behaviors, in which he argues for an apparatus theory in performance studies. He edited and co-translated into English Radomir Konstantinovic’s The Philosophy of Parochialism and is the author of the award-winning book Alienation Effects: Performance and Self-Management in Yugoslavia 1945–1991(2016), which was translated into Slovenian in 2021. bjakov@stanford.edu Performance Writing: On, Around and Off the Page Branislav Jakovljevic Department of Theater and Performance Studies, Stanford University 1. Performance – Text Among documents related to Youth Day celebrations held at the Archive of Yugoslavia in Belgrade, in File 114/II, Folder 21, there is a proposal for the stadium performance Titova omladina (Tito’s Youth), which Rista Mitkovski, a physical education teacher from Macedonia, submitted in the spring of 1972. Mitkovski’s libretto brims with conventional images used in these kinds of spectacles, including the Yugoslav flag outlined with the bodies of female gymnasts dressed in red, white and blue. There are some innovations in this proposal, too: Mitkovski’s contribution to the repertoire of mass performances could have been a special transition exercise, which he called “The Propeller’s Turn”. Novelties and clichés notwithstanding, this was a long shot for an unknown mass-performance enthusiast. By the early 1970s, massive Youth Day celebrations had been staged annually for more than a quarter of a century, and the organisation oflive spectacles that took place at the Yugoslav army soccer stadium in Belgrade worked like a well-oiled machine. While an open call for proposals was issued every year, a select group of creative teams of writers, composers and choreographers routinely applied for and won these commissions. Mitkovski stood no chance against these professionals. Barely three years earlier, in the summerof 1969, the second issue of Rok: casopisza književnost, umetnost i esteticko ispitivanje stvarnosti (Rok: The Journal for Literature, Art, and Aesthetic Examination of Reality) featured another kind of artwork that adopted one of the state symbols as its primary visual material. Slovenian artist Dreja Rotar used the Slovenian variant of the full official name of the Yugoslav state, Socijalisticka Federativna Republika Jugoslavija, as a ready-made text of sorts forher pattern poem/ conceptual piece. This work opens an entire section of the journal dedicated to the activities of the Slovenian neo-avant-garde group OHO. The OHO block included Marko Pogacnik’s comic book, articles by Pogacnik, Rastko Mocnik and Franci Zagoricnik, photographic documentation from OHO’s landmark happening Triglav, as well as extensive examples of pattern poetry by the members of the group. While the section started with Rotar’s two-page piece, it ended with Zagoricnik’s series “Tapete” (“Wall Papers”). Like Rotar’s, Zagoricnik’s pieces were produced on bankpost papir [Ed. note: most likely bank paperor bond paper], but unlike her, he used only punctuation marks to create visual patterns. While in his work, Zagoricnik explores the effects of repetition, the first of signs on the page and then of patterns from one page to another, Rotar emphasises movement: on the left-hand side page of the journal, a large circle occupies the centre of the page, leaving remnants of the text in its margins, while on the right-hand side, the circle is filled with text, leaving the margins empty. Figure 1: Dreja Rotar: Untitled work, Rok, No. 2 (1969) Mitkovski’s and Rotar’s works were produced in Yugoslavia within a short period, and they both deployed graphic strategies that go beyond and defy the discursivity of the text. However, they do that for different purposes and with entirely different outcomes. We can start from the obvious: the first came from the southernmost republic of socialist Yugoslavia, and the second came from the northernmost republic. While this mention oftheir points oforigin could lend itself to a discussion of the uneven economic development and cultural differences between republics in the Yugoslav Federation, it is worth noting that these two texts represent two cultures not defined by geography or ethnicity. Thefirst text belonged to the genre of mass performances, a form that the state favoured and promoted. As such, it received massive support from state institutions and was disseminated through mass and electronic media and the public education system to the largest possible audience: ideally, all citizens of Yugoslavia. The second text was published in a small, completely self-funded literature and art journal initiated by the writer Bora Cosic, which he edited with a small group of artists and writers. So, while the first one belonged to the mainstream ideological, cultural production in Yugoslavia, the second one was situated at its fringes, on the fledgling alternative arts scene. Still, we should not neglect the similarities between the two texts, as they can be as important as their differences. For example, both texts came from linguistic communities outside the dominant Serbo-Croatian language.1 Also, both of them adopted symbols from the state’s ideological arsenal. Finally, performance seems to be prominent in both of their works. While the first is a libretto to generate a real live spectacle, the second integrates visual and verbal material to produce performative effects on the page. That is just the beginning. Speaking from a distance of half a century, I want to suggest that these two texts not only belong to two distinct performance cultures that existed in the formerYugoslavia but that they were engaged in broader historical, artistic and ideological trajectories whose significance today is not purely antiquarian. In their own right, these two texts speak about ambivalences relevant to contemporary culture. These ambivalences concern the relationship between text and performance. Some of the questions they elicit include but are not limited to: How does the production of meaning take place in performance? What constitutes performance text? Most importantly, what are the conditions of textual production of (and in) performance? 2. The Cone … Mitkovski’s 15-page libretto envisions a mass spectacle of 17 units divided into three main exercises, plus the performers’ grand entrance and exit, transitions, changes, and an obligatory compilation of folk dances. While the title underneath a vaguely constructivist image on the cover of the booklet is inscribedby hand and in Cyrillic, the rest of the document is produced on a Latin typewriter. In the narrative part of the score, the author mixes different dialects of Serbo-Croatian, misses noun cases, uses incorrect gender forms and mangles verb conjugations. More carefully composed are those sections of the script in which he does not use discursive language and deploys visual typography instead. This writing eschews the conventional nature of the linguistic sign. It foregrounds the visual dimension of the letter, as well as the capacity of the inscription machine – the typewriter – to organise these elements into larger geometrical units. Mitkovski’s expertise was not in literature but in physical education. He made up for hisrelative negligence towards his script’s linguistic and literary side with his proficiency in performance notation. That makes Tito’s Youth an exemplary performance text. 1 In the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, the language spoken by the majority in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia andHerzegovina, and Montenegro was referred to as Serbo-Croatian, or alternatively, as Croato-Serbian. With the country’sdisintegration, each new state declared its dialects as an independent language: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. Figure 2: Tito’s Youth, Performance Notation Initial theoretical considerations of the performance text as a distinct and uniquely theatrical form of writing came from theatre semiology. In Languages of the Stage, one of the earliest successful attempts to engage semiotics in a dialogue with methodologies used in theatre history and performance studies, Patrice Pavis brought up the question of a “spectacle text” as a “score where all the scenic systems of performance are articulated in space and time” (18). He suggests that theatre semiology should not limit itself to considerations of dramatic text but should instead engage with the “discourse of staging, with the way in which the performance is marked out by the sequence of events, by the dialogue of visual and musical elements”; in short, he argues that it should take as its object of study “performance text” and “the way in which it is structured and divided” (20). Years later, in the short entry on performance text in his Dictionary of the Theatre, Pavis was much less programmatic. He defined it as “the relationship of all signifying systems used in performance, whose arrangement and interaction constitute the mise en scčne” significantly adding that “the notion of performance text is, therefore, an abstract and theoretical one, not an empirical and practical one” (Pavis, Dictionary 261). This can be read to mean, on the one hand, that in its diachronicity and time-boundedness, live performance inherently resists the dependence that semiotic analysis has on the synchronic approach to linguistic structures; on the other hand, it also acknowledges the demotion of the dramatic text as the defining characteristic of contemporary theatre. The emergence of the performance text, which in some instances led to its surpassing of the conventional dramatic text, did not eliminate the process of signification at the core of traditional theatre. Michael Kirby, the pioneering scholar of Happenings and what hecalled “new theatre”, referred to the kind of theatre based on the literary script as “referential”. Suggesting that in a “performance built on this model […] every element is intended to convey meaning or to aid in the process of decoding that meaning”, he proposed a schema in the shape of a triangle or a cone, in which the meaning islocated “at the upper vertex. Figuratively, it rises over all the other elements or aspects of the presentation; all the rest are there only to support the meaning” (Kirby, A Formalist 33). Here, “all the rest” refersto all of those tangible elements on the stage, from props and coulisses to actors, located at the base of the cone. At the same time, meaning is concentrated in the point, which transcends the materiality of the stage. Figure 3: Cone Diagram The paradox of referential theatre is that it invites the spectator to see through the material elements of theatrical representation to glimpse an immaterial and purely symbolic instance. Kirby implies that in the theatre, the cone is flipped on its side: “[W]e might say that the spectator looks through the base of the triangle, through all the material that is the performance, and behind it all is the meaning, which is the most important” (33). Theatre and performance studies scholarship of the second half of the twentieth century proclaimed the removal of the dramatic text from the apex of the representational cone as a dehierarchisation of theatre. One influential text after another praised the avant-garde for this overturn. A couple of examples will suffice. Stateside, in his essay “Drama, Script, Theater, and Performance” (first published in 1973), one of the foundational scholarly essays of the new academic field of Performance Studies, theatre director and scholar Richard Schechner proposed a redefinition of the basic termsof the theatre, all of which pertain to different forms of inscription. He made a distinction between “drama” as literary text and “script” as “something that preexists any given enactment” (Schechner, Performance 70). Here, the script relies on a non-textual kind of writing: it is the “basic code of the events”, which, unlike drama, is not transmitted through the medium of writing (and reading) but “person to person” (72). On the other side of the ocean, mostly in Germany, where state subsidies provided conditions for the flourishing of an adventurous and dynamic theatre scene, scholars saw in the challenge that the new theatre presented to the hegemony of dramatic text an expansion of expressive possibilities of the stage. Most famously, Hans-Thies Lehmann argued that “postdramatic theatre is not simply a new kind of text or staging – and even less a new type oftheatre text, but rather a type of sign usage in the theatre that turns both of these levels of theatre upside down through the structurally changed quality of the performance text” (Postdramatic 85, second emphasis added). What this narrative of the upending of drama prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic neglects to mention is that it did not bring an overturn of the hierarchy of meaning-production but its renegotiation. In “Drama, Script, Theater, and Performance” and many other texts from the 1970s and 1980s, Schechner argues that the playwright, the author of the “drama”, is no longer at the apex of Kirby’s imaginary cone but rather the director, the author of the “script”. In his meticulous elaboration of the strategies and techniques of postdramatic theatre, Lehmann expands the author position from directors to choreographers, designers, visual artists and performance collectives. In the thematic block of Postdramatic Theatre dedicated to the expressive means of new theatre practices, he places the text side by side with other fundamentals of performance, such as space, time, the body and the media. To do that, the “text” had to be reduced to spoken language or the stage utterance and the absence thereof. This approach leaves out two important details. First, postdramatic theatre is not post-textual. The dethroning of the literary text in the theatre did not result in the elimination of the text from performance but liberated it from the constraints imposed upon dramatic writing in the West, at least since Aristotle’s Poetics. In the traditional theatre, literary text not only carries the meaning but is also the container of tradition, which it brings to bearon the production of meaning. Second, deposing the literary text from that “vertex” of referential theatre’s cone does not remove writing from performance but unleashes it in hitherto unexpected ways. If postdramatic theatre abolishes anything, it is the uni­directional relationship between writing and performance. In new forms of live art, such as happenings and performance art, writing goes in all directions, including directly reversing the conventional orderbetween writing and performance: performance flows back into writing and, in doing so, changes the very structure and purpose of textual production. Even if the sudden proliferation of new forms of performance writing did not permanently change how plays are written and produced, it introduced a radical change in the understanding of textuality in theatre. Namely, from being a literary work and a privileged container of meaning, the text has been reduced to its function as a structuring device. A truly de-hierarchised theatre does not replace “drama” with “script”, or with any other privileged text, and one kind of author(playwright) for another (director, producer, etc.). Instead, it proclaims that anything can be used as a text: an object of everyday use is no less a text than a play, and so can be a piece of recorded music, an item of clothing, a novel, orthe bodies of performers gathered in a space, where it is not their skills that are decisive in the process of making of the performance, but their experiences, behaviours, relationships and desires. One of the most significant outcomes of the expansion of the idea of writing in performance was not a new hierarchy in theatre but the challenge that the process of devising presented to the “authorial” theatre and the hierarchised regimes of staging in general. 3. … and the Surface The upsurge of performance writing that came with the proliferation of performance forms that challenged referential theatre is evidenced in anthologies such as the 700­page Scenarios: Scripts to be Performed (1980), edited by Richard Kostelanetz, who drew mainly on the American neo-avant-garde, and Blaž Lukan’s Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes, 2021). Indeed, this kind of writing exceeds any individual culture or language, and many other similar anthologies of performance texts could (and should!) see the light of day. Even a cursory inspection of the existing collections suggests that performance writing is not a style and does not follow any prescribed set of rules. Quite the opposite, these texts seem evidence of a feverish exploration of the innumerable ways of departing from conventional drama. A performance text could be a visual, a musical notation,a score for a happening, an experimental play, a comic book (as in Lee Breuer’s Red Horse Animation), or any combination of material that went into the making of the performance and its documentation. Taking the broadest take possible, in his short entry in Dictionary of the Theatre, Pavis suggests that the performance text “considers performance as a scale model in which the production of meaning may be observed” (261). That much can be said about any text geared towards performance, from IKEA assembly instructions to plans for manoeuvres in military theatres of operations. What distinguishes the textual production we are looking at is the relation between writing and performance. It is not entirely surprising that in his essential and rarely discussed article “Writing, Fiction, Ideology”, which preceded his influential texts on the cinematic apparatus, Jean-Louis Baudry uses the same geometrical figure as Kirby to depict a “metaphysical model of knowledge” (21). Here, we again find the figure that “would be similar to a cone whose base, being a limited surface, is the only visible part. All points of the base are linked to a single, invisible dot, the summit, located at infinity. Infinity is exteriorto the surface, beyond it. Each point of the limited surface is the projection of the vertex onto this base” (21, translations by author). So to know, which is to say, to discern the meaning or to read, “will be to try to traverse the lines which connect the vertex to the point of the base” (21). The apex of the cone marks the position of the “author” and the “work” that is not only culturally but also legally reinforced. The production of meaning becomes inseparable from economic production through the categories such as the author and the work. Therefore, the question of meaning production, reflected in theatre’s regime of referentiality, is not limited to the aesthetics of representation but also to its politics—and in a significant way. Unlike Kirby (who was most likely unaware of “Writing, Fiction, Ideology” when he wrote A Formalist Theatre) and other critics of literary or “dramatic” theatre, Baudry nominates the surface as an alternative to the hierarchical model of meaning production. In this model, the infinity that touches the cone’s vertex is displaced into the limitlessness of an unbounded plane, which contains a multiplicity of statements. According to this schema, the meaning is not produced through the passage from the infinite, or transcendental, point to the visible and tangible base (we can say with Gilles Deleuze, the plane of immanence) but through the interaction between texts. At the surface, proximity and contiguity replace distance and transfer. Here, “everything is stated, every text, being understood by the relations it maintains with otherstatements, with other texts, and thus appearing as an extension of the surface” is therefore “responsible forall statements it crosses path with” (Baudry 22). On this “limitless surface” that has “no axis norcentre”, writing no longer represents “a field of reality outside of it” but is instead an “active part of the text that is written incessantly” (22). One of the main consequences of this re-orientation of the production of meaning is the disappearance of “the subject, the cause of writing” (22). This disappearance radically transforms the very idea of writing. It is no longer the “creation of an isolated individual; it can no longer be considered as the property of that individual. On the contrary, […] it appears as one of a particular manifestation of general writing” (22). Baudry’s notion of general writing, that, on the one hand, is authorless and, on the other, engages directly with other texts and other forms of textuality, is of singular importance forperformance writing. So, what happens on the surface? How does this textual and performance production operate? 4. From Illocutionary to Illocationary Writing One of the signal moments in the process of subverting the powertraditionally assigned to the author was John Cage’s introduction of aleatory procedures into the process of musical composition. While Cage questioned the primacy of a commanding mind in creating musical scores, so did Merce Cunningham in dance, Jackson Mac Low in poetry, and George Brecht in visual arts. In this vein, Iztok Geister, Marko Pogacnik and Rastko Mocnik, the editors of the “Programmed Art” section of the journal Problemi published in January of 1970, used the physical weight of texts accepted for publication to determine their order in this issue. “We were literally weighing the contributions (the papers, photos, pictures) with a kitchen balance, one of the old type, not electronic. We organised these materials from the heaviest to the lightest” (“Breaking Point” 23). In adopting chance and otherprocedures that eliminate or curtail authorial decisions, the emphasis was not on anonymising the authorial agency that shapes the work of art but on subverting the conventional line of causation in its production. This principle is observable in Mocnik’s contribution to this issue, a piece entitled Drama. In a single-sentence preamble, he declares that “every dramatic text constitutes the programme” (Lukan 101). Indeed, dramatic writing’s pragmatic orientation towards live presentation setsit apart from other forms of literature. If all writing anticipates a certain kind of reading, then performance writing addresses itself to a deciphering mechanism called theatre, which consists of trained bodies, architectural structures, complex machinery and highly specialised objects. Mocnik does not question this fundamental property of the performance text but pursues it to its final consequence. He recognises space, body, gesture, voice and movement as elementary performance properties and then establishes basic rules of their combinations and ordering into syntagmatic chains. True to Cagean principles of composition and performance, he indicates thatthe “programme” of his drama should be “as rigid as possible” while preserving the randomness at the heart of each performance (101). The most obvious example of this approach is the famous composition 4’33’’ in which Cage determined the duration of each performance segment through chance procedures. However, this renunciation of agency comes together with the demand that the composition produced this way should be performed with an unwavering exactness and fidelity to the score. While it has been suggested that 4’33’’ does not require an actual performance and that these durations can be “performed” with the help of a stopwatch by anyone, anywhere, Cage insisted that this composition requires the trappings of a traditional piano concert: the instrument, an appropriate space, a musician and an audience. Only under these conditions does 4’33’’ fully meet the demands of Cage’s credo about silence as any sound not intended. In other words, even if the field of reference is wide open, 4’33’’ is still referential. Even if the score can be seen as an autonomous work of art – for example, a visual piece – in performance, it retains all of the properties of musical notation that are transferred from one medium (discursive, notational, visual) to another (performance). It is at this point that Mocnik departs from Cagean aesthetics. Drama and A Generator are a constellation of performance texts that use repetition and variation as their main organising principles. As a more radical departure in the de-aestheticisation of the performance text than Drama, A Generator bears formal resemblances with several post-Cagean and Fluxus works that employed new forms of notation and, almost without exception, were geared towards performance. A further radicalisation of the relation between notation and performance came with the transformation of the position of the text in Conceptualart practices of the late 1960s and early 1970s. If, as Sol Le Wit argued, “words” and “sentences” can replace art objects, they certainly can do the same with performances. To put it succinctly, the difference between Dick Higgins’s Fluxus piece To Everything Its Season (1958) and Vito Acconci’s Conceptual artwork Twelve Minutes (1967) is that the former still has a live performance as its ultimate reference, even if it never gets a formal staging. Although they deploy the same permutational logic and have a similar appearance on the page, these two works represent two fundamentally different forms of understanding the relationship between text and performance. Like some other conceptual artists, such as Dan Graham, Acconci sets up a “self-generating structure” independent of any material staging (Kotz 135). Unlike Higgins, whose performance texts, regardless of their formal differences – mini-plays, verse dramas, scenarios for happenings, event scores – were aimed at performance, Acconci approached his performances from the early 1970s as a continuation of his work on poetry, which directly preceded them. He did not conceive of his performance art pieces as live presentations of his poems but as an extension of the conceptual practice he first developed on the page. He spoke of using the inscription on the page “as the start of an event that keeps going, off the page” (Acconci qtd. in Kotz 165). In referential theatre, any form of notation, from literary drama to visual score, presumes the process of transposition from one medium to another. That transfer enacts an inherently metaphorical relation between the text and performance. In the practice of Acconci and many other conceptual and performance artists, the text is contiguous with performance, and their relation is performative. Here, the text is performative not because it takesover some performance properties but because it does not refer to an object outside of itself but instead always returns to itself. In doing so, the text adopts one of the most challenging conditions of performance art, which demands that the artist simultaneously adopt the position of the creator and the art object. The opposite of the referential is not a non-referential but a self-referential performance. More in line with Acconci’s poems than with Higgins’s happening librettos or George Brecht’s event scores, Mocnik’s A Generator is one of those texts in which the event starts on the page to depart from it and, in doing so, obliterates the gap between the text and performance. In doing so, it textualises the things and events it crosses paths with and, conversely, subjects itself to the condition of the (art) object and performance (art). While there is no method to this exchange between the text and the non-textual, A Generator seems to providean observable instance of the performance text that pushes against the margins of the representational field (the page, in this case). Mocnik is not an artist or a playwright but a philosopher and sociologist (and in that respect, he is not exceptional: the rejection of referential theatre opened performance writing to non-theatre professionals: painters, sculptors, musicians, philosophers, critics, etc.). When asked in a recent interview with Sezgin Boynik about his ties with OHO and his early work on the “Programmed Art” issue of Problemi, Mocnik made a connection between these activities and his subsequent work on philosophy and the sociology of literature. Here, of particular interest, is his engagement with the work of French-Lithuanian semiologist Algirdas Greimas, whose work on semiotics Mocnik used in his sociological analysis of France Prešeren’s poetry. In essays such as “Umetnostno v literaturi” (1983) and “K sociologiji slovenske književnosti: Prešeren v nizu ideoloških menjav” (1983), Mocnik’s propensity for diagramatisation, which was evident in Drama and A Generator, adopts a specific form of Greimas’s elaboration of the Klein Group, which the linguist used in his exploration of complex semiotic relations that resist the basic structure of the sign: Figure 4: Algirdas Greimas: The Elementary Structure of Meaning Whereas the signifier-signified relation is based on the opposition, the Klein group offers the possibility of establishing a multiplicity of relations in the process of signification. In Greimas’s adaptation of the Klein group into the elementary structure of meaning, the upper couple consists of prescriptions (positive injunctions) and interdictions (negative injunctions). The lower designates a set of their inversions: non-interdictions and non-prescriptions. The dynamics within this “elementary structure of meaning” are organised around two types of disjunction: that of contraries (indicated by the dotted line) and of contradictories (indicated by the full line). The Klein group offers an alternative to the binary opposition as the key property of the linguistic sign. Greimas illustrates this with simple semiotics of traffic lights: if the green light signifies prescription and the red light interdiction, the yellow light can be either a non-description ornon-interdiction, depending on the order in which it appears (Greimas 92). Whereas binary signs engage in signifying chains, the Klein group, as reimagined by Greimas, can establish significationfields. In that sense, it offers an elaboration of the processes of meaning production that takes place on the surface, that is to say, in the model Baudry offers as the alternative to the cone. What issignificant here is thatin the Klein group, as in Acconci’s poetry, the pressure is on the edges of the square. If Acconci’s performance is a continuation (and not a transposition) of textual practice that begins on the page, the Klein group allows, as Rosalind Krauss has demonstrated in her essay “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, establishing relations that extend beyond the limits of the initial graph. In his reading ofPrešeren’s poetry, Mocnik goes in the opposite direction from scholars who have usedthe Klein diagram as a general interpretational schema (including, but not limited to, Krauss and Greimas himself). Instead of following the trajectories that extend from the cardinal points and proliferate in networks of signification, he, conversely, seems to focus on the remnants of the binary sign in this schema located at the point of intersection between diagonal lines at the centre of the graph. This focus helps Mocnik recognise and elaborate a specific structure of Prešeren’s poem, which is, according to him, characterised by an empty zoneat its core. He suggests that this missing element “is the signifier that would be efficient”: So the signifier of the poem is proclaimed as non-efficient, as aesthetic, which means that nothing performative [is] able to perform there; there is no illocutionary force, the discourse is “etiolated,” as Austin would say, it only has this aesthetic, blocked signifying action. My theory at the time was that the whole poem rotates around that signifying element, something that does not declare itself […]. (Mocnik, “Breaking Point” 25) Mocnik’s Drama and, to even a greater degree, A Generator can be seen as a complete inversion of the structure of the aesthetic signifier that he uncovered in Prešeren’s romantic poetry. Here, the illocutionary force is replaced by a certain illocationary logic, the logic of permutation and multiplication that sets up performance as an extension and continuation of the text (and, always, vice versa). Permutational operations are key elements in two examples of performance writing from the beginning of this article. Still, each of these texts assumes a different, if not completely opposite, performance status. In Mitkovski’s libretto, the spectacle culminates with an exercise of writing, in which abstract figures formed by gymnasts’ bodies on a soccer field turn into recognisable shapes and words. The image of the flag formed by female gymnasts’ bodies is followed by the name of the President of the Republic spelt out with the bodies of male performers: “The men form the word TITO” (Mitkovski8). The use of performing bodies to produce texts was a well-established convention in socialist mass performances, from their birthplace in the USSR to Yugoslavia and beyond. This stunning literalisation of performance writing received relatively little attention from performance scholars. In one of the rare attempts to position it in relation to broaderaesthetic phenomena, in his Fluxus-inflected 1970 book Mixed Media, which was, like Rok, an independent author’s publication, Bora Cosic described it as “bodywriting” (7). The bodies organised discursively are the bodies that are not writing orreading but are being written and given to be read. They conflate the text and performance, thus creating a vortex that resists the logic of the signifier while forming a particularly striking embodiment of writing. That does not mean that Rotar’s and other similar works are invested in the disembodiment of writing. The body is not inherently resistant to the power of the linguistic sign, and bodywriting is there to prove it. This textualisation of the body amounts to an empty form of performance writing. Its final outcome is not textuality generated by the bodies but precisely the opposite: a submission of performing bodies to signifying structures that are alien to them. It is a demonstration of the aestheticisation of the bodies that results in a “missing element”, an empty space at the centre of the signifying structure that is identical to the one that Mocnik identified in romantic poetry (and here, the close ties between the Romantic movement and a certain kind of mass performance is of utmost performance). Rotar’s piece reverses this process by literalising and making visible that missing element atthe centre of ideological representation. If bodywriting engages in a false performancewriting, Rotar’s text, deprived of the live presence of bodies, stages a performance of meaning through a dis-location of the ideological text. The illocationary force of this movement constitutes its performance. Insofar as in it, the text performs independently of any potential of and the need for transmediation, Rotar’s nameless text is an exemplary case of performance writing. 5. Postscript: On the New Generation of Generators Little did I know that in early October of 2022, at the time when I presented an early version of this article at the Amfiteater symposium occasioned by the publication of Blaž Lukan’s anthology The Generator, a whole new industrybased on the idea of the generation of linguistic, visual, audio and code content was in the offing. The early signs were already there. That August, the news broke out that a game designer won a competition at the Colorado State Fair Fine Arts Competition for the work Théâtre D’opéra Spatial produced with the help of AI image generator DALL-E. A few weeks after the Ljubljana symposium, OpenAI, the same startup that produced DALL-E, launched ChatGPT, a language generator of unprecedented power and efficiency. Far exceeding similar chatbots such as Siri and Alexa, ChatGPT demonstrated the capacity to produce undergraduate-level scholarly papers, poems, basic coding and even musical compositions. In the months after, the media was abuzz with reports from the AI frontiers. Like many other institutions of higher education, my university scrambled to come up with new policies that would prevent or even curtail cheating on final papers and exams (here, the irony being that the university where I work was instrumental in initiating and sustaining the digital industry known as Silicon Valley). The academic paper, as we know it, seems to be out the window. Unsurprisingly, I frequently thought of Mocnik’s Generator and new text-generating programmes in the past couple of months. Are we entering a structuralist utopia of self-generated, endlessly produced, authorless text? Is this how Baudry’s general writing operates? We are only in the first months of machine-generated textuality, and it is too early to offer definitive answers to these and many other questions. Still, some things are already discernable. Textual, image, video and sound-generating AI differs from A Generator and other conceptual art practices insofar as it works on the principle of surveying and sorting enormous amounts of data and not on the principle of permutation of a limited number of information units. Whereas the AI limits and excludes randomness, the goalof art practices I have examined here is to increase combinational range by foregrounding chance (yes, ChatGPT can write a poem in the style of Dada, but it does not know its purpose). Importantly, AI generators are mimetic machines: they excel in Alan Turning’s “imitation game” but do not understand what animates anti-mimetic practices. Further, and no less important, is the fact that AI latches onto our need for meaning production: even content which is in itself nonsensical begins to emanate meaning in its encounter with the reader. The purpose of conceptual art and textual practices was to question this kind of automatism in meaning production. In that sense, AI is centripetal, which is to say, it gathers dispersed information into a single focal point of meaning, while, as we have seen, the aim of A Generator was to push against the conceptual boundaries of the text and, in doing so, de-centre meaning. It is centrifugal. AI does not do away with the idea of authorship; instead, it actualises the idea of the author-function to an unprecedented degree. Being mimetic, AI generators are, as their early users observed, “people pleasers”. They excel in answering questions by summarising the received ideas stored in gigabytes of online data they are canvassing. When it comes to critical inquiry, they are just clunky machines. In other words, they execute, but they do not perform. These new AI programmes appear as that empty, purely aesthetic centre of Greimas’s diagram but expanded to unprecedented proportions. They are, essentially, ideological machines. As such, they are closer to the lineage of those stadium spectacles than to the textual and artistic practices with which they bear only formal resemblance (think of Mitkovski’s libretto and Rotar’s visual poem/performance). One thing is for sure: atthe moment of this writing, in March 2023, the question of “generating” any content (textual, visual, audio, video, etc.) is far more complex than it was when I began working on this article. Literature Acconci, Vito. Language to Cover a Page: The Early Writings of Vito Acconci. Edited by Craig Dworkin. The MIT Press, 2006. Baudry, Jean-Louis. “Écriture, fiction, idéologie [“Writing, Fiction, Ideology”]. Tel Quel, no. 31 (Fall), 1967, pp. 15–30. Cosic, Bora. Mixed media. Belgrade, Nezavisno autorsko izdanje, 1970. Greimas, A. J., and F. Rastier. “The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints.” Yale French Studies, No. 41, 1968, pp. 86–105. Higgins, Dick. Jefferson’s Birthday. New York, Something Else Press, 1964. Kirby, Michael. A Formalist Theatre. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987. Kotz, Liz. Words to be Looked At: Language in 1960s Art. The MIT Press, 2007. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. Transl. by Karen Jürs-Munby. Routledge, 2006. Lukan, Blaž, editor. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega številadramskih kompleksov. Dokumenti Slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, vol. 58, no. 103, 2021. Mitkovski, Rista. Titova omladina. Unpublished manuscript. Arhiv Jugoslavije, fond br. 114/II, fascikla br. 21, 1972. Mocnik, Rastko, and Sezgin Boynik. “Breaking Point of Structures: From Concrete Poetry to Partisan Print. Interview with Rastko Mocnik by Sezgin Boynik.” OEI, no. 90–91. Sickle of Syntax & Hammer of Tautology: Concrete and Visual Poetry in Yugoslavia, 1968–1983, edited by Sezgin Boynik, 2021, pp. 19–25, 30–32. Pavis, Patrice. Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts and Analysis. University of Toronto Press, 1998. —. Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of Theatre. Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982. Rotar, Dreja. [untitled work]. Rok: casopisza književnost, umetnost i esteticko ispitivanje stvarnosti, Belgrade, 1969, n.p. Schechner, Richard. Performance Theory. Routledge, 1988. UDK 792.02(497.4) UDK 821.163.6.09-2 DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/54-77 Razprava se ukvarja z izbranimi primeri dekonstrukcij nasprotja med reprezentacijo in prezentacijo, znacilnimi za postmimeticno, od neoavantgarde do postmilenija. Sledi avtorjem, ki od šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja do danes dekonstruirajo dramsko ter izumljajo nove oblike redramatizacij in postdramskega medmedijskega prepleta. Avtorji, kot so Peter Handke v Zmerjanju obcinstva, skupina Pupilija Ferkeverk v Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki, Dušan Jovanovic v Spomeniku G in Igrajte tumor v glavi, Milan Jesih v Limitah in Grenkih sadežih pravice, Matjaž Zupancic v Hodniku in drugih igrah, Dragan Živadinov in njegove ekipe vObredih poslavljanja, Oliver Frljic vPreklet naj bo izdajalec svoje domovine!, Simona Semenic v 1981 ter Žiga Divjak in Katarina Morano v razlicnih projektih – ceprav vztrajno ustvarjajo motnje v fikcijskembesedilnemkozmosu – v gledaliških tekstih in predstavah - performansih vzpostavljajo mocan proces redramatizacije, intenzivnih zapletov in razpletov. Kot da bi hkrati z dekonstrukcijo dramskega vbrizgali v postdramski proces uprizarjanja in pisave dramsko in dramaticno. Postmimeticno tako soobstaja s predmimeticnim, »slecenje« reprezentacije drame privede do vzpostavljanja fikcije. Kljucne besede: sodobna slovenska drama in gledališce, Dušan Jovanovic, Milan Jesih, Matjaž Zupancic, redramatizacija, postmimeticna umetnost Tomaž Toporišic je dramaturg in gledališki teoretik, redni profesor za podrocje dramaturgije in scenskih umetnosti ter prodekan na AGRFT Univerze v Ljubljani, kot gostujoci predavatelj pa izvaja tudi predmet Sociologija gledališca na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani. Je avtor šestih znanstvenih monografij o sodobnih uprizoritvenih umetnostih. Njegovi najnovejši eseji vkljucujejo: »Novo slovensko gledališce in italijanski futurizem«, »(Re)uprizoritev retorike prostora«, »Dekonstrukcijska branja avantgardne tradicije v postsocialisticnem retroavantgardnem gledališcu« in »Povezovanje zgodovinskih in retroavantgard skozi odnos periferija-center: primer Trsta, Ljubljane, Zagreba in Beograda«. Bil je umetniški vodja in dramaturg Slovenskega mladinskega gledališca ter soustanovitelj festivala sodobnih uprizoritvenih umetnosti Exodos. Njegova primarna podrocja raziskovanja so teorija in zgodovina uprizoritvenih praks in literature, predvsem interakcije med obema podrocjema; semiotika kulture in kulturne študije. Tomaz.Toporisic@agrft.uni-lj.si Dekonstrukcije nasprotja med reprezentacijo in prezentacijo od neoavantgarde do pomilenija: od Pupilije, Jesiha in Jovanovica do Zupancica, Živadinova, Frljica, Semenic in Divjaka Tomaž Toporišic Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza v Ljubljani I. Uvod: k tekstu rizomu V razpravi1nas bo zanimalo, kako se je v casu od neoavantgarde do postpostdramskega manifestirala želja povedati zgodbe. Zanimalo nas bo, kakšne oblike redramatizacije, refiguracije in rekarakterizacije gledaliških strojev še vedno producira sodobna uprizoritvena paradigma. Pogledali si bomo, kako se avtorice in avtorji intenzivno posvecajo refleksiji samih sebe, svojih besedil in kontekstov ter recepcije. Pri tem kot avtorice - rapsodke vzpostavljajo neposreden dialog z bralkami in bralci, gledalkami in gledalci, svojimi bodocimi interpreti. Avtorje in avtorske skupine, o katerih bomo govorili in ki predstavljajo razlicne gledališke generacije, lahko štejemo za nedvomne nosilce postdramskega medmedijskega prepleta. S svojimi koncepti, predstavami in teksti dokazujejo, da sta se tudi slovenska dramatika in gledališce v najširšem smislu besede podala v vode, ki sta jih razburkala oddaljevanje od absolutne drame in dramskega ter dejstvo, da intertekst v razlicnih primerih, od Dušana Jovanovica in Milana Jesiha prek Matjaža Zupancica, Oliverja Frljica in njegovihavtorskih ekip do Simone Semenic, Katarine Morano in Žige Divjaka terVarje Hrvatin strukturira sodobno (ne vec) dramsko in gledališko pisanje na nacin, ki je nehierarhicen, hkrati pa z medbesedilnega in medmedijskega vidika izjemno koheziven. Na telesih predstav in konceptov ter odzivov nanje bomo preverili, kako je absolutna drama, v kateri je dialog osrednja komponenta gradnje, postala zgolj eden od možnih 1 Zahvala: clanek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave (P6–0376), ki ga sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proracuna. dramskih diskurzov. Tako je rizomska struktura nadomestila tradicionalno razumljeno fizicnost tiskanega besedila v obliki knjige. Skupaj s to dekonstrukcijo absolutnega so se znotraj tekstualnega v sodobnem gledališcu pojavile besedilne strategije, ki ne vkljucujejo vec dialoga kot osrednjega nacela izražanja. Sedemdeseta leta prejšnjega stoletja so z avtorji, kot so Lado Kralj, Vlado Šav, Dušan Jovanovic in Tomaž Kralj, v slovenske uprizoritvene prakse vpeljala sisteme neoavantgardnih postopkov, ki so jih povzemali in razvijali predvsem po Jerzyju Grotowskem in Richardu Schechnerju. Vsi ti avtorji so prisegali na posebno procesualnost, hkrati pa tudi na interakcijo vseh udeleženih. Postmimeticno je tako v casu performativnega obrata soobstajalo s predmimeticnim, »slecenje« reprezentacije drame je privedlo do vzpostavljanja fikcije. In kar naenkrat smo gledalci postali price dekonstrukciji nasprotja med reprezentacijo in prezentacijo. Spomnimo se samo Pupilije, Spomenika G, Igrajte tumor v glavi, Limit, Zmerjanja obcinstva in projektov vsedo obredov poslavljanja devetdesetih let Dragana Živadinova na prelomu iz dvajsetega v enaindvajseto stoletje. Geografija teh premen in fenomenov je zelo razgibana in bogata. Gledališke in uprizoritvene prakse najvplivnejših ustvarjalcev od performativnega obrata na prelomu iz šestdesetih v sedemdeseta leta prejšnjega stoletja naprej je treba razumeti v kontekstu tega, kar Alain Badiou imenuje stoletje nemira, zlasti druge polovice dvajsetega stoletja, ki so jo zaznamovali tektonski premiki z napovedmi odmika od tega, kar je Derrida v svojem temeljnem delu O gramatologiji opredelil kot logocentrizem, prevlado vizualnega in okularocentrizma. Favoriziranje pogleda, zaradi katerega je dramsko pisanje izgubilo veliko svoje stabilnosti, a dobilo številne nove pobude, ni privedlo le do redefinicije, temvec tudi do konca krize dramskega avtorja, ki jo je napovedal Antoine Vitez s svojo znamenito izjavo iz sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja »On peut faire théâtre de tous« / »Gledališce lahko delamo iz vsega« (Autant-Mathieu 13). II. Estetske revolucije Dušana Jovanovica Zacnimo z Dušanom Jovanovicem in skupino Pupilija Ferkeverk, s katero je tesno sodeloval. Jovanovic je kariero zacel kot gledališki kritik pri študentski reviji Tribuna in kot dramatik. Nedvomno je nanj vplival prvi val eksperimentalnega gledališca (Eksperimentalno gledališce, Oder 57, Gledališce Ad hoc), vendar je bil kljub temu zelo kriticen donjegovih umetniških taktik. Želel si je nekaj drugega, radikalnejšega. Njegova prva (in še do danes neuprizorjena) igra je imela zelo sugestiven naslov Predstave ne bo (1962), ki je kazal na metateatralnost in politicno cenzuro. Njegova druga igra Norci (1963) je na krstno uprizoritev leta 1971 morala cakati skoraj desetletje. Medtem se je Jovanovic osredotocil na svoje gledališko delo kot vodja in ustanovitelj novoustanovljenega ŠAG – Študentskega aktualnega gledališca, ki je zaradi svojih estetskih mini revolucij ustvarilo svoje prve škandale. Kljub vsem razlikam sta si »kriticna generacija« eksperimentalnega gledališca Odra 57 in nova generacija Dušana Jovanovica delili kljucno »zmago«: odstranili sta cetrto steno in ustvarili gledališki prostor, v katerem je bila mocna interakcija med igralci na odru in sodelujocim obcinstvom v smislu redefinicije gledališca Maxa Herrmanna, ki je vedno poudarjala tretjo paradigmo, gledalca. Ko je gledališce zacelo gledalca (kot priVsevolodu Meyerholdu) razumeti kot tretjega ustvarjalca – tistega, ki v sebi dopolnjuje tisto, kar oder zgolj nakazuje – je postalo politicno nevarno. Nedvomno je to novo razumevanje predstave kot necesa, kar ni »reprezentacija ali izraz necesa, kar že obstaja drugje – kot besedilo igre – ampak kot nekaj, kar se poraja z dejanji, zaznavami, odzivi igralcev in gledalcev« (Fischer-Lichte, Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual 23), pomenilo velik dosežek prvih eksperimentalnih gledališc, zlasti Odra 57, ki je mocno vplival na Dušana Jovanovica in njegovo generacijo, ko je v sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja ustvarila novo »estetsko revolucijo«, in sicer performativni obrat v slovenskem gledališcu in uprizoritvenih umetnostih. Dušan Jovanovic je (ob Ladu Kralju) verjetno najvplivnejša in osrednja osebnost slovenskega gledališkega neoavantgardnega gibanja, obdobja poznih šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let, v katerem je bilo gledališce v rokah generacije, ki je rušila kulturne tabuje. Politiko so razumeli tudi v smislu seksualnerevolucije, hkrati pa so prestopili stroge meje gledališca in se približali izkušnjam hepeninga in performansa. Ta radikalna vrnitev gledališca h gledališcu v smislu Antonina Artauda in njegovega gledališca krutosti je bila nova estetska revolucija, politicno dejanje, ki je sprožilo burne odzive tako obcinstva kot kritikov. Jovanovic in njegova generacija (Lado Kralj, Zvone Šedlbauer, Ivo Svetina, Milan Jesih, Iztok Tory ...) sta zavestno izzivala obcinstvo. Ta generacija je odziv in sodelovanje obcinstva v gledališcu razumela kot politicno dejanje, v katerem naj bi se obcinstvo osvobodilo skupajz igralci. Šele v tem obdobju študentskih gibanj in študentskih gledališc se je poudarek resnicno preselil s podrocja repertoarja in besedila na sam gledališki medij, na njegov proces osvobajanja, ki je (tako kot gledališce Schechnerja, Grotowskega, Barbe in drugih) postal odprt za polje drugih umetniških medijev in podrocij. Leta 1968 je Jovanovic s skupino Pupilija Ferkeverk v predstavi Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki razbil hegemonicni jezik dramskega gledališca, da bi se »dotaknil življenja« (Artaud 13). Skupaj s predstavo Spomenik G (1972) je ta nenavadna predstava utelešala radikalno iskanje gledališca, ki je temeljilo na zavedanju, da je oder fizicni in resnicni prostor, ki zahteva, da ga zapolnimo in mu dovolimo govoriti pravi avtenticni jezik semioticnih in fenomenalnih teles v prostoru in casu. Ali ce še enkrat uporabimo parafrazo Artauda v kombinaciji s terminologijo Fischer-Lichtejeve: Jovanovic je poskušal izumiti gramatiko tega novega jezika, ki ustvarja edinstveno »avtopoeticno povratno zanko« (Fischer-Lichte) med izvajalci in obcinstvom. Sedemdeseta leta prejšnjega stoletja so v eksperimentalnem gledališcu prinesla redefinicijo vlog besedila ter obcinstva in izvajalcev z Jovanovicevo igro Igrajte tumor v glavi in onesnaženje zraka (1972) v izvedbi SLG Celje in režiji Ljubiše Ristica. Po mnenju Lada Kralja je »tema te igre gledališce samo, v katerem pride do krize gledališke organizacije, ustvarjalnosti in koncno tudi njegovega bistva« (»Slovenia« 772). Z drugimibesedami, Jovanovic se je v svoji igri osredotocil na neuspeh osnovnih premis avantgardnega gledališca šestdesetih let: poudarek na procesu in ne na rezultatu, mocna interakcija med izvajalci in publiko v tem, kar Erika Fischer-Lichte v svoji knjigi Estetika performativnega imenuje avtopoeticna povratna zanka, misticna katarza, kolektivna ekstaza, razširjena zavest, nadomestitev besedilne govorice z govorico telesa in melodicnimi, onomatopejskimi zvoki. Po mnenju Dragana Klaica igra Tumor »z anticipacijsko imaginacijo prikazuje razvoj avantgardnega gledališca v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, kuloar utopicnega iskanja skupnosti, bližine, enosti« (»Utopianism« 127). To samokritiko je mogoce interpretirati kot radikalen, metaliterarni, metagledališki in metaumetniški diskurz; samokritiko v povezavi s temeljnimi premisami osvobojenega, neoavantgardnega, artaudovskega in schechnerjanskega gledališca, ki jih je Jovanovic sam zagovarjal in uresniceval v Pupiliji in Spomeniku G. V vode angažirane dramatike in gledališca, ki je zavracalo vsakršno tradicionalnost in tudi ideologijo, je Jovanovic sicer vstopil že v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja z Norci. Desetletje pozneje je to idejo prevzel in jo v igri Tumor le združil s (samo) kritiko in (samo)ironijo performativnega obrata hepeninga in neoavantgardnega performansa. Ustvaril je »dramski postskript šestdesetim letom in njihovi znacilni gledališki znamki, napisan, še preden se je obdobje dejansko zares koncalo oziroma preden smo lahko opazili, da se je koncalo in s kakšnim izidom« (prav tam 128). S tem je poudaril resnost krize reprezentacije in dramatika na eni strani ter na drugi strani dinamiko vzponov in padcev v radikalnih gledaliških praksah druge polovice dvajsetega stoletja, neposredno povezanih in soodvisnih od teh kriz. Po mnenju njegovega sodobnika in kolega, teoretika in umetnostnega zgodovinarja Lada Kralja, Jovanovic »piše z izrazito gledališke perspektive« (»Slovenia« 772), »številne igre nihajo med groteskno ironijo gledališca absurda in brechtovsko dokumentarno dramo« (»Goli otok literature« 253), zacenši z njegovo blasfemicno drugo igro Norci. Zgodovina tega, kar so pozneje poimenovali politicno gledališce osemdesetih let, pa se je nadaljevala in doživela nov vrhunec leta 1975 s povezavo dveh generacij: Dominika Smoleta, predstavnika kriticne generacije Odra 57, in Dušana Jovanovica, predstavnika performativne revolucije Pupilije Ferkeverk. Združili sta se v Žrtvah mode bum-bum, predstavi, ki je postala prelomna za Mladinsko gledališce, hkrati pa tudi za slovensko sodobno gledališce nasploh. Po Jovanovicevih pomembnih režijskih akcentih v Gleju, predvsem Spomeniku G, terhkratnih akcentih postdramskega v predstavah gledališca Pekarna (Zajcev Potohodec v režiji Lada Kralja, Svetinov Gilgameš, Risticev Tako, tako) se je z Žrtvami tudi znotraj »repertoarnega« gledališca uveljavil popolnoma nov princip dela: Jovanovicevo besedilo kot scenarij, neliterarna gradnja predstave. Pobudo je dal Dominik Smole. Dušan Jovanovic: Žrtve mode bum-bum, Mladinsko gledališce, 1975. Foto Tone Stojko, arhiv SMG. Na fotografiji: Milena Grm, Milojka Šuklje, Vladimir Jurc, Jože Mraz, Sandi Pavlin. Žrtve mode bum-bum so bile pravi estetski in eticni šok, estetska revolucija, ki je politizirano umetnost in politizirano gledališce spremenila v eksplozivno telo, ki je v samoupravnem socializmu izgradilo novo obliko angažiranega gledališca. To je (sicer drugace kot tisto prejšnje generacije, namrec Odra 57, pa vendar) še verjelo, da je mogoce doseci bistvene ucinke klasicnih oblik politicnega gledališca Erwina Piscatorja in Bertolta Brechta ter ruske avantgarde. Jovanovicevo gledališce druge polovice sedemdesetih let, ki se zacenja prav z Žrtvami, je nastopilo po estetskih revolucijah performansa šestdesetihin sedemdesetih let in je že v sami besedilni zasnovi, ki je nastala kot delo barthesovskega pisarja, povezovalo literaturo in spektakel, politicno angažiranost in gledališki eksperiment, revolucijo misli in forme. Zapisalo in uprizorilo je vdore realnega, tocke, na katerih se dogaja gibanje umetnosti kot proizvajanja lastne resnice. Žrtve, uprizorjene kot otvoritvena predstava nove sezone, so delovale kot estetska in ideološka bomba. Jovanovicevo angažirano gledališce je uporabljalo in izrabljalo politicno, revolucionarno v najboljšem pomenu besede. Ta gledališko nadvse privlacni spektakel je povezoval grotesko, ironijo in tragicno resnost z najcistejšo poezijo. Uporabljalo in izrabljalo je politicno, revolucionarno ideologijo, do katere je vzpostavljalo razlicne paratakticne odnose, ki so na obcinstvo delovali katarzicno. Namerno se je ukvarjalo z igro resnice in videza, fikcije in realnosti, igralcev, protagonistov, gledalcev, gledalk … Vseh in vsakogar, v samem ustvarjalnem procesu dela pri uprizoritvi in v vsakokratnih neponovljivih dejanjih recepcije vsakokratne ponovitve predstave. Njegova pisljiva igra in uprizoritev sta izhajali iz emancipiranega idejnega konteksta šestdesetih let, ki pa sta ga že zresnili, do njega ustvarili distanco, hkrati pa ohranili vso dinamicnost in željo po spremembah, ki jih je prinašal s študentskimi gibanji. Poleg tega sta ga uokvirili v vecno ponavljanje vojn, vseprisotnost vojaškega aparata v sodobnem svetu. Zato ni cudno, da nad predstavo niso bili vsi navdušeni, saj je bila za »pravoverneže« v dramsko gledališce in socialisticno samoupravljanje sporna, in to tako estetsko kot ideološko. Predstava se je ne glede na vroco kri, ki jo je povzrocila v slovenski politiki, uspešno uveljavila tudi v tujini, npr. na znamenitem festivalu Gledališce narodov v francoskem Nancyju, izjemen odmev je imela pri mednarodni kritiki. Predstava je dosegla gledališki in angažirani višek, ko med korakanjem fašisticnih kolon, med nemimi bliski strelov sredi bodecih žic padajo ob vzklikih osvobodilnih gesel ženske z otroki v narocju; in nato v naslednji sceni, ko ženske, ljudstvo, ki išce svoje padle – kar je zraslo v mocan simbol obuditve njegovih, ljudskih vecnostnih junakov – prinesejo, to pot ne uniform, temvec dele svojih oblacil in v partizanska ljudska oblacila oblecejo svoje otroke, ljudsko vojsko, in ko to ljudstvo vsebinsko, ne deklamatorsko, spregovori v verzih Prešernove Zdravljice. Tako besedilo kot predstava z izvrstnimi igralci sta bila izjemen gledališki dogodek, visoko profesionalna perfekcija igralskih psihicnih in fizicnih prizadevanj. Po estetskih revolucijah na podrocju performansa in (ne vec) dramskih besedil je z igrama Osvoboditev Skopja (1978) in Karamazovi (1980), s katerima je razbil socialisticne tabuje in odprl dramske postopke za nenavadno mešanico realizma in metafikcije, odigral kljucno vlogo v jugoslovanskem politicnem gledališcu. V prvem delu so vsi dogodki druge svetovne vojne in družinske tragedije prikazani skozi oci šestletnega decka, kar odpira zelo subjektivno in neideološko interpretacijo politicnih dogodkov. Karamazovi pa so odprli tabuizirano temo jugoslovanskega komunisticnega koncentracijskega taborišca na jadranskem otoku – posebnost Titovega preloma s Stalinom in Sovjetsko zvezo leta 1948 – v katerem so v okviru strogega sistema prevzgojnega dela pobili veliko sovjetsko šolanih komunistov. Da bi odprl to temo, vstopi v dialog z Dostojevskim in njegovim znamenitim romanom Bratje Karamazovi, ki mu omogoca dramaticen prikaz generacijskega prepada med ocetom in tremi sinovi. Svojo postbrechtovsko tehniko je razvijal tudi v igrah, ki jih je napisal med vojno v nekdanji Jugoslaviji in kmalu po njej. Leta 1993 zelo osebno razlicico Antigone, na katero je vplivala v casu pisanja še trajajoca vojna v Jugoslaviji. Ce je zavestno zacel dialog z Dostojevskim, da bi pisal o »temacnih« in paradoksalnih dogodkih v zgodovini Jugoslavije, je grški mit izbral, da bi se distanciral od dejanske banalnosti vojne oziroma da bi pokazal, kako je tudi miticna struktura grške tragedije konec dvajsetega stoletja postala nekaj povsem banalnega in predvidljivega. Kot to razlaga Dragan Klaic: Sovraštvo se je spremenilo v slepo, skoraj visceralno strast brez ocitnega vzroka ali namena. V Jovanovicevih Tebah je nasilje postalo tako vseprisotno, da je vsililo lastno konstrukcijo resnicnosti, ki so jo nato vsi prizadeti ponotranjili. Postalo je transgeneracijsko in le neka intervencija zunaj sistema je lahko zlomila urok. To bi morala biti vloga božanstev, vendar v Jovanovicevi igri ostajajo v ozadju kot vir zla in nocejo prevzeti vloge razsodnika ali rešitelja. [...] Celo Antigonin prostor za upor postane skrajno zožen, skoraj neobstojec. (»The Crisis of Theatre« 151) V svoji drugi igri, posveceni nasilju na obmocju nekdanje Jugoslavije, je Jovanovic zacel metagledališki dialog z Brechtom, in sicer v igri Mati Korajža in njeni otroci. V Uganki Korajže (1994) se je Jovanovic zavestno lotil tudi Brechtovega sistema epskega gledališca in njegovih specificnih ne vec dramskih postopkov v smislu odrskega prostora. Konvencijo epskega gledališkega prostora je na izviren nacin preoblikoval na podlagi igre pokrajine, v kateri odmevajo psihološka stanja protagonistov in njihove drobne mikro zgodbe. V casu vojne v Jugoslaviji je napisal tudi tretji del Balkanske trilogije Kdo to poje Sizifa, pri cemer je uporabil tisto, kar je sam opisal kot dialog z dramsko formo, ki se ukvarja z arhetipskimi situacijami. Zavestno se je odlocil za dekonstrukcijo in rekonstrukcijo klasicnih anticnih in sodobnih iger in mitov: Antigona, Sizif in Mati Korajža. Tudi njegova zadnja velika igra Razodetja (2009) je žanrski hibrid tesno in gosto prepletenih misli, samocitatov iz igre Karamazovi in nekaterih drugih njegovih dramskih del, kontaminiranih z današnjim žargonom avtenticnosti (v Adornovem smislu). Jovanoviceve igre, napisane v enaindvajsetem stoletju, so rezultat njegovega upora proti svetu neoliberalcev, proti telekraciji globalnega sveta, v katerem pisava ne more proizvesti svoje lastne razlike. Zato nam velikokrat priklicejo v spomin dramske in teoretske univerzume Petra Handkeja, Heinerja Müllerja ali Richarda Foremana. Vsaka njegova nova igra prinaša nov, alternativen poskus misliti gledališce in umetnost. Jovanovic je bil preprican, da po Shakespearu ne moremo vec govoriti o novih, specificnih avtorskih oblikah, da obstajata le dve veliki dramski obliki: gledališce noh in grška tragedija. Sodobnega avtorja (uporablja izraz svojega makedonskega kolega Gorana Stefanovskega) vidi kot plough-wrighta: »Ne pišem, ampak gradim igre« (Jovanovic, »Muke z vojno« 4). III. Milan Jesih: Zamolcani prevratnik na sledi nove pisave za gledališce nove dobe Vzporedno z Jovanovicevimi estetskimi revolucijami na podrocju drame in gledališca so potekale tudi ne manj radikalne Milana Jesiha, s katerim sta sodelovala v Pupiliji, kasneje pa so se njune gledališke poti oddaljile druga od druge. Prav Jesih je s tem, ko je gradil svoje zgodnje igre, gradil tudi novo gledališce. Tako so Jesihov pomen in vloga pri dekonstrukciji dramske pisave, še bolj pa njegova vloga pri dekonstrukciji t. i. literarnega oziroma dramskega gledališca ter udejanjenju performativnega obrata na prelomu iz šestdesetih v sedemdeseta leta prejšnjega stoletja še do danes ostali tako rekoc neraziskani. Ne glede na to, da se trditev zdi paradoksalna, že po kratkem razmisleku potrdi svojo veljavnost. Tako kot tudi naslednja misel: Hkrati pa je njegova »ne vec dramska pisava« (termin, ki ga je skovala nemška teoreticarka uprizoritvenih praks Gerda Poschmann, se zdi prav pri njem zelo primeren) v zadnjih desetletjih razcveta t. i. postdramskega gledališca ostala popolnoma v ozadju, tako rekoc neuporabljena, kar je, glede na bližino postdramskim praksam tega casa, nenavadno. Vse prevec smo pozabili, kako njegovi zgodnji teksti udejanjajo nedramska tkanja dialoških tokov na razlicnih nivojih. Te ponovno prilašcene in razgrajene dialoške forme drame proizvajajo polifonicni diskurz govornih ploskev, za katerega je – podobno kot pri Heinerju Müllerju, Petru Handkeju ali Elfriede Jelinek – znacilen bahtinovsko razumljeni dialogizem. Poliloška forma, ki nastaja, je rezultat citatov, ki sestavljajo ekstremne in vcasih celo nerazberljive kolaže. Toda ti kolaži – za veliko razliko od hermeticnih nemških vzporednikov, ki smo jih omenili maloprej – ne proizvedejo intelektualisticnega labirinta, ampak labirint vsakdanjika v smešnosti njegovih psihopatologij in jezikovnih obrazcev ter avtomatizmov. Jesih tako kot Handke z jezika slece pomen, da bi poudaril današnje oblike jezikovnega odtujevanja: ljudje, ki so odtujeni od svojega jezika in svoje govorice, so odtujeni tudi od sveta: D: Kaj bi še manjkalo cloveku? J: Na svetu nic. D: Prav nic. J: Nic. D: Nic. J: Nic? D: Nic, sem rekel. J: Kako: nic? D: Nic! Nic! Nic! J: Nic, praviš, srcek? D: Pustite me že na miru! (Jesih, Grenki 24) Jesihova besedila spodmikajo osnovne postavke absolutnosti drame: dialog, junake, dramsko zgradbo. Na prvi pogled se zdi, da ti bloki hitro izmenjujocih se kvazidialogov nastajajo kot teksti - reaktorji, ki se kuhajo sami, pisec ali (bolje) barthesovski pisar jih zgolj opazuje (Jelinek, In den Alpen 254). Nobene zgodbe, nobene akcije, nobene logike razvoja dogodkov in dialogov, nobenega stranskega teksta, skrajna pomnožitev oseb in centrifugalnost sklopov besed. Grenki sadeži pravice sistematicno spodkopavajo dramaturške kategorije. Andrej Inkret je tako ob njih zapisal, da se »‘nonšalantno‘, tako rekoc 'z enim zamahom' odvracajo od vsega tistega, kar smo si doslej mislili pod kategorijo drame; kljub temu (ali prav zato?) pa so se izkazali gledališko prav izjemno ucinkoviti ...« (Inkret, »Igra z jezikom« 8). Teatralnost se ne manifestira s pomocjo zgodbe, akcije in dialogov, ampak nastaja iz specificnega sopostavljanja besed. Veno Taufer opozarja na dejstvo, da Jesih hipertrofira in množi pravila klasicne dramske zgradbe: Namesto enotnosti prostora, casa in dejanja smo prica 33 razlicnim prizorišcem, na katerih nastopi 140 govorecih figurv situacijah, ki v vratolomnem ritmu drznih kolažev in prehajanj iz prostora v prostor, casa v cas, spola govorcev v drugi spol govorcev izpiše paleto prizorov v najrazlicnejših motivnih kombinacijah normativnih vrednot od lepote, smrti, izdajstva, ljubezni, hrepenenja, ljubezni do domovine ... (Taufer, Odrom ob rob 166) Pri tem se poigra tudi z dramsko osebo, ki jo razprši na 140vlog, za katere v edinih didaskalijah v igri zapiše: »Spol in sklon igravcev nista dolocena, želeti pa je, da so njihove duše široka in svetla pobocja, saj je sonce pokrovitelj življenja in njegov budni pastir« (Jesih, Grenki 6). Milan Jesih: Grenki sadeži pravice, režija Zvone Šedlbauer, EG Glej, 1974. Ikonoteka SLOGI. Na sliki Božo Šprajc, Ivo Ban, Marko Simcic, Metoda Zorcic. Jesih je v Grenkih sadežihpravice na sledi nove pisave za gledališce nove dobe, ki združuje inovativnost v obliki in politicno angažiranost v vsebini. Razstavi, spodmakne koncept dramskega predstavljanja ter izgradi avtonomijo jezika, v kateri jezik ni vec podvržen dramski formi. Ce Dane Zajc v Potohodcu beckettovsko radikalno secira sodobno etiko, hkrati pa skorajda do popolnosti razrahlja ostanke klasicne dramske strukture, ne da bi pri tem spodnesel moc jezika poezije, Milan Jesih – kot opozarja Lado Kralj – v Grenkih sadežih pravice res radikalno in dokoncno sprejme absurdisticno nacelo razkroja jezika in ga preinterpretira v totalno igro jezika, ki s svojo neobveznostjo že presega horizont metafizicnega nihilizma (Kralj, »Sodobna« 107). Tudi njegove osebe (podobno kot tiste od Jelinek, a vseenoveliko bolj umetelno in muzikalicno) se pojavljajo kot predimenzionirani jezikovni stroji. Nenehno govorijo in govorijo o vsem. Nepretrgano bruhajo iz sebe resnicnosti, ki jih psihološko pravilno zastavljena figura nikoli ne bi mogla izreci. Jesihovi gledališki teksti izbirajo razlicne nacine obvozov ustaljene dramske forme. Zato pri analizi in interpretaciji tovrstnih besedil postane problematicna uporaba klasicnih pojmov teorije drame, npr. oseba, dialog, monolog, glavni tekst in stranski tekst. Hkrati imamo namesto z eksplicitno opravka z implicitno teatralnostjo. Tako smo (kot npr. pri dramatikih absurda, zgodnjem Handkeju, Heinerju Müllerju ipd.) prica gledališcu glasov, ki nadomešcajo dramske osebe: »Jezik se bori proti svoji vsebini, ki je nadeta kot oblacilo (in ne obratno!), vsebini, ki je del mode« (Jelinek, »Brecht aus der Mode«). Veno Taufer je zato v kritiškem zapisu ob premieri Jesihovega drugega dramskega teksta Grenki sadeži pravice, ki ga je pesnik nagajivo (politicno provokativno, saj je šlo za svincena sedemdeseta leta, ki niso dovoljevala nobenih interpelacij v smislu vecstrankarske demokracije, hkrati pa tudi paratakticno) zvrstno podnaslovil »interpelacija v enem nonšalantnem zamahu«, opozoril na dejstvo, da je avtor v tem gledališkem komadu »v dobršni in dovolj prepricljivi meri uveljavil prizadevanja tistega dela modernega leposlovja, ki odkriva, da jezik živi svoje življenje, predpostavlja svojo samostojno resnicnost, se izpricuje kot lastna vsebina« (Taufer, Odrom 166). Prica smo nastajanju govornihploskev velike gostote, ki kot nekakšni gejzirji bruhajo maso zvocnega materiala, pri kateri ni vec jasno, katerim oznacencem so namenjene te verige oznacevalcev. Jesihova besedilna praksa v Grenkih sadežih pravice tako predstavlja osvoboditev od modela, ki ga je Brecht imenoval aristotelovsko gledališce, in pa nastavek za nove modele gledališca onstran drame, blizu temu, kar je Brecht imenoval nearistotelovsko, Artaud pa gledališce krutosti. Sredstvo osvoboditve je jezik. Njegova taktika v Grenkih sadežev pravice, kot npr. tudi v Limitah (1973), Brucki ali obdobju prilagajanja (1976) ali Trikoju (1985), je preigravanje trivialnosti jezika. Dramske osebev krizi, ki jih pisar Jesih oznaci s postbeckettovskimi imeni (Jemavec, Dajavec, Grbavec, Gobavec), se v verigi mini prizorov, temeljecih na parodiji, igricah jezika, vratolomno gibljejo po prostorih - casih. Tekst igre pri Jesihu tako ne nastaja z namenom, da bi utelešal mimezis. Tempo je hiter, dogajanje je mehanizirano, reprezentacijo ves cas spodkopavajo ironicni komentarji in potujitve. Tako kot pri Ionescu je tudi pri Jesihu jezik izrabljen, nepopravljivo kontaminiran s trivialnostjo. Jesih tako izgradi ne vec dramski gledališki tekst, ki razgradi vsakršno tradicijo in metafiziko, hkrati pa vedno znova udejanja jezik kot serijo oznacevalcev brez oznacencev. Njegova taktika je pri tem pastiš in citatno prisvajanje ter hkratna ironicna predelava predvsem jezikovnih korpusov in leg tradicije, npr. pripovedništva prve polovice 19. stoletja, vzpostavitev palimpsestnega umetnega starinskega jezika, ki se meša z vsakdanjo govorico, z gostilniškim, poulicnim, politicnim, filozofskim slengom: GOBAVEC: Daj mi od svojega obeda, dobri pastir, lacen sem in žejen! GRBAVEC: Moj oce Telefunken iz Massachussettsa je hrano, ki jo imam s seboj, namenil meni. In kar je mojega, bo ostalo moje, potepuški tujec, to si zapiši za uho. GOBAVEC: In kako naj te za to nagradim? GRBAVEC: Zaslužim si, da mi živad pogine v hudi kugi, da mi moj oce v Massachusettsu vzame žlahtno ime, da me moja mati na Finskem prekolne in da ostanem sam in izobcen, celo od bridkih gorskih vetrov osovražen. JEMAVEC: Daj mi od svojega obeda, zlatosrcni pastir! GRBAVEC: Ne dam. Kar je moje, je moje, in se tebe nic ne tice. Kar sem si jaz prinesel v planino, bom jaz snedel. JEMAVEC: In kakšno nagrado dobiš za to? GRBAVEC: Prav bo, ce mi živina pogine, ce jaz oslepim, in ce moja noseca žena doli v dolini rodi kozla. DAJAVEC: Daj mi od svojega malega obroka, pastir! GRBAVEC: Prisedi! In vina ti bom nalil, ki ga hranim za goste in vcasih za praznik. Jed je skromna, a tecna: mene glej, kako sem zdrav ob njej! (Jesih, Grenki 28–29) Jesih v Grenkih sadežih pravice uvede posebno, ne vec dramsko taktiko dramaturgije hitrih prehodov med prizori. Osebe, oznacene z abstraktnimi oznakami, ki niso vezane na nikakršne dramske like, kot nekakšni nadomestki za dramske like skoraj neopazno prehajajo iz enega govornega položaja v drugega. Menjave položajev so poljubne, asociativne, tako kot so poljubne in asociativne menjave lokacij (ne vec) dramske akcije. S tem ko jezik postavi za »protagonista« svoje drame, Jesih (podobno kot njegov francoski kolega Valčre Novarina) ukine vsako dvojnost med tekstom in uprizoritvijo. Beseda sama postane spektakel, ona je tista, ki ustvarja strukturo besedila in uprizoritve. (Ne vec) drama tako z Grenkimi sadeži pravice znotraj slovenske variante pride do svojega ekstrema, do tocke, s katere je možna samo še vrnitev k elementom dramskega oziroma postdramskega. IV. Plough-wright Matjaž Zupancic Tudi enega najboljših opisov gledališkega dela Matjaža Zupancica bi lahko povzeli prav v dvomestni besedni zvezi, ki jo je skoval Stefanovski: plough-wright. Gledališki režiser in dramatik, ki je študiral gledališko režijo in dramaturgijo v Ljubljani in Londonu, je v osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja postal direktor Eksperimentalnega gledališca Glej in svojo kariero nadaljeval kot dramatik in gledališki režiser ter profesor na Akademiji za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo. Kot avtor vec kot petdesetih gledaliških uprizoritev je konec osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja zacel pisati (ne vec) dramska dela in kmalu postal eden kljucnih sodobnih slovenskih dramatikov, ki je prejel vec Grumovih nagrad za najboljšo slovensko dramo, postal pa je tudi najveckrat uprizarjani slovenski dramatik v Evropi in širše. Za skorajda dvajset svojih dramskih del je prejel številne nagrade. Njegove igre vstopajo v dialog z lacanovsko psihoanalizo, razkrivajo igre drsecih oznacevalcev in nove razlicice želje Drugega, oznacujejo radikalno drugost, drugost, ki presega iluzorno drugost imaginarnega. V svojih zgodnjih igrah, napisanih v devetdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, uporablja in si prilašca samo naravo razlicnih žanrov, vkljucno z underground kulturo trilerjev. To nakazujejo že naslovi njegovih iger: Izganjalci hudica (1991), Slastni mrlic (1992), Nemir (1998) ali Ubijalci muh (2000). Igre Matjaža Zupancica se odvijajo v vmesnih prostorih, na recepcijah in hodnikih, kjer so ljudje nenehno v gibanju, prihajajo in odhajajo v skrivnostni verigi dogajanja. Zupancic se rad poigrava z razlicnimi dramskimi tehnikami in slogi, od hiperrealizma do misterijev in trilerjev, od neposrednega prikazovanja resnicnosti do absurdnega pa tudi nenavadno poeticnega. Vnjegovi crni komediji Bolje tic v roki kot tat na strehi (2004), v kateri se slog Montyja Pythona sreca s slogom Harolda Pinterja, liki delujejo kot roboti, ki proizvajajo vrsto ponovitev, ki se koncajo v nenavadnem obcutju crne komedije z uporabo besedišca psihiatrije in nevrologije. Vigri Padec Evrope (2011) komentira in razkriva ozadje sodobne družbe po mileniju. V majhnem lokalnem hotelu na obrobju s pomenljivim imenom Evropa poteka zasebna zabava, na kateri lokalni jet set pripoveduje umazane šale in sklepa poslovne dogovore. Toda ko vse kaže, da se bo precej opita zabavajoca se družba razšla, se zunaj odvije pravi globalni upor z demonstracijami in nemiri. Policija zapre vse vhode v mesto, ceste so blokirane, avtomobili gorijo. Vteh brezupnih razmerah se razkrije lažnivost lokalne elite. Zupancic s svojim sarkasticnim crnim humorjem razkrije groteskno realnost sodobnega sveta in krizo etike v današnji družbi, v Evropi in drugod. Do posebne zgostitve metagledališkega komentarja in hiperrealnosti sveta debordovske družbe spektakla pripelje Zupancic v nenavadni in radikalni igri - eseju o sodobni mediatizirani civilizaciji resnicnostnih šovov in simulakrov, njegovi najbolj (post)dramski oziroma mediatizirani igri Hodnik (2003). Zupancic namenoma izbere uprizarjanje v živo, in sicer gledališce kot medij, ki komentira in dekonstruira trenutno zelo izpostavljeno obliko medija, natancneje resnicnostno televizijo. Njegovo izhodišce lahko ponazorimo z izjavo Guillerma Gómez-Pena: »Vsak metier, jezik, žanr in/ali format zahteva razlicne strategije in metodologije« (73). Kot ustrezen medij uporabi »cisto gledališce«, pri cemer se namerno izogne mešanim medijskim sredstvom današnjega gledališca in uprizori koridor vseprisotnosti podob resnicnostne televizije, sam prostor medijskega nasilja v dobi humanitarne nemoci. Tako razkrije problematicnost subjekta, ki razpolaga s fiktivno svobodo, ki se ponuja kot iluzija interaktivnosti, odprtosti za sodelovanje, dialoga, ki se krepi z elektronskimi mediji televizije. Zupancic uprizarja resnicnost, ki jo interpretira kot podobo Auslanderjevega univerzuma televizije, ki je sposobna »kolonizirati 'živost', edini vidik gledališke predstavitve, ki ga film ni mogel ponoviti« (Auslander 15). Dramatik se popolnoma zaveda problematicnega dejstva, da se je gledališce razvilo v posnemanje medijskih diskurzov in da okus današnje javnosti oblikuje televizija, ki je postala vzor in telos gledališca. Kapitala ne zanima vec ekonomija reprezentacije žive predstave, ampak se intenzivno osredotoca na ekonomijo medijske reprezentacije, ki se predstavlja kot reprezentacija realnosti tukaj in zdaj. Matjaž Zupancic izhaja tudi iz dejstva, da (kot opozarja Auslander) »danes velikokrat nismo vec zgolj price vdorom medijskih 'tehnik' in tehnik v kontekst živega performansa, temvec prej za to, da živi performans absorbira medijsko epistemologijo« (Auslander 16). A kljub temu se odloci za živo predstavo, natancneje gledališce, ki »v ekonomiji živega ponavljanja [...] ni kaj vec kot ostanek prejšnjega zgodovinskega reda reprezentacije, zadržek, ki si ne more prilastiti veliko kulturne prisotnosti moci« (17). Ker se zaveda, da naš koncept bližine in intimnosti izhaja iz obnebja televizije, izkorišca ta koncept in simbolno moc televizije kot medija, ki je deležen vecje kulturne prisotnosti in prestiža kot gledališce, da bi intrigiral gledalce in jih spravil v stanje zavedanja o televizijski manipulaciji in njenem »elektronskem hrupu«, ki se predstavlja kot resnicnost, resnicnejša od resnicnosti žive predstave. Vprašanje, ki ga postavlja Hodnik, v veliki meri pa kar vecina Zupancicevih dram, je torej kljucno vprašanje, ki ga Auslander ves cas ponavlja in nanj odgovarja v svoji odlicni knjigi V živo: ali predstava razpolaga z lastno ontologijo, ki je bolj iskrena od televizijskih ponovitev? Odgovor na to vprašanje je ne. Poleg tega Zupanciceva igra in predstava, ki jo je sam tudi režiral, izpostavljata kljucno vprašanje o možnosti subvertiranja resnicnostne televizije v živi uprizoritvi. Hodnik tako – medtem ko govori o Velikem bratu – s pomocjo izkljucno gledaliških medijev odpira sliko deteritorializirane etike postmodernega sveta in njegovih kiberneticnih modelov organiziranja resnicnosti, realnega, izdelanega elektronsko, iz matric in spominskih bank, ki se sesuje v crno luknjo, ki jo proizvajajo mediji. S tem pokaže, da je (kot bi rekel Debord), spektakel tudi v gledališcu danes »hkrati rezultat in cilj prevladujocega nacina produkcije«, je »srce neresnicnosti te realne družbe« (Debord 6). V. Živadinov in obred poslavljanja od NSK Supremat Zgodbi dekonstrukcij nasprotja med reprezentacijo in prezentacijo, znacilni za postmimeticno, lahko sledimo tudi v obredih poslavljanja Dragana Živadinova v njegovi postpostretrogardisticni fazi. Naš predmet raziskave bo Supremat, podnaslovljen kot Obred poslavljanja od Neue Slowenische Kunst in NSK (ki ga Živadinov sopodpisuje z avtorsko ekipo kostumografke Dunje Zupancic, dramaturginje Jane Pavlic in koreografa Marka Mlacnika), premierno uprizorjen novembra 2002 v Slovenskem mladinskem gledališcu. Predstava je del zapletene pripravljalne procedure njegovega velikega utopicnega projekta 1:1, ki se je zacel leta 1995. Kot nakazujeta naslov in podnaslov, se prvi nanaša na suprematizem Kazimirja Malevica, drugi na slovensko retro- ali transavantgardno gibanje osemdesetih in devetdesetih let, ki mu je pripadal tudi sam. Supremat je koncipiran kot novi personalizirani obred poslavljanja režiserja tako od ruske zgodovinske avantgarde kot tudi od slovenske neoavantgarde. Predstava uporablja tehniko pastiša in recikliranja tem in stilov v novem kontekstu. Navdahnjen z dramo angleškega avtorja Dustyja Hughesa Futuristi iz leta 1986, se Supremat ukvarja s prvim pesnikom - žrtvijo postrevolucionarne Rusije, Nikolajem Gumiljovom, zacetnikom akmeizma. S tem ko reintegrira zgodovinske trenutke leta 1921 v Sankt Peterburgu, ujame prav trenutek bistvenega konflikta avantgardne umetnosti s politicno avantgardo ter sam zacetek procesa iztrebljanja prve v procesu razvoja druge v obdobju po (sovjetski) revoluciji. Scenarij predstave, za katerega je znacilna tehnika palimpsesta, pastiša in tehnike prisvajanja, lahko beremo kot postdramsko opero aperto, prepletajoco in mešajoco fragmente in parafraze ruske poezije te dobe (Majakovski, Ahmatova, Gumiljov, Blok ...) in Spomine Nadežde Mandelštam, transformirane z dekonstrukcijskimi intervencijami. Dragan Živadinov: Supremat, Slovensko mladinsko gledališce, 2002. Foto MihaFras. Na fotografiji: Romana Šalehar (Ana Andrejevna Ahmatova) in Olga Kacjan (Ana Andrejevna Ahmatova). Supremat oznacujejo tudi nekatera zelo personalizirana in individualizirana prisvajanja del, konceptov in misli avantgarde in neoavantgarde. Prvi in najpomembnejši je citat FLUXUS-ovega namiznega tenisa in njegovih loparjev z luknjo v sredini. Gre za prisvajanje in retrocitat znamenitih neoavantgardnih športnih iger »Fluxfest«. Tocneje iger, ki so jih odigrali v Douglass Collegeu v New Jerseyju februarja 1970. Supremat uporablja loparje za pingpong z luknjami kot osrednji vizualni simbol skupaj s prisvajanjem Meyerholdovih biomehanicnih gibov protagonistov predstave, vseh predstavnikov ruske umetnosti leta 1921. Še bolj poudarjeno kot v predhodnih predstavah je tudi uporabljanje specificnih»sestavin« Živadinova, ki je tako znacilno za njegovo umetnost. Tokrat gre za cistilo PRIL, ki nas seveda spomni na Josepha Beuysa in njegovo uporabo medu, filca in masti v šestdesetih letih. Stavek iz predstave »Umetnost je samo zacasna religija!« kot izjava spominja na in parafrazira znamenito Duchampovo izjavo o umetnosti: »Preprosto ne verjamem vanjo z vsemi njenimi misticnimi olepšavami. Kot droga je verjetno zelo koristna za številne ljudi, zelo sedativna, kot religija pa ni niti tako dobra kot Bog.« Predstava povezuje med seboj dekontekstualizacije in rekontekstualizacije velikih, utopicnih spraševanj umetnosti. Fragmentira jih, dekonstruira in si jih prisvaja za svojo uporabo znotraj globalnega sveta postdramske in postgledališke menjave. Dehierarhizirana uporaba znakov zavestno uporablja koncepte simultanosti, se poigrava z gostoto znakov, muzikalizacijo, specificnostjo vizualne dramaturgije, vdori realnega. Tako spodkoplje jedro gledališca kot posnemanja (mimezisa), hkrati pa tudi pojem logocentrizma, ki ga lahko razumemo kot osnovno gledališko dedišcino koncepta dramskega gledališca. VI. Dekonstrukcije in rekonstrukcije reprezentacij: Divjak, Morano – Frljic – Semenic Dovolimo si na koncu še skok v sedanjost. Po številnih premenah, ki so jih prinesla sedemdeseta, osemdeseta in devetdeseta leta prejšnjega stoletja, se zdi, da se uprizoritvene prakse novega milenija vracajo k nekaterim postulatom eksperimentalnega gledališca in njegovih dekonstrukcij reprezentacije, hkrati pa tudi k želji po drugacnih, sodelovalnih in dokumentaristicnih pristopih k materialu. Vzemimo kot primer Žiga Divjaka in Katarino Morano. Avtorski duet lahko uvrstimo v skupino avtoric in avtorjev, ki uporabljajo razlicne oblike gledaliških taktik, da bi dosegli zaželene ucinke na gledalca, bralca, npr. režiserjev Oliverja Frljica, Nino RajicKranjac, Boruta Šeparovica, Janeza Janšo, Simono Semenic, Sebastijana Horvata, Jerneja Lorencija … Divjak in Morano preizprašujeta ustroj današnje družbe in vlogo posameznika v njej. V projektih izgradita svojo varianto dobesednega gledališca ter pri tem med drugim izhajata iz projektov Janeza Janše (predvsem predstave Slovensko narodno gledališce) in Oliverja Frljica (predvsem predstave 25.671 o izbrisanih). Njuno gledališce uporablja postopke verbatim gledališca, hkrati pa izhaja tudi iz Brechtovih ucnih komadov in Boalovega principa gledališca zatiranih. Zvrst dokumentarnih uprizoritev in dobesednega gledališca je dosledno in radikalno raziskoval tudi Frljic v predstavi o izbrisanih 25.671 (PG Kranj, 2013), ki je temeljila na resnicnih dogodkih in dokumentih. Te je prepletla s fikcijo in na neki nacin celo s kvazidokumentarnostjo ter dobršno dozo metagledališkega eseja. Tako je radikalno preizprašala status privilegiranega pricevalca, ki si ga vcasih prerado podeli dokumentaristicno in verbatim gledališce. Prav Frljic je v slovenskem prostoru gotovo režiser, ki se nikakor ni zadovoljil z osnovno obliko dobesednega gledališca, ampak ga je ves cas povezoval z drugimi žanri, predvsem gledališkega eseja. Tudi Divjak in Morano v predstavi 6 uporabita klasicen postopek tovrstnega gledališca, prepis intervjujev, njihovo kolažiranje in sestavljanje besedila predstave. Montaža poteka s pomocjo redukcije vecjih kolicin zbranega materiala ter preoblikovanja v avtorski obris gledališkega besedila. Delovna predloga teksta nastaja sproti in se spreminja. Divjak in Morano ohranjata vloge igralca, režiserja, pisca in drugih ustvarjalcev v procesu, a hkrati so te nefiksirane, izmenljive in spremenljive. Ustvarjanje je hkrati individualno in kolektivno, pisec ali barthesovski pisar ni locen od drugih ustvarjalcev, ni edninski, je del procesa, a v njem sodeluje ali sodelujejo predvsem kot urejevalec besedila, ne toliko kot dramatik. Besedilni korpusi pri Divjaku in Morano nastajajo na razlicne nacine. Postdramska dokumentarna obdelava Cankarjevega Hlapca Jerneja in njegove pravice je plod raziskovanja resnicnih zgodb brezpravnih delavcev. Predstava sledi sodobnim hlapcem Jernejem, ki jih najde na terenu, z obiski podjetij, združenj, obalne sindikalne konfederacije KS 90 in Delavske svetovalnice. Skozi dokumentarno gradivo spoznamo pricevanja delavcev v Luki Koper, cistilk iz cistilnih servisov, gradbenih delavcev, voznikov tovornjakov in kombijev, medicinskih sester, prekarnih študentov arhitekture v arhitekturnih birojih. Nastane namerno precej grobo obdelan material, ki ga v ritmu dela za tekocim trakom interpretirajo, pripovedujejo igralci. Nic spektakularnega ni v montaži in uprizoritveni taktiki, a po principu manj je vec gledalca predstava potegne vase. Ne da bi opazil, postane prica in hkrati že tudi pricevalec prekarnosti. Projekt 6 je zasnoval dramaturško-režiserski tim skupaj z delom igralcev (Iztok Drabik Jug, AljaKapun, Katarina Stegnar, Vito Weis in Gregor Zorc) ter sodelovalno raziskal nestrpnosti resnicnih dogodkov v Dijaškem in študentskem domu Kranj februarja 2016. Zgodba je naslednja: ravnateljica doma se je odlocila, da bo v praznem in neizkorišcenem nadstropju študentskega dela dijaškega doma sprejela šest mladoletnih prosilcev za azil brez spremstva. To je sprožilo verigo dogodkov, ogorcenje in nasprotovanje dela staršev, krajevne skupnosti … Ustvarjalno ekipo je zanimal konflikt med delom kolektiva, dijaškega doma, »ki v osnovi podpira idejo, da je treba socloveku pomagati, da je treba otroke nastaniti v tem domu, ker pac v koncni fazi je bil ta dom zgrajen zato, da gosti mladoletnike, ki se šolajo izven kraja […] svojega rojstva. In potem zaradi pritiskov okolice na nek nacin podvomi v […] to svoje osnovno prepricanje, da je treba pomagat« (Pograjc). Ekipa se je povezala z raziskovalno novinarko Majo Avo Žiberna in ravnateljico doma Judito Nahtigal ter na podlagi raziskave pripravila dokumentarni material. Približno štiri mesece trajajoca raziskava je bila del kreativnega procesa, v katerem so na terenu skušali priti v stik s temi mladoletniki, jo razširili na domove v Novi Gorici in Postojni. Dokumentarne materiale so v teku procesa zaceli povezovati s fiktivnimi, temeljecimi na verodostojnih dokumentih, a izhajajocih iz igralske imaginacije in improvizacij. Tako sta nastala scenarij in predstava, v kateri se ves cas izmenjujeta igra in neigra. Žiga Divjak: 6, Slovensko mladinsko gledališce, 2018. Foto Matej Povše, Arhiv SMG. Iz povedanega je razvidno, da Divjak in Morano v predstavi 6 (podobno kot Oliver Frljic v predstavi o izbrisanih 25.671 ali Naše nasilje in vaše nasilje) ne vzpostavljata ciste oblike verbatim gledališca. Gre za tipicno sodelovalno gledališce z elementi ali deli postopkov gledališca zatiranih. Njuno gledališce tako strukturira posebno ne vec dramsko matrico, pri kateri prihaja do drznih prepletov dokumentarnega in fikcije, zaradi katerih slednja mestoma postane prepricljivejša kot resnicnost in druga bolj nadrealisticna od fikcije. Pri tem, spet podobno kot Frljic, z metagledališkim diskurzom, ki ga vpleteta v svoje predstave - eseje, sproti komentirata družbeno umešcenost predstave, pogoje njene produkcije in možne politicne ucinke. Hkrati pa dosledno utelesita osnovno definicijo dokumentarnega gledališca, kot jo je v razpravi »Notizen zum dokumentarischen Theater« podal Peter Weiss: »Dokumentarno gledališce se 73 izogiba vsaki iznajdbi, uporablja pristna gradiva, ki jih potem – v nekoliko predelani obliki, toda vsebinsko nespremenjena – ponovno pokaže na odru« (Weiss 293–94). Kot primer eksperimentalnih pisav za gledališce v tem casu izpostavimo za konec še Simono Semenic, ki jo v igrah - scenarijih zanimajo radikalne inverzije dramskega in postdramskega. Pri Semenicevi smo izpostavljeni dekonstrukciji nasprotja med reprezentacijo in prezentacijo, znacilni za postmimeticno. Toda kljub temu da avtorica vztrajno ustvarja motnje v fikcijskem besedilnem kozmosu,igra vseeno vzpostavlja mocan proces redramatizacije, ustvarjanja intenzivnih zapletov in razpletov. Kot da bi hkrati z dekonstrukcijo dramskega vbrizgali v postdramsko tkivo iger dramsko in dramaticno. Postmimeticno tako soobstaja s predmimeticnim, »slecenje« drame privede do vzpostavljanja fikcije. Semeniceva v svojih igrah, npr. tisocdevetstoenainosemdeset (2013) problematizira lastni medij in status avtorja, dela in bralca oziroma gledalca ter hipertrofira proces same kreacije. Tematizacija in hkratna samorefleksija in samoironija statusa avtorja proizvede vzporedno problematizacijo ontološkega statusa umetnosti, hkrati pa tudi realnosti same. Zanima jo, kaj se skriva za videzi in videzi videzov, zato njena dekonstrukcija dramskega in fikcijskega proizvaja posebno postbrechtovsko kritiko realnega. Dialoško obliko predeluje v družbi z raznorodnimi besedilnimi strategijami: od odrskih smernic do opisov, ki so bližje romanu in prozi, pripovednih, esejisticnih, teoreticnih in drugih tehnik, ki obcinstvo opominjajo, da to, kar bere ali gleda, ni vec realen dialog. Toda pri tem proizvede izrazito dramaticne ucinke, ki bi jih Birgit Haas najbrž imenovala »dramaticno dramske« (Haas 45). VII. Zakljucek: sledi eksperimentov in tektonskih premikov v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja Na podlagi preteklih in sodobnih primerov smo zarisali zemljevid tistih praks ustvarjanja avtorskega gledališca, ki jih Badiou v Rapsodiji za gledališce poimenuje splošna nihanja. Gledalec se mora odlociti, ali se prepustiti tej praznini in sodelovati v neskoncnem postopku. Ni pozvan k užitku, pac pa k razmišljanju. Primeri in taktike, ki smo se jih dotaknili, kažejo, kako so bile uprizoritvene prakse v dvajsetem stoletju vzporedno z drugimi umetnostmi v živo in z literaturo podvržene posledicam tega, kar Mladen Dolar poimenuje »stoletje postopne in katastroficno narašcajoce mediatizacije, ko so mediji tako rekoc prekrili in virtualizirali sam pojem realnosti, odeli v podobein docela zastrli, tako da kriza reprezentacije še nikoli ni bila vecja« (Dolar, »Gledališce ideje«118). Tako smo se v enaindvajsetem stoletju znašli znotraj obdobja, ki ga izjemno natancno v pogovoru z Nicolasom Truongom v knjigi Eloge du théâtre definira Badiou s sintagmo »izjemno konfuzen cas«, v katerem se zdi, da je prevladal obcutek, da smo popolnoma brez idej: »Ta zmedenost sodobnosti je tista globokega nihilizma, ki ne samo, da oznanja, kako so ideje izginile, ampak tudi, da se bomona to stanje brez težav navadili tako, da bomo živeli v cisti sedanjosti, ki nikakor ne sproža problema sprave med imanenco in transcendenco«(Badiou, Eloge du théâtre 69). In po mnenju Badiouja je ena bistvenih nalog gledališca v tem obdobju zmedenosti, da »pokaže zmedenost kot zmedenost« (prav tam 70). Današnji cas tako brez dvoma beleži sledi eksperimentov in tektonskih premikov v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja. Uprizoritev in tekst razlicni tipi postdramske gledališkosti na novo postavljajo in preizprašujejo. Gledališce se oddaljuje od pojma dramskega, medtem ko družba postaja vse bolj dramatizirana. V zadnjih približno desetih letih sta se na evropskih odrih izrisali dve vecji usmeritvi, ki ju lahko razumemo kot dedišcini postdramskega gledališca. Prvi tip je »odrska pisava«, kakor jo definira filozof in gledališki kritik Bruno Tackels in jo utelešajo npr. Simona Semenic, Milena Markovic in Anja Hilling. Ta odrska pisava (ki ni izkljucno tekstualne vrste) tekstu vrne osrednje mesto v ustvarjalnem procesu. Drugi tip, ki ga utelešajo npr. Frljic, Divjak, Milo Rau in drugi, pa pisave uporablja kot matrice, ki so lahko likovne, koreografske ali transdisciplinarne. Pisanje, pa tudi morebitno pripoved, tu torej opravlja režija v širšem pomenu besede, in sicer z vsemi sredstvi, uporabljenimi v predstavi. Ali pa snovalna oziroma sodelovalna kreacija, ki ukinja hierarhicne in cehovske delitve med igro, režijo, dramsko pisavo in drugimi segmenti kreacije. Ne glede na zgoraj skicirano možno delitev pa vse oblike, ki izhajajo iz postdramskega, poleg pojma mimezis zelo radikalno preizprašujejo tudi reprezentacijo in verjetje gledalca v obstoj vzporednega sveta zunaj našega. To preizpraševanje konvencionalne pogodbe med igralcem in obcinstvom velikokrat prevedejo v vprašanje: sem igralec torej jaz ali nekdo v publiki? Zgodbi dekonstrukcij nasprotja med reprezentacijo in prezentacijo, znacilni za postmimeticno, smo sledili od neoavantgarde do postmilenija. Neoavantgarda performativnega obrata, tako Jesih kot Jovanovic, je s svojimi besedilnimi in gledališkimi dejanji zaznamovala prehod iz tekstovne v performativno kulturo, za katero je znacilna prav performativna narava telesne so-prisotnosti. Jesih z Limitami in Grenkimi sadeži pravice, Jovanovic pa z ritualnim klanjemkure v dvorani Križank (podobno kot Handke v Zmerjanju obcinstva) ter z doslednim prevodom besedilnega v ritualno-telesno v Spomeniku G Jožice Avbelj dokoncno udejanjata preobrat od gledališca kot umetniškega dela, fiksiranega artefakta, k performativni telesni so-prisotnosti so-subjektov (igralcev in gledalcev) dogodka / hepeninga. Tako predstavo Pupilije Ferkeverk kot performativno naravnanost Jesihove in Handkejeve drame absurda lahko interpretiramo tudi znotraj koncepta sodobnega performansa in gledališca po performativnem obratu v šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja: kot razlicni inacici postdramskih (Lehmann) ali energijskih (Lyotard) umetniških korpusov ali dejanj, ki po mnenju Fischer-Lichtejeve »nocejo, da bi jih razumeli, ampak da bi jih doživeli. Ne pustijo se podrediti paradigmi hermenevticne estetike« (Fischer-Lichte, Ästhetik 276). Zato – kot izpricuje Peter Božic ob Spomeniku G – »ukinjajo tistega posrednika med igralcevim telesom in njegovo igro, ki mu pravimo intelekt oziroma ratio« (Božic, »Razvoj« 37). Besedilne in uprizoritvene ter konceptualne inovacije obravnavanih avtorjev in avtoric lahko torej razumemo kot del specifike zadnjih petdesetih let, ki sta jo zaznamovala nemir in badioujevska nezmožnost odlocitve med koncem starega in zacetkom novega. Prica smo bili vrsti estetskih revolucij, ki so zamajale konfiguracijo drame in gledališca. Lahko bi rekli, da avtorji, ki smo jih obravnavali v razpravi, razmišljajo o drami, gledališcu in družbi v (post)dramski obliki zaradi potrebe po pripovedovanju novih in novih zgodb o postmilenijski krizi etike in družbe, ki jo pogojujeta neoliberalna in postsocialisticna družba. Iz geografije njihovih literarnih in gledaliških procesov je ocitno, da se je tudi slovenska pisava za gledališce podala v vode, ki jih je oznacil tako postdramski kot performativni obrat. To prica o tem, da se obravnavani umetniki in skupine gibljejo od lokalnega (Slovenija) do globalnega (kjerkoli na svetu), od dramskega do postdramskega, od realisticnega do absurdnega, od fizicnega do metafizicnega, od gledališkega do metateatralnega, da bi zajeli ostanke razbitih in razdrobljenih pomenov, ki jih proizvajajo drsni oznacevalci, ki se le obcasno in zacasno srecujejo z oznacencem. Literatura Artaud, Antonin. Gledališce in njegov dvojnik. MGL, 1994. Knjižnica MGL, 119. Auslander, Philip. Liveness. Performance in a Mediatized Culture, 2. izdaja. Routledge, 2008. —. V živo: uprizarjanje v mediatizirani kulturi. Prevedla Aleksandra Rekar, MGL, 2007. Knjižnica MGL, 146. Autant-Mathieu, Marie-Christine. »Auteurs, écritures dramatiques.« Écrire pour le théâtre, Les enjeux de l‘écriture dramatique, CNRS, 1995, str. 13–28. Badiou, Alain. Eloge du théâtre. (Avec Nicolas Truong). Flammarion, 2013. —.Rapsodija za gledališce. Prevedla Katja Zakrajšek, MGL, 2020. Knjižnica MGL, 176. Božic, Peter. »Razvoj gledališke literature in gledaliških sredstev v slovenskem gledališcu.« Maske, št. 1, 1986, str. 37–42. Debord, Guy. Družba spektakla. Prevedla Meta Štular, Študentska založba, 1999. Divjak, Žiga, in Katarina Morano. »Med obupom in upom s pogumom za spremembe, intervju z Žigo Divjakom in Katarino Morano.«Intervjuval Igor Kavcic. Gledališki list PG Kranj, Kons: Novi dobi, 2021, str. 13–15. Dolar, Mladen. »Gledališce ideje.«Rapsodija za gledališce, Alain Badiou, prevedla Katja Zakrajšek, MGL, 2020, str. 109–123. Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Ästhetik des Performativen. Suhrkamp, 2004. —.Estetika performativnega. Prevedel Jaša Drnovšek, Študentska založba, Koda, 2008. —. Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual. Exploring Forms of Political Theatre. Routledge, 2005. Gómez-Peńa, Guillermo. »Navigating the Minefields of Utopia – A conversation with Lisa Wolford.« The Drama Review, letn. 46, št. 2 (T 174), New York, 2002, str. 66–96. Haas, Birgit. Plädoyer für ein dramatisches Drama. Passagen Verlag, 2007. Hammond, Will, in Dan Steward, ur. Verbatim, Verbatim: Contemporary Documentary Theatre. Oberon, 2008. Inkret, Andrej. »Drama in teater med igro in usodo.« Osvoboditev Skopja in druge gledališke igre, Dušan Jovanovic, Mladinska knjiga, 1981, str. 391–412. —.»Igra z jezikom.« Delo, št. 13, 17. jan. 1974, str. 8. Jelinek, Elfriede. »Brecht aus der Mode.« Berliner Tagesspiegel, 10. febr. 1998, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/elfriede/brecht.htm. Dostop 25. mar. 2006. —. In den Alpen. Berlin Verlag, 2002. Jesih, Milan. Grenki sadeži pravice, interpelacija v enem nonšalantnem zamahu. Založba Obzorja, 1978. Jovanovic, Dušan. »Muke z vojno: pogovor z avtorjem Dušanom Jovanovicem.« Uganka Korajže, Gledališki list SNG Drama Ljubljana, T. Toporišic, D. Dominkuš in D. Koloini, december 1994, str. 4–6. Klaic, Dragan. »Utopianism and Terror in Contemporary Drama: The Plays of Dušan Jovanovic.« Terrorism and Modern Drama, uredila Dragan Klaic in John Orr, Edinburgh UP, 1999, str. 123–137. —. »The Crisis of Theatre? Theatre of Crisis?« Theatre in crisis?: performance manifestos for a new century, uredila Maria M. Delgado in Caridad Svich, Manchester UP, 2002. str. 144–160. Kralj, Lado. »Goli otok literature.« History of the literary cultures of East-Central Europe, uredila Marcel Cornis-Pope in John Neubauer, J. Benjamins, 2004–2010, str. 478–483. —. »Slovenia. Artistic profile, Directors, directing and productional styles.« The world encyclopedia of contemporary theatre, uredil Don Rubin, Routledge, 1994, str. 773–775. —. »Sodobna slovenska dramatika: 1945–2000.« Slavisticna revija, letn. 53, št. 2 (apr.–jun.), 2005, str. 101–117. Monfort, Anne. »Aprčs le postdramatique: narration et fiction entre écriture de plateau et théâtre néo-dramatique.« Trajectoires, št. 3, 2009. Na spletu. http://trajectoires.revues.org/392. Pogorevc, Petra, in Tomaž Toporišic, ur. Drama, tekst, pisava 2. MGL, 2021. Knjižnica MGL, 178. Pograjc, Darja. »Intervju: režiser Žiga Divjak.« Radio Slovenija 1, 30. okt. 2018, https://radioprvi.rtvslo.si/2018/10/reziser-ziga-divjak/. Dostop 14. avg. 2020. Poschmann, Gerda. Der nicht mehr dramatische Theatertext: Aktülle Bühnenstücke und ihre dramaturgische Analyse. Niemeyer, 1997. Reiter, Wolfgang. Wiener Theatergespräche. Über den Umgang mit Dramatik und Theater. Falter Verlag, 1993. Szondi, Peter. Teorija sodobne drame. Prevedel Jacek Kozak, MGL, 2000. Knjižnica MGL, 130. Tackels, Bruno. Les Écritures de plateau. État des lieux. Les Solitaires Intempestifs, 2015. Taufer, Veno. Odrom ob rob. DZS, 1977. Toporišic, Tomaž. Ranljivo telo teksta in odra. MGL, 2007. Knjižnica MGL, 145. —.»Strategije (politicne) subverzije v sodobnih uprizoritvenih umetnostih: Pograjc, Zupancic, Hrvatin: trije primeri v Sloveniji.« Maska, letn. 20, št. 3–4 (poletje 2005), str. 64–70. Weiss, Peter. »Notizen zum dokumentarischen Theater.« Theater im 20. Jahrhundert, uredil Manfred Brauneck, Rowohlt, 1989, str. 293–30 UDK 792.02(497.4) UDK 821.163.6.09-2 DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/78-103 The essay focuses on selected examples of the deconstruction of the opposition between representation and presentation, characteristic of post-mimetic art from the neo-avant­garde to the post-millennium. It discusses the authors who have been deconstructing the concept of drama and inventing new forms of redramatisation and post-dramatic intermediality from the 1960s to the present day. Despite persistently creating disrup­tions in the fictional textual cosmos, particular authors – such as Peter Handke in Offend­ing the Audience, the group Pupilija Ferkeverk in Pupilija, Papa Pupilo and the Pupilceks, Dušan Jovanovic in Monument G and Play a Tumour in the Head and Air Pollution, Milan Jesih in Limits and The Bitter Fruits of Justice, Matjaž Zupancic in The Corridor and other plays, Dragan Živadinov and his team in Supremat and other farewell rituals, Oliver Frljic in Damned be the Traitor of His Homeland, Simona Semenic in 1981, and Žiga Divjak and Katarina Morano in various projects – establish a strong process of redramatisation in their theatrical texts and performances. It is as if, alongside the deconstruction of drama, they inject dramatic and theatrical elements into the post-dramatic process of staging and writing. Thus, post-mimetic art coexists with pre-mimetic art, as this “stripping down” of the representativity of drama led to the establishment of fiction. Keywords: contemporary Slovenian drama and theatre, Dušan Jovanovic, Milan Jesih, Matjaž Zupancic, redramatisation, post-mimetic art Tomaž Toporišic, PhD, is a dramaturg and theatre theorist, a full professor of the history and theory of drama and performing arts and vice-dean of the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana (UL AGRFT). His primary research interests are contemporary performing arts, literature and visual culture. He is the author of six books on contemporary performing arts. His latest essays include: “The New Slovene Theatre and Italian Futurism”, “(Re)staging the Rhetoric of Space”, “Deconstructive Readings of the Avant-garde Tradition in Post-Socialist Retro-avant-garde Theatre” and “Linking the histor­ical and retro-avant-gardes by questioning the periphery-center relationship. The case of Trieste, Ljubljana, Zagreb and Belgrade”. He was the artistic director and dramaturg of the Mladinsko Theatre and co-founded the Exodos Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts. Tomaz.Toporisic@agrft.uni-lj.si Deconstructions of the Opposition Between Representation and Presentation from the Neo-avant-garde to the Post-millennium: From Pupilija, Jesih and Jovanovic to Zupancic, Živadinov, Frljic, Semenic and Divjak Tomaž Toporišic Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana I. Introduction: Towards the Text-Rhizome In the paper,1we will consider how the desire to tell stories manifested itself in the pe­riod from the neo-avant-garde to the post-post-dramatic. We will examine what forms of re-dramatisation, re-figuration and re-characterisation of theatrical machines the contemporary performance paradigm is still producing. We will look at how authors are intensively reflecting on themselves, their texts, contexts and reception. In doing so, as authors-rhapsodists, they engage in a direct dialogue with their readers, spec­tators and future interpreters. The authors and author groups we will discuss, who represent different theatre gen­erations, can be considered undisputed carriers of the post-dramatic interplay be­tween media. With their concepts, performances and texts, they prove that Slovenian playwriting and theatre, in the broadest sense of the word, have also ventured to dive into the watersthat have been stirred up by moving away from absolute drama and the dramatic and by the fact that the intertext in various cases, from Dušan Jovanovic and Milan Jesihto Matjaž Zupancic, Oliver Frljic and his author teams to Simona Se­menic, Katarina Morano and Žiga Divjak, and Varja Hrvatin, structures contemporary (no longer) dramatic and theatre writing in a way that is non-hierarchical but at the same time extremely cohesive from an intertextual and intermedial point of view. 1Acknowledgements: The paper was written in the framework of the research programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” (P6-0376), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget. 80 We will examine how absolute drama, in which dialogue is a central construction component, has become merely one possible dramatic discourse in the corpora of performances and concepts and the responses to them. In this way, the traditionally understood physicality of the printed text in the form of a book has been replaced by a rhizomatic structure. Along with this deconstruction of the absolute, textual strate­gies have emerged within the textual in contemporary theatre that no longer include dialogue as a central principle of expression. In the 1970s, authors such as Lado Kralj, Vlado Šav, Dušan Jovanovic and Tomaž Kralj introduced systems of neo-avant-garde procedures into Slovenian performance prac­tices, which were mainly taken from and developed according to Jerzy Grotowski and Richard Schechner. The above authors insisted on a particular processuality and partic­ipants’ interaction. Thus, during the performative turn, the post-mimetic coexisted with the pre-mimetic, and this “stripping down” of the representativity of drama led to the establishment of fiction. Suddenly, we, the spectators, became witnesses to deconstruc­tions of the opposition between representation and presentation. Let us recall Pupilija, Spomenik G (Monument G), Igrajte tumor v glavi in onesnaženje zraka (Play a Tumour in the Head and Air Pollution),Limite (Limits), Offending the Audience and other projects upto Dragan Živadinov’s 1990s farewell rituals at the turn from the 20thto the 21stcentury. The geography of these transformations and phenomena is very varied and rich. The theatre and performance practices of the most influential artists since the perfor­mative turn from the 1960s to the 1970s have to be understood in the context of what Alain Badiou calls the century of riots, especially the second half of the 20thcentury, which was marked by tectonic shifts, with predictions of a move away from what, in his seminal work Of Grammatology, Derrida defined as logocentrism, the dominance of the visual and the ocularcentrism. The favouring of the gaze, which has caused play­writing to lose much of its stability but also to gain many new initiatives, has led not only to a redefinition but also to the end of the crisis of the dramatic author, which An­toine Vitez predicted in his famous statement from the 1970s, [...] o peut faire théâtre de tous” / “We can make theatre out of everything” (qtd. in Autant-Mathieu 13). II. The Aesthetic Revolutions of Dušan Jovanovic Let us begin with Dušan Jovanovic and the group Pupilija Ferkeverk with whom he closely collaborated. Jovanovic began his career as a theatre critic for the student magazine Tribuna and as a playwright. He was undoubtedly influenced by the first wave of experimental theatre in Slovenia (Eksperimentalno gledališce, Oder 57, Gle­dališce Ad hoc) but was nevertheless very critical of its artistic tactics. He wanted something different, more radical. His first (and still unperformed) play had the very suggestive title Predstave ne bo (There Will Be No Performance, 1962), suggesting metatheatricality and political censorship. Furthermore, it took almost a decade to finally perform his second play, Norci (The Madmen,1963), in 1971. In the meantime, Jovanovic concentrated on his theatre work as the director and founder of the newly founded ŠAG – Študentsko aktualno gledališce (Student Current Theatre), which cre­ated the first scandals thanks to its aesthetic mini-revolutions. Despite all the differences, the “critical generation” of the Oder 57 experimental the­atre and the new generation of Dusan Jovanovic shared one key “victory”: they both removed the fourth wall and created a theatre space in which a strong interaction between the actors on stage and the participating audience happened, in the sense of Max Herrmann’s redefinition of theatre, which always emphasised the third para­digm, i.e., the spectator. When theatre began to understand the spectator as the third creator (e.g., Vsevolod Meyerhold), the one who completes in oneself what the stage merely suggests, it became politically dangerous. Undoubtedly, this new perception of the performance as something that is not “a representation or expression of something which already exists elsewhere – like the text of a play – but as something which is brought forth by the actions, percep­tions, responses of both actors and spectators alike” (Fischer-Lichte, Theatre 23) was a significant achievement of the first experimental theatres, particularly Oder 57, which had a profound influence on Dušan Jovanovic and his generation when, in the 1970s, they instigated a new “aesthetic revolution”, namely, the performative turn in Slovenian theatre and performing arts. Dušan Jovanovic (along with Lado Kralj) was probably the most influential and cen­tral figure of the Slovenian neo-avant-garde theatre movement in the period of the late 1960s and 1970s when the theatre was dominated by a generation that broke cultural taboos. They understood politics in terms of the sexual revolution, but at the same time, crossed the strict boundaries of theatre and came close to the experience of happening and performance. This radical return of theatre to theatre in the vein of Antonin Artaud and his theatre of cruelty was a new aesthetic revolution, a political act that provoked a tumultuous response from audiences and critics alike. Jovanovic and his generation (Lado Kralj, Zvone Šedlbauer, Ivo Svetina, Milan Jesih, Iztok Tory ...) deliberately challenged the audience. The generation perceived the au­dience’s response and participation in the theatre as a political act in which the au­dience was to liberate itself together with the actors. It was only during this period of student movements and student theatres that the emphasis really shifted from the field of repertoire and text to the theatre medium itself, to its process of liberation, which (like the theatre of Schechner, Grotowski, Barba and others) opened up to the field of other artistic media and areas. In 1968, Jovanovic and the Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre broke the hegemonic language of drama theatre in order to “touch life” (Artaud 13) in their performance Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki (Pupilija, Papa Pupilo and the Pupilceks). Together with Monu­ment G (1972),this extraordinary performance embodied a radical quest for theatre based on the awareness that the stage is a physical and real space that demands to be filled and allowed to speak the true authentic language of semiotic and phenomenal bodies in space and time. Or, to once again paraphrase Artaud in combination with Erika Fischer-Lichte’s terminology: Jovanovic tried to invent the grammar of this new language that creates a unique “autopoietic feedback loop” (Fischer-Lichte) between performers and audience. The 1970s led to a redefinition of the roles of the text and the audience and perform­ers in experimental theatre with Jovanovic’s playPlay a Tumour in the Head and Air Pollution (1972), performed by the Celje City Theatre and directed by Ljubiša Ristic. According to Lado Kralj: “The subject of this script is the theatre itself in which the theatre’s organisation, creativity and, finally, its very essencecomes into crisis” (“Slo­venia” 772). In other words, Jovanovic’s play focuses on the failure of the basic prem­ises of the avant-garde theatre of the 1960s: the emphasis on process rather than re­sult, the strong interaction between performers and audience in what Fischer-Lichte, in her book The Transformative Power of Performance, calls the autopoietic feedback loop, mystical catharsis, collective ecstasy, expanded consciousness and the replace­ment of textual language with body language and melodic, onomatopoeic sounds. According to Dragan Klaic, Play a Tumour “shows with an anticipatory imagination the development of the avant-garde theatre of the sixties, the cul-de-sac of the uto­pian quest for togetherness, closeness, oneness” (“Utopianism” 127). This self-criti­cism can be interpreted as a radical, meta-literary, meta-theatrical and meta-artistic discourse, a self-criticism in relation to the fundamental premises of a liberated, neo-avant-garde, Artaudian and Schechnerian theatre, which Jovanovic himself ad­vocated and realised in Pupilija and Monument G. Jovanovic had already dived into the waters of engaged drama and theatre, which rejected all traditionalism and even ideology, in the 1960s with his The Madmen. A decade later, he took up this idea and combined it with the (self-)critique and (self-)irony of the performa­tive turn of happenings and neo-avant-garde performance in his work Play a Tumour. He created “a dramatic postscript to the 1960s and to theircharacteristic brand of theatre, written before the era was in fact truly over or before we could notice that it was over and with what kind of an outcome” (Klaic, “Utopianism” 128). In doing so, he underlined the seriousness of the crisis of representation and the dramatist on the one hand and the dynamics of the ups and downs of radical theatrical practices of the second half of the 20th century, which were directly linked to and correlated with these crises, on the other. According to his contemporary and colleague, theorist and art historian Lado Kralj, Jovanovic “writes from an explicitly theatrical perspective” (“Slovenia” 772), “many of his plays oscillate between the grotesque irony of the theatre of the absurd and Brechtian docu-drama” (“Goli otok literature” 253), starting with his blasphemous second play, The Madmen. The history of what was later called the political theatre of the 1980s, however, continued and reached a new peak in 1975 when the two generations joined forces: Dominik Smole, a representative of the critical generation of Oder57, and Dušan Jovanovic, a representa­tive of the performative revolution of Pupilia Ferkeverk. The two came together to create Žrtve mode bum-bum (Victims of the Bang-Bang Fashion), a performance that became a turning point for the Mladinsko Theatre and Slovenian contemporary theatre in general. After Jovanovic’s necessary directorial accents in the Glej Theatre, especially Monument G, and the simultaneous post-dramatic accents in the Pekarna Theatre’s productions (Dane Zajc’s Potohodec (The Pathwalker)directed by Lado Kralj; Svetina’s Gilgamesh; Ristic’s Tako, tako (So, so)), a completely new principle of work was established with the Victims, also within the “repertory” theatre: Jovanovic’s text was used as a script, the performance was constructed in a non-literary way. It was Dominik Smole who gave the initiative. Dušan Jovanovic, Victims of the Bang-Bang Fashion, 1975, the Mladinsko Theatre, photo by Tone Stojko, SMG archive, in the photo: Milena Grm, Milojka Šuklje, Vladimir Jurc, Jože Mraz, Sandi Pavlin Victims of the Bang-Bang Fashion was a proper aesthetic and ethical shock, an aesthetic revolution that transformed politicised art and politicised theatre into an explosive body that built a new form of engaged theatre in the context of self-managed socialism, which still believed that the essential effects of the classical forms of political theatre of Erwin Piscator, Bertolt Brecht and the Russian avant-garde, could be achieved (albeit in a way different from that of the previous generation, namely, Oder 57). Jovanovic’s theatre in the second half of the 1970s, a period that begins precisely with Victims, emerged after the aesthetic revolutions of performance art in the 1960s and 1970s. Already in its very textual conception, which originated as the work of a Bar-thesian scriptor, it combined literature and spectacle, political engagement and theat­rical experiment, a revolution of thought and form. It recorded and staged incursions of the real, the points at which the movement of art as the production of its own truth takes place. Staged as the opening performance of the new season, Victims had the impact of an aesthetic and ideological bomb. Jovanovic’s engaged theatre used and exploited the political and the revolutionary in the best possible meaning. This theatrically compelling spectacle combined the gro­tesque, irony and tragic seriousness with the purest poetry. It used and exploited po­litical and revolutionary ideology, establishing various paratactic relations, which had a cathartic effect on the audience. It deliberately engaged in the play of truth and ap­pearance, fiction and reality, of actors, protagonists, spectators, of everyone and eve­rybody, in the very creative process of work on the performance and in the unrepeat­able acts of reception of each performance. His writing and performance emerged from the emancipated ideological context of the 1960s but in a more sober version, creating a distance from it while retaining the dynamism and desire for change that the student movements brought. They also framed it in the eternal repetition of wars and the omnipresence of the military apparatus in the modern world. It is thus hardly surprising thatnot everyone was enthusiastic about the performance since it was toocontroversial, both aesthetically and ideologically, for the “orthodox” adherents of drama theatre and socialist self-management. However, despite the stir it caused in Slovenian politics, the play was also successful abroad, for example, at the famous Theatre of Nations festival in Nancy, France, receiving great praise from inter­national critics. The performance reached its theatrical and thematic climax when, during a fascist march, amid silent flashes of gunshots and barbed wire, women hold­ing children in their arms were falling while shouting out slogans of liberation; and in the following scene, when women, the people searching for their fallen loved ones, bring not uniforms this time but parts of their own clothes and dress their children, the people’s army, in the partisan folk clothes – which grew into a powerful symbol of the resurrection of the people’s eternal heroes – and when these people speak in the verses of Prešeren’s “Zdravljica” (“A Toast”)in a substantial, non-declamatory way. Both the text and the performance featuring excellent actors were an exceptional the­atre event, a highly professional perfection of the actors’ mental and physical efforts. Following the aesthetic revolutions in the areas of performance and (no longer) dra­matic texts, Jovanovic played a key role in Yugoslav political theatre with his plays Os-voboditev Skopja (The Liberation of Skopje,1978) and Karamazovi (The Karamazovs, 1980), which broke socialist taboos and opened up dramatic procedures to an unusu­al mix of realism and metafiction. In the first piece, all the events of World War II and the family tragedy are depicted through the eyes of a six-year-old boy, which opens up a highly subjective and non-ideological interpretation of political events. The Kara-mazovs, on the other hand, opened up the taboo subject of the Yugoslav communist concentration camp on an Adriatic island – a feature of Tito’s break with Stalin and the Soviet Union in 1948 – where many Soviet-educated communists were murdered under the cover of a strict system of re-education. In order to open up this topic, he enters into a dialogue with Dostoyevsky and his famous novel The Brothers Karamazov, which allows for a dramatic portrayal of the generation gap between a father and his three sons. He further developed his post-Brechtian technique in the plays he wrote during and shortly after the war in formerYugoslavia. In 1993, he wrote a very personal version of Antigone, influenced by the war in Yugoslavia, which was still going on at the time of writing. If he consciously entered into a dialogue with Dostoevsky in order to write about “dark” and paradoxical events in Yugoslavia’s history, he chose the Greek myth in order to distance himself from the actual banality of war, or rather, to show how the mythical structure of Greek tragedy had also become something completely banal and predictable at the end of the 20th century. As Dragan Klaic explains: The hatred was transformed into a blind, almost visceral passion with no evident cause and purpose. In Jovanovic’s Thebes the violence had become so pervasive that it had imposed its own construction of the reality, which was in turn internalised by all those affected. It had become transgenerational and only some intervention from outside the system could break the spell. That should be the role of the deities but in Jovanovic’s play they remain in the background as a source of evil, refusing to assume the role of either arbiter or rescuer. [...] even Antigone’s space for resistance becomes extremely narrowed, almost non-existent (“The Crisis of Theatre” 151). In his second play dedicated to the violence in former Yugoslavia, Jovanovic began a metatheatrical dialogue with Brecht and his play Mother Courage and Her Children. In Uganka Korajže (The Puzzle of Courage, 1994), Jovanovic also consciously confronted Brecht’s system of epic theatre and its specific no longer dramatic procedures regard­ing stage space. He transformed the convention of epic theatre space in an original way based on the play of the landscape, in which the psychological states of the pro­tagonists and their tiny micro-stories are echoed. During the war in Yugoslavia, he also wrote the third part of his Balkan trilogy, Kdo to poje Sizifa (Who’s Singing Sisyphus), using what he described as a dialogue with dra­matic form dealing with archetypal situations. He consciously chose to deconstruct and reconstruct classical ancient and modern plays and myths: Antigone, Sisyphus and Mother Courage. His last major play, Razodetja (Revelation, 2009), is also a genre hybrid of tightly and densely interwoven thoughts, self-quotes from The Karamazovs and some of his other plays, contaminated with today’s jargon of authenticity (in the Adornian sense). Jovanovic’s playswritteninthe21stcentury are the result of his revolt against the world of Neoliberalism, against the telecracy of a globalised world in which writ­ing can no longer produce its own difference. This is why these works often bring to mind the dramatic and theoretical universes of Peter Handke, Heiner Müller or Rich­ard Foreman. Each of his new plays brings a new, alternative attempt to think about theatre and art. Jovanovic was convinced that after Shakespeare, we could no longer speak of any new, specific authorial forms, that there are only two great dramatic forms: Noh theatre and Greek tragedy. He sees the contemporary author as a plough-wright (using the term introduced by his Macedonian colleague Goran Stefanovski): “I don’t write, I build plays” (Jovanovic, “Muke z vojno” 4). III. Milan Jesih: The Untold Subversive on the Trail of New Writ­ing for the Theatre of the New Age Parallel to Jovanovic’s aesthetic revolutions in the field of drama and theatre were the no less radical attempts by Milan Jesih, with whom he collaborated in Pupilija, even though later, their theatre paths led them in different directions. It was Jesih who, while building his early plays, was also building a new theatre. Thus, Jesih’s signifi­cance and role in the deconstruction of playwriting, and even more so his role in the deconstruction of the so-called literary or drama theatre and the realisation of the performative turn at the break from the 1960s to the 1970s,have remained virtually unexplored to this day. This statement may seem paradoxical, but after a short reflec­tion, we will see it is plausible. Jesih’s “no longer dramatic writing” (a term coined by Gerda Poschmann, the German theorist of performance practices, which seems very appropriate here) has remained completely in the background, virtually unused, during the last few decades of the so-called post-dramatic theatre boom, which is un­usual, given its proximity to the post-dramatic practices of the time. We have almost forgotten how his early texts enact the non-dramatic weavings of dialogical flows at different levels. These re-appropriated and deconstructed dialogic forms of dramaproduce a polyphonic discourse of language surfaces, which – like in the case of Heiner Müller, Peter Handke or Elfriede Jelinek – is characterised by a Bakhtinian dialogism. The emerging polylogical form results from quotations that form extreme and sometimes even undecipherable collages. These collages, however – unlike the hermetic German parallels we mentioned above – do not construct an intellectualist labyrinth but a labyrinth of everyday life in all the ridiculousness of its psychopathologies and linguistic forms and automatisms. Like Handke, Jesih peels away meaning from language to underline the present-day forms of linguistic alienation. People who are alienated from their language and speech are also alienated from the world: D: What else would a human being lack? J: Nothing in the world. D: Nothing. J: Nothing. D: Nothing. J: Nothing? D: Nothing, I said. J: What d’you mean: nothing? D: Nothing! Nothing! Nothing! J: You say nothing, sweetheart? D: Leave me alone! (Jesih, Grenki 24) Jesih’s texts undermine the basic absolutes of drama: dialogue, characters and dra­matic structure. At first glance, these blocks of rapidly alternating quasi-dialogues seem to emerge as text-reactors that produce themselves, while the writer or (rather) the Barthesian scriptor merely observes them (Jelinek, In den Alpen 254). There is no plot, no action, no logic in the unfolding of events and dialogues, no side-text, merely an extreme multiplication of persons and a tornado of sets ofwords. The Bitter Fruits of Justice systematically undermines all dramaturgical categories. Andrej Inkret wrote about the play that it “‘nonchalantly’, as it were ‘in one fell swoop’, turns away from everything that we have hitherto imagined under the category of drama; nevertheless (or is it precisely because of this?) they have proved to be theatrically extremely effec­tive [...]” (Inkret, “Igra z jezikom” 8). This theatricality, however, does not manifest itself through plot, action and dialogue but emerges from the specific juxtaposition of words. Veno Tauferdraws attention to the fact that Jesih hypertrophies and multiplies the rules of classical dramatic structure: Instead of unity of space, time and action, we are dealing with 33 different scenes in which 140 speaking figures appear in situations that, in a breakneck rhythm of daring collages and transitions between different spaces and times, between different genders of the speakers, draw out a range of scenes “in the most varied motivic combinations of normative values ranging from beauty to death, to betrayal, to love, to longing, to love of one’s homeland [...]. (Taufer, Odrom ob rob 166) Jesih also plays around with the concept of the dramatis personae, which he disperses into 140 roles, to which he dedicates the one and only stage direction in the play: “The gender and case of the actors are not determined, but it is to be desired that their souls be broad and bright slopes, for the sun is the patron of life and its watchful shepherd” (Jesih, Grenki 6). Milan Jesih: The Bitter Fruits of Justice, directed by Zvone Šedlbauer, EG Glej, 1974, SLOGI Iconotheque, in the photo: Božo Šprajc, Ivo Ban, Marko Simcic, Metoda Zorcic In The Bitter Fruits,Jesih is on the trail of new writing forthe theatre of the new age, combining innovation in form and political engagement in content. He disman­tles and subverts the concept of dramatic representation and constructs an autonomy of language where language isno longer subject to dramaticform. While in his play The Pathwalker,Dane Zajc radically dissected contemporary ethics in a Beckettian manner and, atthe same time, almost completely dismantled the remnants of clas­sical dramatic structure, without undermining the power ofthe language of poetry, in The Bitter Fruits of Justice,Milan Jesih – as Lado Kralj points out – really radically and definitively adopted the absurdist principle of the disintegration of language and reinterpreted it into a total play of language, which, with its non-commitment, already exceeds the horizon of metaphysical nihilism (Kralj, “Sodobna” 107). The characters in his play (similar to those of Jelinek, but much more artistic and musical) also appear to be oversized linguistic machines. They are constantly talking and talking about everything, continuously blurting out realities that a psychologi­cally correct figure could never utter. Jesih’s theatrical texts choose different ways of bypassing established dramatic forms. Thus, it becomes veryproblematic to use clas­sical notions of drama theory, e.g., dramatis personae, dialogue, monologue, primary text and secondary text, to analyse such texts. At the same time, what we are dealing with here is implicit theatricality rather than explicit. Thus (for example, in the case of the drama ofthe absurd, early Handke, Heiner Müller, etc.), we witness a theatre of voices that replaces the dramatis personae: “Language battles against its content, which is being put on like a garment (and not the other way round!), a content that is part of fashion” (Jelinek, “Brecht aus der Mode”). Thus Veno Taufer in a critical note on the premičre of Jesih’s second play, The Bitter Fruits of Justice, to which the poet mischievously (and politically provocatively, since it was during the “lead” 1970s when the system would not allow for any interpel­lations in the sense of multi-party democracy, but at the same time paratactically) attached the genre subtitle “An Interpellation in One Nonchalant Swoop”, draws atten­tion to the fact that in his theatrical piece the author “has made a good and convincing enough claim of the part of modern literature which is discovering that language has a life of its own, that it presupposes its own autonomous reality and expresses itself as its own content” (Taufer, Odrom 166). What we are witnessing here is the emergence of extremely dense language surfaces which, like geysers, spew forth a mass of sound material in which it is no longer clear for which signifieds all these chains of signifiers are intended. Jesih’s textual practice in The Bitter Fruits thus represents a liberation from the model Brecht designated as Aristotelian theatre. In turn, it represents a basis for devising new models of theatre beyond drama, close to what Brecht called the non-Aristotelian Theatre, or Artaud’s theatre of cruelty. The means of liberation here is language. His tactic in The Bitter Fruits as well as, for example,in his Limits (1973), Brucka ali obdobje prilagajanja (The Fresher or the Adjustment Period,1976) or Triko (Leotard,1985), is to play on the triviality of language. Dramatic figures in crisis, whom Jesihthe scriptor labels with post-Beckettian names like Jemavec, Dajavec, Grbavec, Gobavec (Taker, Giver, Hump­back, Leper), move in a breakneck fashion across different space-times in a chain of miniature scenes based on parody and wordplay. In Jesih’s case, the play’s text is thus not created with the intention of embodying mimesis. The pace is fast, the action is mechanised, and representation is constantly undermined by ironic commentary and defamiliarisation. Like in Ionesco’s work, Jesih’s language is worn out, irremediably contaminated with triviality. Jesih thus constructs a no longer dramatic theatre text that dismantles all tradition and metaphysics while at the same time reifying language as a series of signifiers without signifieds. In this, he applies the tactic of pastiche and quotative appropri­ation and, at the same time, an ironic refurbishing of mainly linguistic corpora and modalities from the tradition, e.g., the storytelling of the first half of the 19thcentury, the creation of an artificial palimpsestic antique language mixed up with everyday speech, with pub and street slang, political and philosophical jargon, etc.: LEPER: Give me of your meal, good shepherd, for I am hungry and thirsty! HUNCHBACK: My father, Telefunken of Massachusetts, has given the food I have with me for me alone. And what’s mine willremain mine, remember that, you vagabond stranger. LEPER: And how should I reward you for that? HUNCHBACK: I deserve that my cattle die in a terrible plague, to have my noble name taken away by my father in Massachusetts, to be cursed by my mother in Finland, and to be left alone and outcast, loathed even by the wretched winds of the mountains. TAKER: Give me of your meal, golden-hearted shepherd! HUNCHBACK: I will not. What is mine is mine, and is of no concern to you. What I have brought to the mountain, I will eat. TAKER: And what reward do you get for that? HUNCHBACK: It would be just if my cattle died, if I went blind, and if my pregnant wife down in the valley gave birth to a goat. GIVER: Give me of your little ration, shepherd! HUNCHBACK: Sit down! And I will pour thee wine, which I keep for guests, and some­ times for a feast. The meal is meagre, but tasty: see me, how healthy I am with it! (Jesih, Grenki 28–29) In The Bitter Fruits of Justice, Jesih introduces a special, no longer dramatic tactic of dramaturgy of quick transitions between scenes. The persons, marked with abstract labels, not attached to any dramatic characters, function as a substitute for dramatic characters, passing almost imperceptibly from one speaking position to another. The changes of position are arbitrary and associative, just like the changes of location of the (no longer) dramatic action are arbitrary and associative. By making language the “protagonist” of his drama, Jesih (like his French colleague Valčre Novarina) abolishes any duality between text and performance. It is the word itself that becomes the spec­tacle; it createsthe structure of the text and the performance. Thus, with The Bitter Fruits, (no longer) drama in its Slovenian version reaches its extreme, the point from which only a return to the elements of the dramatic or post-dramatic is possible. IV. Plough-Wright Matjaž Zupancic One of the best descriptions of Matjaž Zupancic’s theatre work could be summed up in the two-word phrase coined by Stefanovski: plough-wright. The theatre director and playwright, who studied theatre directing and dramaturgy in Ljubljana and London, became director of the Glej Experimental Theatre in the 1980s and continued his ca­reer as a playwright, theatre director and professor at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana. As the author of more than 50 theatre productions, he began writing (no longer) dramatic plays in the late 1980s and soon became one of the key contemporary Slovenian playwrights, winning several Slavko Grum Awards for the best new Slovenian drama and becoming the most performed Slovenian playwright in Europe and beyond. He has received numerous awards for his plays which are now close to twenty in number. In his plays, he establishes a dialogue with Lacanian psychoanalysis, revealing games of sliding signifiers and new versions of the desire of the Other, signifying a radical other­ness, an otherness that transcends the illusory otherness of the imaginary. In his early plays, written in the 1990s, he uses and appropriates the nature of various genres, in­cluding the underground culture of thrillers, which is suggested in the very titles of his plays: Izganjalci hudica (The Exorcists, 1991), Slastni mrlic (The Delicious Corpse,1992), Nemir (Restlessness, 1998) or Ubijalci muh (The Fly Killers,2000). MatjažZupancic’s plays take place in in-between spaces, in reception areas and corridors, where people are constantly moving, coming and going in a mysterious chain of events. Zupancic likes to play with different dramatic techniques and styles, from hyperre­alism to mystery and thriller, from the direct depiction of reality to the absurd and the strangely poetic. In his black comedy Bolje tic v roki kot tat na strehi (A Dick in the Hand is Worth Two Thieves in the Bush) (2004), in a style in which Monty Python meets Harold Pinter, the characters act like robots, producing a series of repetitions that end in a strange sense of black comedy, using the vocabulary of psychiatry and neurology. In his play Padec Evrope (The Fall of Europe, 2011), he comments on and reveals the background of contemporary society after the turn of the millennium. In a small local hotel on the outskirts, significantly named Europe, they are having a private party where the local jet set is telling dirty jokes and making business deals. However, when the rather drunken party company begins to break up, a proper global revolt takes place outside, with demonstrations and riots. The police close off all the entrances to the city, all roads are blocked, and cars are burning. In this desperate situation, the mendacity of the local elite is revealed. With his sarcastic black humour, Zupancic reveals the grotesquereality of the modern world and the crisis of ethics in today’s society, be it in Europe or anywhere else. Zupancic distils a particular condensation of metatheatrical commentary and hy­perrealism of the Debordian society of the spectacle in an unusual and radical drama-essayon the contemporary mediatised civilisation of reality shows and sim-ulacra, his most (post-)dramatically or mediatised play, Hodnik (The Corridor,2003). Zupancic deliberately chooses live performance, namely theatre, as a medium to com­ment on and deconstruct a currently highly exposed form of media, namely reality television. Guillermo Gómez-Peńa’s statement could illustrate Zupancic’s starting point: “And each metier, language, genre and/or format demands a different set of strategies and methodologies”(73). Here he uses “pure theatre” as the appropriate medium, deliberately avoiding the intermedial means of today’s theatre and staging a corridor of the ubiquity of reality television images, the veryspace of media violence in the age of humanitarian impotence. This way, he reveals the problem of a subject with fictitious freedom that is present­ed as an illusion of interactivity, openness for collaboration and dialogue, which is reinforced by the electronic media of television. Zupancic stages a reality that he in­terprets as an image of Auslander’s universe of television, which “enabled television to colonize liveness, the one aspect of the theatrical presentation that film could not replicate” (Auslander 13). The playwright is fully aware of the problematic fact that theatre has evolved into an imitation of media discourses and that the taste of today’s public is being shaped by television, which has become the model and telos of theatre. Capital is no longer interested in the economy of the representation of live perfor­mance. Instead, it is intensely focused on the economy of media representation, which presents itself as a representation of reality in the here and now. Matjaž Zupancic also derives from the fact that (as Auslander points out) “what we are seeing in many cases is not so much the incursion of media-derived ‘technics’ and techniques into the context of live performance but, rather, live performance’s absorption of a media derivedepistemology” (37). Despite that, Zupancic opts for a live performance, more specifically theatre, which “in the economy of repetition, live performance islittle more than a vestigial remnant of the previous historical order of representation, a hold-over that can claim little in the way of cultural presence or power” (46). Being conscious of the fact that our concept of proximity and intimacy is rooted in the horizon of television, he uses this concept and the symbolic power of television as a medium thatenjoys a greater cultural presence and prestige than theatre in order to intrigue viewers and to put them in a state of awareness about the television’s manipulativeness and its “electronic noise”, which presents itself as a reality more real than that of the live performance. The question posed by The Corridor, and to a large extent by most of Zupancic’s plays, is, therefore, the key question that Auslander is continually repeating and answering in his excellent book Liveness: Does a performance have its own ontology that is more honest than television re-enactments? The answer to this question is no. Moreover, Zupancic’s play and the performance, which he also directed by himself, raise the cru­cial question of the possibility of subverting reality television in live performance. Thus, while talking about Big Brother, The Corridor uses exclusively theatrical media to open up a picture of the deterritorialised ethics of the postmodern world and its cybernetic models of organising reality, of the real that is electronically produced out of matrices and memory banks, collapsing into a black hole produced by the media. In this way, he shows that (as Debord would say), even in theatre, the spectacle is today “both the result and the project of the present mode of production”, it is “the heart of this real society’s unreality” (6). V. Živadinov and the Farewell Ritual to the NSK Supremat The story of the deconstructions of the opposition between representation and presentation, characteristic of the post-mimetic, can also be detected in Dragan Živadinov’s farewell rituals in his post-post-retro-garde phase. The object of our re­search will be Supremat, subtitled The Farewell Ritual to Neue Slowenische Kunst and NSK (producedby Živadinov in collaboration with the creative team of the costume designer Dunja Zupancic, dramaturg Jana Pavlic and choreographer Marko Mlacnik), which premičred in November 2002 at the Mladinsko Theatre. The performance was part of the complex preparatory procedure of his great utopian project 1:1, which started in 1995. The title obviously refers to Kazimir Malevich’s Suprematism, while the subtitle refers to the Slovenian retro- or trans-avant-gardemovement of the 1980s and 1990s, to which Živadinovbelonged. Supremat was conceived as a new person-alised farewell ritual of the director from both the Russian historical avant-garde and the Slovenian neo-avant-garde. The performance uses the technique of pastiche and recycling of themes and styles in a new context. Inspired by the 1986 play Futurists by the English authorDusty Hughes, Supremat fo­cuses on the first poet to become a victim of post-revolutionary Russia, Nikolai Gumilev, apioneerofthe so-called Acmeist movement. By reintegrating the historical moments from 1921 Saint Petersburg, the performance captures the very moment of the essen­tial conflict between the avant-garde art and the political avant-garde and the very be­ginning of the process of exterminating the former in the development of the latter in the aftermath of the (Soviet) Revolution. The script of the performance, characterised by palimpsest, pastiche and appropriation techniques, can be read as a post-dramat­ic opera aperta, interweaving and combining fragments and paraphrases of Russian poetry of the time (Mayakovsky, Akhmatova, Gumilev, Blok ...) with the memoirs of Nadezhda Mandelstam, transformed by deconstructive interventions. Dragan Živadinov: Supremat, the Mladinsko Theatre, 2002, photo by Miha Fras, in the photo: Romana Šalehar (Ana Andrejevna Akhmatova) and Olga Kacjan (Ana Andrejevna Akhmatova) Supremat is also characterisedby highly personalised and individualised appropri­ations of particular avant-garde and neo-avant-garde works, concepts and thoughts. First and foremost, there is the quotation of the FLUXUS table tennis and its rackets with a hole in the middle. It is an appropriation and a retro-citation of the famous neo-avant-garde “Fluxfest” sports. Specifically, the games played at Douglass College in New Jersey in February 1970. Supremat uses table tennis rackets with holes as the central visual symbol, coupled with the appropriation of Meyerhold’s biomechanical movements performed by the protagonists of the performers, all portraying the rep­resentatives of Russian art in 1921. In Supremat, Živadinov emphasises the use of specific “ingredients”, so characteristic of his art, even more pointedly than in other performances. This time it is the PRIL dishwashing liquid, which is, of course, a reference to Joseph Beuys and his use of honey, felt and fat in the 1960s. The phrase “Art is only a temporary religion!” from the performance recalls and paraphrases Duchamp’s famous statement about art: “I don’t believe in it with all the mystical trimmings. As a drug, it’s probably very useful for many people, very sedative, but as a religion, it’s not even as good as God”. The performance combines decontextualisation and recontextualisation of great, utopian inquieries into art. It fragments, deconstructs and appropriates them for its own use within the global world of post-dramatic and post-theatrical exchange. The de-hierarchised use of signs deliberately applies the concepts of simultaneity, plays with the density of signs, musicalisation, the specificity of visual dramaturgy and the intrusion of the real. In this way, it undermines the core of theatre as imitation (mime­sis) but also the notion of logocentrism, which can be understood as the basic legacy of the concept of drama theatre. VI. Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Representation: Divjak/ Morano – Frljic –Semenic In the end, let us take the liberty of jumping to the present. After the many transfor­mations brought about by the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the performance practices of the new millennium appear to be returning to some of the postulates of experimental theatre and its deconstructions of representation, but also to the desire for different, collaborative and documentary approaches to the material. Take, for example, Žiga Divjak and Katarina Morano. The duo could be considered to belong to the group of authors who use various forms of theatrical tactics in order to achieve desiredeffects on the spectator or reader, including directors such as Oliver Frljic, Nina Rajic Kranjac, Borut Šeparovic, Janez Janša, Simona Semenic, Sebastijan Horvat, Jernej Lorenci ... Divjak and Morano question the structure of today’s society and the role of the individual in it. In their projects, they construct their own ver­sion of verbatimtheatre, drawing, among other things, from the projects by Janez Janša (especially his performance Slovensko narodno gledališce (Slovene National The­atre)) and Oliver Frljic (especially his performance 25.671 about the erased citizens of Slovenia). In this, they apply the procedures of verbatim theatre but also draw on Brecht’s learning plays and Augusto Boal’s principles of the Theatre of the Oppressed. The genres of documentary performance and verbatim theatre were also consistently and radically explored by Oliver Frljic in his performance about the erased entitled 25.671 (Prešeren Theatre Kranj, 2013), based on real-life events and documents, which he inter­twined with fiction and, in a way, even with quasi-documentary material and meta-theat­rical essay forgood measure. In this way, the performance radically questioned the status of the privileged witness that documentary and verbatim theatre sometimes too easily take on. In the Slovenian context, Oliver Frljic is the director who was never content with the basic form of verbatim theatre but has continually combined it with other genres, most notably the theatrical essay. In their performance entitled 6, Divjak and Morano also applied the classic procedures from this type of theatre, transcribing interviews, collaging them and composing the text of the performance. The editing is done by reducing large amounts of collected material and transforming it into the authorial outline of a theatre text. The working template of the text is created through rehearsals and is always subject tochange. Divjak and Morano maintain the roles of actor, director, writerand othercreators in the process but make them fluid, interchangeable and flexible. Creation is both individual and collective at the same time; the writerorBarthesian scriptoris not separated from othercreators. They are not singular but rather part of the process. However, they par­ticipate in it primarily as the editor of the text, not so much as a playwright. Divjak and Morano produce their texts in different ways. The post-dramatic docu­mentary treatment of Cankar’s Hlapec Jernej in njegova pravica (The Bailiff Jernej and His Rights) was the result of research into the true stories of workers devoid of rights. The performance follows contemporary real-life Jernejs as the creators found them in the field through visits to companies, associations, the coastal trade union confed­eration KS 90 and the Workers’ Advice Centre. Through documentary material, we learn about the testimonies of workers at the Port of Koper, cleaners from cleaning services, construction workers, truck and van drivers, nurses and precarious archi­tecture students in architectural firms. This results in deliberately rough material, interpreted and narrated by actors in the rhythm of working behind a conveyor belt. There is nothing spectacular about the editing or the staging tactics; the performance draws the spectators on the principle of less is more. Without noticing, they become witnesses and, at the same time, give testimony to the precariousness. The project 6 was conceived by the dramaturg-director team in collaboration with the actors (Iztok Drabik Jug, Alja Kapun, Katarina Stegnar, Vito Weis and Gregor Zorc) and collaboratively explored the lack of tolerances in real-life events that occurred at the Kranj Student Residence in February 2016. The story was that the headmaster of the hostel decided to take in six unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors in an empty and unused wing ofthe student section of the hostel. The creative team was interested in the conflict between a part of the staff at the boarding school, “who basically support the idea that a fellow person should be helped, that children should be accommo­dated in this hostel as, ultimately, this hostel was built to host minors who are being educated outside their place of [...] birth. And then, because of the pressure of the surroundings, they begin to question somewhat [...] this basic belief that they have to help” (Pograjc). The team collaborated with the investigative journalist Maja Ava Žiberna and the headmaster ofthe hostel Judita Nahtigal and produced documentary material based on research. The research, which lasted about four months, was part of a creative process in which they tried to get in touch with these minors in the field, widening the scope of their inquiry to include student hostels in Nova Gorica and Postojna. During the process, documentary materials began to be combined with fic­tional ones, based on authentic documents but derived from the actors’ imagination and improvisations. The result was a script and a performance in which acting and non-acting are constantly interchanged. Žiga Divjak: 6, the Mladinsko Theatre, 2018, photo Matej Povše, SMG Archive From the above, it should be clear that, in their performance 6,Divjak and Morano do not establish a pure form of verbatim theatre (similarly to Oliver Frljic in his per­formances 25.671 about the erased orOur Violence and Your Violence). It is a case of typical collaborative theatre with certain elements or features of the procedures from the Theatre of the Oppressed. Thus, their theatre structures a particular, no longer dra­matic, matrix, with bold interweavings of documentary and fiction that at times make the latter more convincing than reality and the former more surreal than fiction. In do­ ing so, again, just like Frljic, they use the metatheatrical discourse that they weave into their performance-essays to comment on the social positioning of their performance, the conditions of its production and its possible political effects. At the same time, they consistently embody the basic definition of documentary theatre, as proposed by Peter Weiss in his paper “Notizen zum dokumentarischen Theater”: “Documentary theatre avoids any invention, it uses authentic materials, which are then – in a slightly reworked form, but unchanged in content – shown again on stage” (293–94). To conclude, let us mention Simona Semenic as an example of experimental writing for the theatre at this time. She is interested in radical inversions of the dramatic and the post-dramatic in her plays-scripts. In Semenic’s work, we are exposed to the deconstruction of the opposition between representation and presentation, typical of the post-mimetic. Even though the author persistently creates disruptions in the fictional textual cosmos, the play nevertheless establishes a powerful process of re-dramatisation, creating intense plots and denouements. It is as if, at the same time, as deconstructing the dramatic, the drama and the dramatic are injected into the post-dramatic fabric of her plays. The post-mimetic thus coexists with the pre-mimetic; the “stripping down” of drama leads to the establishment of fiction. In her plays, e.g., tisocdevetstoenainosemdeset (1981), Semenic problematises her own medium and the status ofthe author, the work and the reader or spectator, cre­ating the hypertrophy of the process of creation itself. The thematisation and simul­taneous self-reflexivity and self-irony of the status of the author produce a parallel problematisation of the ontological status of art and, at the same time, of reality itself. She is interested in what lies behind appearances and appearances of appearances. Her deconstruction of the dramatic and the fictional produces a specific post-Brech­tian critique of the real. She reworks the dialogic form in conjunction with a variety of diverse textual strategies: from stage directions to descriptions closer to novels and fiction, narrative, essayistic, theoretical and other techniques that remind the au­dience that what they are reading or watching is no longer a real dialogue. However, in doing so, it produces distinctly dramatic effects, which Birgit Haas would probably call “dramatic drama” (Haas 45). VII. Conclusion: Traces of the Experiments and Tectonic Shifts of the 1970s and 1980s Based on past and contemporary examples, we have drawn a map of the practices of authorial theatre that Badiou In Praise of Theatre calls general oscillations. The spectator has to decide whether to surrender to this void and participate in an end­less process. One is not calledupon to enjoy but rather to think. The examples and tactics we have touched upon show how performance practices in the 20thcentury, alongside otherlive arts and literature, were subjected to the consequences of what Mladen Dolar designates as “a century of gradual and catastrophically increasing me-diatisation, when the media virtually covered and virtualised the very notion of re­ality, clothed it in images and completely veiled it so that the crisis of representation has never been greater” (“Gledališce ideje” 118). Thus, in the 21stcentury, we find ourselves in the midst of a period that Badiou, in a remarkably precise conversation with Nicolas Truong in his book In Praise of Theatre, defines with the syntagm “par­ticularly confused times”, when the feeling of being completely devoid of ideas seems to have prevailed. “This contemporary confusion is that of a profound nihilism, which not only declares that ideas have disappeared, but adds thatone can very well make do with this absence by living in a pure present, which doesn’t at all raise the problem of a reconciliation between immanence and transcendence” (Badiou, In Praise of The­atre 64). And according to Badiou, one of the essential tasks of theatre in this period of confusion is to “show the confusion as confusion” (64). Thus today, we can undoubtedly detect traces of the experiments and tectonic shifts of the 1970s and 1980s. Performance and text are being re-situated and questioned by different types of post-dramatic theatricality. Theatre is moving away from the no­tion of the dramatic while society is becoming increasingly dramatised. In the last ten years or so, two major trends have emerged on European stages, which can be seen as a legacy of post-dramatic theatre. The first type is “stage writing”, as defined by the philosopher and theatre critic Bruno Tackels and embodied,for example, by Simona Semenic, Milena Markovic and Anja Hilling. This stage writing (which is not exclusive­ly ofthe textual type) repositions the text as the central focus of the creative process. The second type, embodied by Frljic, Divjak, Milo Rau and others, uses writings as matrices, which can be either visual, choreographic or transdisciplinary. The function of writing, as well as potential narration, is here either taken over by directing in the broader sense of the word, with all the means used in a performance, or it becomes a devising or collaborative creation that abolishes the hierarchical and guild-like divi­sions between acting, directing, playwriting and other segments of creation. Regardless of the tentative division sketched above, all the forms that emerge from the post-dramatic, very radically question representation, the spectator’s belief in the existence of a parallel world outside our own and the notion of mimesis itself. This questioning of the conventional contract between actor and audience is often trans­lated into the question: who is the actor, me or someone in the audience? We have traced the story of deconstructions of the opposition between representa­tion and presentation, typical of the post-mimetic, from the neo-avant-garde to the post-millennium. The neo-avant-garde of the performative turn with its textual and theatrical acts, both with Jesih and Jovanovic, marked the transition from a textual to a performative culture, characterised precisely by the performative nature ofbodily co-presence. Both Jesih, with his Limits and The Bitter Fruits of Justice, and Jovanovic, with the ritual slaughter of a chicken in the Križanke Hall (similar to Handke’s Offend­ing the Audience) and consistent translating of the textual into the ritual-bodily in Jožica Avbelj’s Memorial G, conclusively enact the turn from theatre as a work of art and a fixed artefact, to the performative bodily co-presence of co-subjects (the actors and the spectators) in the event/happening. Both the performance of Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre and the performative orientation of Jesih’s and Handke’s drama of the absurd can be interpreted within the concept of contemporary performance and theatre after the performative turn in the 1960s: as different iterations of post-dramatic (Lehmann) or energetic (Lyotard) artistic corpo­ra or acts that, according to Fischer-Lichte, “did not seek to be understood but expe­rienced. They cannot be incorporated into the paradigm of hermeneutic aesthetics” (The Transformative Power 158). For this reason – as Peter Božic testified after expe­riencing Monument G – “they abolish the mediator between the actor’s body and his acting, which we call the intellect or ratio” (“Razvoj” 37). The textual, performative and conceptual innovations of the authors under discus­sion can thus be understood as part of the specificity of the last 50 years, marked by restlessness and a Badiou-like inability to decide between the end of the old and the beginning of the new. We have witnessed a series of aesthetic revolutions that shook the configuration of drama and theatre. We might say that the authors we have dis­cussed in this paper are thinking about drama, theatre and society in a (post)dramatic form due to the need to tell new and fresh stories about the post-millennial crisis of ethics and society conditioned by neoliberal and post-socialist society. The geography of their literary and theatrical procedures shows us that Slovenian writing for theatre has ventured deep into the waters marked by both the post-dramatic and the perfor­mative turn. The artists and groups in question move away from the local (Slovenia) towards the global (anywhere in the world), from the dramatic to the post-dramatic, from the realistic to the absurd, from the physical to the metaphysical, from the the­atrical to the metatheatrical, in order to capture the remnants of the fractured and fragmented meanings produced by sliding signifiers that only occasionally and tem­porarily encounter their signified. Literature Artaud, Antonin. Gledališce in njegov dvojnik.MGL, Knjižnica MGL, 1994. Auslander, Philip. Liveness. Performance in a Mediatized Culture. Second Edition. Rout-ledge, 2008. Autant-Mathieu, Marie-Christine. “Auteurs, écritures dramatiques.” Écrire pour le théâtre, Les enjeux de l’écriture dramatique, CNRS, 1995, pp. 13–28. Badiou, Alain. Eloge du théâtre.(Avec Nicolas Truong). Flammarion, 2013. —.In Praise of Theatre. (With Nicolas Truong). Transl. by Andrew Bielski. Polity Press, 20I5. Božic, Peter. “Razvoj gledališke literature in gledaliških sredstev v slovenskem gle­dališcu.” Maske, no. 1, 1986, pp. 37–42. Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Transl. by Ken Knabb. Bureau of Public Se­crets, 2014. Divjak, Žiga, and Katarina Morano. “Med obupom in upom s pogumom za spremembe, intervju z Žigo Divjakom in Katarino Morano.” Interview with Igor Kavcic. Gledališki list PG Kranj, Kons: Novi dobi, 2021, pp. 13–15. Dolar, Mladen. “Gledališce ideje.” Alain Badiou, Rapsodija za gledališce, trans. Katja Zakrajšek, Knjižnica MGL, 2020, pp. 109–123. Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Ästhetik des Performativen. Suhrkamp, 2004. —.The Transformative Power of Performance.Transl. by Saskya Iris Jain. Routledge, 2008. —.Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual. Exploring Forms of Political Theatre. Routledge, 2005. Gómez-Peńa, Guillermo. “Navigating the Minefields of Utopia – A conversation with Lisa Wolford.” The Drama Review, vol. 46, no. 2 (T 174), New York, 2002, pp. 66–96. Haas, Birgit. Plädoyer für ein dramatisches Drama. Passagen Verlag, 2007. Hammond, Will, and Dan Steward, editors. Verbatim, Verbatim: Contemporary Docu­mentary Theatre. Oberon, 2008. Inkret, Andrej. “Drama in teater med igro in usodo.” Dušan Jovanovic, Osvoboditev Skopja in druge gledališke igre, Mladinska knjiga, 1981, pp. 391–412. —.“Igra z jezikom.” Delo, no. 13, 17 Jan. 1974, p. 8. Jelinek, Elfriede. “Brecht aus der Mode.” Berliner Tagesspiegel, 10 Febr. 1998, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/elfriede/brecht.htm. Accessed 25 Mar. 2006. —. In den Alpen. Berlin Verlag, 2002. 102 Jesih, Milan. Grenki sadeži pravice, interpelacija v enem nonšalantnem zamahu. Založ­ba Obzorja, 1978. Jovanovic, Dušan. “Muke z vojno: pogovor z avtorjem Dušanom Jovanovicem.” T. To­porišic, D. Dominkuš and D. Koloini, Uganka Korajže, Gledališki list SNG Drama Ljubl­jana, December 1994, pp. 4–6. Klaic, Dragan. “Utopianism and Terror in Contemporary Drama: The Plays of Dušan Jovanovic.” Terrorism and Modern Drama, edited by John Orrand Dragan Klaic, Ed­inburgh UP, 1999, pp. 123–137. —.“The Crisis of Theatre? Theatre of Crisis?” Theatre in crisis?: performance manifes­tos for a new century, edited by Maria M. Delgado and CaridadSvich, Manchester UP, 2002. pp. 144–160. Kralj, Lado. “Goli otok literature.” History of the literary cultures of East-Central Eu­rope, edited by Marcel Cornis-Pope and John Neubauer, J. Benjamins, 2004–2010, pp. 478–483. —. “Slovenia. Artistic profile, Directors, directing and productional styles.” The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre, edited by Don Rubin, Routledge, 1994, pp. 773–775. —. “Sodobna slovenska dramatika: 1945–2000.” Slavisticna revija, vol. 53, no. 2 (April–June), 2005, pp. 101–117. Monfort, Anne. “Aprčs le postdramatique: narration et fiction entre écriture de plateau et théâtre néo-dramatique.” Trajectoires, no. 3, 2009. http://trajectoires.revues.org/392. Pogorevc, Petra, and Tomaž Toporišic, editors. Drama, tekst, pisava 2. Knjižnica MGL, 2021. Pograjc, Darja. “Intervju: režiser Žiga Divjak.” Radio Slovenija 1, 30 Oct. 2018, https://radioprvi.rtvslo.si/2018/10/reziser-ziga-divjak/. Accessed 14 Aug. 2020. Poschmann, Gerda. Der nicht mehr dramatische Theatertext: Aktülle Bühnenstücke und ihre dramaturgische Analyse. Niemeyer, 1997. Reiter, Wolfgang. Wiener Theatergespräche. Über den Umgang mit Dramatik und The­ater. Falter Verlag, 1993. Szondi, Peter. Teorija sodobne drame.Transl. by Jacek Kozak. Mestno gledališce ljubl­jansko, 2000. Knjižnica MGL, 130. Tackels, Bruno. Les Écrituresde plateau. État des lieux. Les Solitaires Intempestifs, 2015. Taufer, Veno. Odrom ob rob. DZS, 1977. Toporišic, Tomaž. Ranljivo telo teksta in odra. Knjižnica MGL, 2007. —.“Strategije (politicne) subverzije v sodobnih uprizoritvenih umetnostih: Pograjc, Zupancic, Hrvatin: trije primeri v Sloveniji.” Maska, vol. 20, no. 3–4 (summer 2005), pp. 64–70. Weiss, Peter. “Notizen zum dokumentarischen Theater.” Theater im 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Manfred Brauneck, Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1989, pp. 293–300. UDK 821.163.6.09-2 DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/104-122 Sodobna dramatika je do neke mere dedinja neoavantgarde s konca šestdesetih in iz sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja. Takrat se je namrec zgodil t. i. performativni obrat, ki je gledališce potegnil stran od reprezentacije k prezentaciji. Razvoj, ki je sledil, oznacujemo z razlicnimi oznakami, npr. postdramsko gledališce, estetika performativnega, v primeru dramskih besedil pa kot ne vec dramski gledališki tekst, gledališce »u fris« ipd. Tudi na Slovenskem se je konec šestdesetih let zgodil odlocilen zasuk od besedila k dogodku. Takrat so nastali prvi hepeningi in performansi, ob Pupiliji pa je Veno Taufer razglasil kar smrt literarnega gledališca. Na prvi pogled se torej zdi, da sodobna dramska pisava ponavlja prejšnje vzorce. Da morda radikalneje ubeseduje jezikovne in estetske igre, dekonstruira dramsko formo in torej radikalizira nastavke neoavantgard, a vendar v zadnjih dveh desetletjih govorimo o vracanju k dramskemu, o postpostdramskem, o (spet) dramskih tekstih itd. S primerjalno analizo dveh radikalnejših besedil iz zbornika Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (Sinopsis za happening Hlapci Dušana Jovanovica in Generator, ki iz dolocenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov Rastka Mocnika) ter dveh besedil Simone Semenic in Varje Hrvatin (mi, evropski mrlici in Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov) razprava pokaže, da gre pri neoavantgardah za vprašanje gledališke uprizoritve in forme dramskega teksta, pri sodobni dramatiki pa bolj za nacin iskanja avtenticnosti in dramaticnih ucinkov. Kljucne besede:Dušan Jovanovic, Rastko Mocnik, Simona Semenic, Varja Hrvatin, slovensko eksperimentalno gledališce, slovenska dramatika Gašper Troha je doktoriral na Oddelku za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Ukvarja se s sociologijo literature, še posebej z vprašanji sodobne svetovne in slovenske dramatike ter gledališca. Deluje kot raziskovalec na AGRFT Univerze v Ljubljani. Objavljal je v številnih domacih in tujih znanstvenih revijah. Med drugim je soavtor knjig Zgodovina in njeni literarni žanri (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), Literarni modernizem v »svincenih« letih (Študentska založba, 2008) in Lojze Kovacic: življenje in delo (Študentska založba, 2009). Leta 2015 je izdal monografijo Ujetniki svobode o razvoju slovenske dramatike in gledališca pod socializmom. gasper.troha@guest.arnes.si Sodobna dramatika in vprašanje dedišcine neoavantgarde šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let Gašper Troha Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza v Ljubljani Uvod1 Sodobna dramatika je do neke mere dedinja neoavantgarde s konca šestdesetih in iz sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja. Takrat se je namrec zgodil t. i. performativni obrat, ki je gledališce potegnil stran od reprezentacije k prezentaciji. Kot ugotavlja Barbara Orel ob razvoju performansa, je »pot v performans tudi v slovenskem prostoru šla prek estetike performativnega, pri kateri so imele vodilno vlogo ritualne oblike gledališca ter ritualom sorodne umetniške in družbene prakse, ki vse udeležence povezujejo v skupnost.« (»K zgodovini« 278) Razvoj, ki je sledil, oznacujemo z razlicnimi oznakami, npr. postdramsko gledališce (Lehmann), estetika performativnega (Fischer-Lichte), v primeru dramskih besedil pa kot ne vec dramski gledališki tekst (Poschmann), gledališce »u fris« (Sierz) ipd. Tudi na Slovenskem je konec šestdesetih let pomenil odlocilen zasuk od besedila k dogodku. Takrat so nastali prvi hepeningi in performansi, ob Pupiliji pa je Veno Taufer razglasil kar smrt literarnega gledališca. Na prvi pogled se morda zdi, da sodobna dramska pisava ponavlja prejšnje vzorce. Da morda radikalneje ubeseduje jezikovne in estetske igre, dekonstruira dramsko formo in torej radikalizira nastavke neoavantgard. Pa vendar v zadnjih dveh desetletjih govorimo o vracanju k dramskemu (Toporišic, »Dramska«), o postpostdramskem (Angel-Perez), o neodramskem gledališcu (Monfort), (spet) dramskih tekstih (Haas) itd. Vprašanji, ki se nam postavljata, torej sta: Kje so razlike med eksperimentalnimi besedili druge polovice prejšnjega stoletja in sodobno slovensko dramatiko? Kaj so njihove skupne znacilnosti? 1 Zahvala: clanek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave (P6–0376), ki ga sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proracuna. Osvetlili ju bomo z analizo dveh radikalnejših besedil iz zbornika Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (Sinopsis za happening Hlapci Dušana Jovanovica in Generator, ki iz dolocenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov Rastka Mocnika) ter njuno primerjavo z besedili Simone Semenic in Varje Hrvatin (s tekstoma mi, evropski mrlici Simone Semenic in Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov Varje Hrvatin). Še preden pa se lahko lotimo analize izbranih besedil, moramo premisliti osnovne teoretske pojme, s katerimi teatrologija in literarna zgodovina opisujeta razvoj dramske pisave zadnjih 60 let. Performativni obrat in njegove posledice v gledališcu in dramski pisavi Kot smože opozorili na samem zacetku, je ob koncu šestdesetih let v Evropi, ZDA pa tudi v takratni Jugoslaviji prišlo do radikalnih sprememb v umetnosti in njenem odnosu do družbe. Te je kasneje Erika Fischer-Lichte v svoji temeljni knjigi Estetika performativnega poimenovala z naslovnim terminom. Utemeljila ga je ob performansu jugoslovanske umetnice Marine Abramovic Lips of Thomas, ki ga je ta izvedla 24. 10. 1975 v galeriji Krinzinger v Innsbrucku. Poanto spremembe avtorica opiše na naslednji nacin: Takšen performans se izmika prijemom tradicionalnih estetskih teorij. Trmasto se upira hermenevticni estetiki, ki meri na to, da bi umetniško delo razumela. Tu namrec ne gre toliko za razumevanje dejanj, ki jih je izvedla umetnica, kot za izkustva, do katerih je pri tem prišla sama, pa tudi za tista, ki jih je izzvala v gledalcih; na kratko: gre za transformacijo udeležencev performansa. (19) Da bi takšne dogodke lahko opisali in jim pripisali dolocene pomene, je potreben drugacen pristop, ki ga Fischer-Lichte imenuje estetika performativnega, saj tradicionalne estetske teorije umetnosti niso zmožne misliti umetniškega dela po performativnem obratu. »Kljucnega momenta obrata, spremembe od dela in z njim vzpostavljenih relacij do dogodka – namrec subjekt proti objektu ter materialni status proti znakovnemu – niso zmožne doumeti« (31). Te pojmovne dvojice se namrec prekrivajo in s tem proizvajajo ucinke liminalnosti, praga, ki udeležence transformira oz. ima za posledico emergenco (nakljucno pojavljanje) ucinkov oz. pomenov. Drug avtor, ki je pomembno konceptualiziral razvoj gledališca in gledaliških besedil po performativnem obratu, je Hans-Thies Lehmann s svojo knjigo Postdramsko gledališce. Tudi Lehmann izhaja iz spoznanja, da je gledališce v prvi vrsti stvar skupnosti. »Gledališce pomeni: cas, ki ga skupaj preživijo in skupaj porabijo igralci in gledalci v prostoru [...]. Gledališka predstava na podlagi vedenja na odru in v prostoru za gledalce proizvede skupni tekst, tudi ce ni izrecena nobena beseda« (20). Poudarjena je torej najprej zmožnost gledališca, da oblikuje skupnost, nato pa je problematizirana pozicija besedila, ki je bilo tradicionalno izvor in merilo uspešnosti gledališke uprizoritve ter element, ki je gledališkim znakom garantiral sintezo. V postdramskem gledališcu seta hierarhija zamaje, elementi uprizoritve postanejo enakovredni, poudarjeni pa sta njihovi simultanost in vecpomenskost. Kot zapiše Lehmann že v uvodu svoje knjige: Naslov »postdramsko gledališce« s tem, da namiguje na literarno zvrst drame, signalizira povezanost in izmenjavo, ki med gledališcem in besedilom obstaja še naprej, cetudi je tu v središcu diskurz gledališca, zaradi cesar upošteva besedilo le kot element, plast in »material« odrske stvaritve, ne kot njenega vladarja.(21) Postdramsko gledališce posledicno proizvaja drugacna dramska besedila, ki jih Gerda Poschmann imenuje ne vec dramski gledališki teksti, »v katerih jezik ni govorica likov – kolikor liki, ki jih je mogoce definirati, sploh še obstajajo – pac pa se pojavlja kot avtonomna teatralika« (21). Ne moremo vec govoriti o elementih tradicionalne teorije drame, kakršni so dramska oseba, dramsko dejanje, ustvarjanje iluzije ... (prim. Kralj), ampak govorimo o jeziku, ki se osamosvaja, o govornih ploskvah, kakor jih imenuje Elfriede Jelinek, ki ustvarjajo napetost in odsevajo sodobni svet. Za nas je zanimiv še Lehmannov pogled na neoavantgardo, ki jo razume kot tretjo etapo razvoja postdramskega gledališca, saj v to obdobje spadajo tudi besedila, ki so objavljena v Generatorju. Kot neoavantgardo sicerrazume predvsem dramo absurda in lirsko dramo, a se zaveda, da v »60. letih nastane, v gibanju 68 pa doseže vrh nov duh eksperimentiranja v vseh umetnostih« (66). Pri tem omenja tudi hepeninge in performans ter posebej omenja, da je »Richard Schechner uprizoril Dioniza 69 (Dionysius 69), pri katerem so bili gledalci povabljeni, da stopijo v telesni stik z igralci« (67). To pa nas že pelje v polje postdramskega. Za Lehmanna je namrec dolocujoca lastnost postdramskega prav položaj dramskega besedila. Ko skuša najti razlike med epskim gledališcem in gledališcem absurda na eni in postdramskim na drugi strani, zapiše: Vendar je storjen korak proti postdramskemu gledališcu šele, ko so gledališka sredstva onstran jezika enakopravna z besedilom in jih je mogoce sistematicno misliti tudi brez njega. Zaradi tega ne bi govorili o »nadaljevanju« absurdnega in epskega gledališca v novem gledališcu, temvec bi oznacili prelom, da se tako epsko kot tudi absurdno gledališce z razlicnimi sredstvi držita predstavljanja fiktivnega in fingiranega besedilnega kozmosa kot dominante, postdramsko gledališce pa nic vec. (69) Ker je dramsko besedilo znotraj uprizoritve detronizirano, se zamaje tudi pomen celote. Ta nima vec koherence in je težko dolocljiv. Postane fluiden in odvisen od interpretacije posameznika. Z Lehmannovimi besedami: »Gledališce nic vec ne stremi po celovitosti estetske gledališke zgradbe iz besede, pomena, zvoka, geste, temvec dobiva znacaj fragmenta in parcialnosti« (70). Prav to pa so, kot bomo videli v nadaljevanju, tudi poglavitne znacilnosti obravnavanih dramskih tekstov. V njih izginjajo elementi drame, besedilo postaja razpoložljivo in ureja tudi ostale elemente gledališke uprizoritve. Pomen se izgublja oz. ostaja skrajno odprt, kar pelje v fragmentarnost in poljubnost interpretacije. Opisani razvoj gledališke uprizoritve in umetnosti na sploh, ki je izšel iz duha študentskih nemirov leta 1968, se je v nekdanji Jugoslaviji ujel s težnjami po popolni svobodi ustvarjanja in po iskanju novega nacina življenja. Kot ugotavlja Barbara Orel, je tageneracija sledila »imperativu kreativnega življenja, svojo radikalno držo pa je vzdrževala v svobodomiselnem levicarskem duhu, ki se upira vsakršnim oblikam politicnega, družbenega, gospodarskega in kulturnega despotizma« (»K zgodovini« 278, 279). Ta zahteva po svobodi pa je seveda peljala stran od ustaljenih nacinov uprizarjanja, od hierarhicnih razmerij znotraj uprizoritve in k oblikovanju skupnosti. Nikakor pa tu ni šlo za slovenski fenomen, ampak za širše jugoslovanski. Tako Branislav Jakovljevic v svoji natancni raziskavi razmerij med razvojem performansa in jugoslovanskega socializma prav tako zazna spontani nastanek študentskega gibanja leta 1968, ki pa je bilo kmalu nevtralizirano. Samoupravljanje se je namrec ponujalo kot družbena oblika, ki dopušca skrajno svobodo posameznika, torej nekakšno izpolnitev študentskih zahtev, ki pa seveda nikoli ni bila neproblematicna. Tako Jakovljevic analizira performans Raše Todosijevica Odlocitev kot umetnost, ki ga je prvic izvedel avgusta 1973 v Galeriji Richarda Demarca v Edinburgu. Le nekaj mesecev kasneje ga je izvedel vŠtudentskem kulturnem centru v Beogradu na razstavi Informacije II, kjer je performans dobil povsem drugacne konotacije. Performans je umetnik izvedel s svojo partnerko Marinelo Koželj, ki je negibno sedela na stolu na odru. Raša je najprej pobarval štiri fikuse z belo barvo. Nato je svoje telo prekril s soljo in vzel iz akvarija živega krapa ter ga položil na tla. Potem je sam zacel goltati velike kolicine vode, krap pa se je premetaval po tleh in umiral. Umetnik golta vodo in bruha, doklerriba ne pogine. Performer si pobarva eno uho v belo in se obrne proti obcinstvu. Vrokah drži baterijsko svetilko, dokler se baterija ne izprazni ali dokler ne more vec zdržati v tem položaju (prim. 169). Ceprav je britanska monarhija dalec od absolutizma 18. stoletja, njeno ideološko, politicno in teološko ozadje v prvo izvedbo Todosijevicevega performansa Odlocitev kot umetnost vnese noto plemenite in poudarjeno protidemokraticne umetnosti odlocanja. Ko ga vnovic izvede v jugoslovanski porevolucionarni družbi, isti performans postavi v ospredje popolnoma nov niz vprašanj. »[C]e je bila prva v celoti integrirana v mrežo umetnostnih ustanov, je bil drugi izraz in nadaljevanje duha komune iz beograjskega junija '68« (172). Kar je v Veliki Britaniji delovalo kot komentar kapitalisticnih družbenih razmerij v monarhiji, je bilo v Jugoslaviji razumljeno kot oblastni obracun s študenti po letu 1968. Umetniki so torej s svojim umetniškim iskanjem postavljali tudi komentar svobode izražanja in pravice do posameznikove izbire življenjskega sloga, s cimer so posredno izražali družbeni komentar. Na prvi pogled eksplicitnejši je performans Marine Abramovic: »Ko je 20. aprila 1974 Marina Abramovic po tistem, ko si je najprej porezala nohte na rokah in nogah ter si odrezala del las, nato pa vse to vrgla v ogenj, zgodaj zvecer stopila v goreco peterokrako zvezdo, je stopila v presecišce umetnosti in politike, konceptualizma in politike, kar je bilo za Jugoslavijo po letu 1968 nekaj edinstvenega« (Jakovljevic 206). Marina Abramovic je veliko eksplicitnejše pokazala na zvezo med oblastjo in umetnostjo, kar je kasneje še ponovila (npr. uporaba peterokrake zvezde v Lips of Thomas). Vendar pa tega dejanja ne moremo brati kot simbol oblastnega nasilja ali izgorevajocih revolucionarnih idealov. »Položaj v Jugoslaviji je bil veliko bolj zapleten, zato bi bilo znatno primernejše, ce bi pet glavnih tock te plamenece strukture razlagali kot konstelacijo vzajemno nasprotujocih si sil, ki so v tistem casu delovale v Jugoslaviji« (Jakovljevic 208). Podobno ugotavlja GašperTroha ob raziskavi slovenske dramatike in gledališca med letoma 1945 in 1990, ko prikaže obcutljivo ravnovesje med vecinoma nasprotujocimi si težnjami umetnikov, oblasti in publike, ki so omogocile razcvet slovenske dramske pisave in gledališca po letu 1960 (prim. Ujetniki). Razprava o odnosih med umetnostjo in oblastjo v socializmu pa seveda presega naš pricujoci namen, zato na tem mestu le povzemimo spoznanje, da je umetnost z estetskimi prelomi in iskanji v nekdanji Jugoslaviji dobila tudi politicni ucinek. Sodobna dramska pisava med postdramskim in dramskim Prav zaradi zgoraj omenjene pozicije alternativne kulture, ki je z margine prišla v center v osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, se je po letu 1990 gledališce na splošno, eksperimentalna umetnost pa še posebej, znašlo pred izzivom, ki ga lucidno formulira Barbara Orel: »Kako ohraniti in vzdrževati identiteto alternativnega, ce ne nagovarja vec s strukturnega mesta marginalnega, saj je razlika med centrom in margino naceloma razveljavljena?« (»K zgodovini« 320). Odgovor na to vprašanje je bilo iskanje novih konceptualnih in estetskih izhodišc, ki bi pomenila alternativo v novih kulturnopoliticnih razmerah samostojne države. Ta alternativa se je vzpostavila po letu 2000 v radikalizaciji postdramskega in kasneje v njegovem soobstoju z vracanjem k dramski formi. Ker smo postdramsko gledališce in ne vec dramski gledališki tekst že opisali, si poglejmo, kakšne so najnovejše tendence v dramski pisavi, ki se pri posameznih avtorjih mešajo s postdramskimi ali bolj tradicionalno dramskimi elementi. Birgit Haas ob sodobni nemški dramatiki ugotavlja, da je kljub dolgemu postdramskemu obdobju spet zacela uporabljati nekatere dramske elemente. Kot zapiše ob dramatiki Dee Loher: Kljub uporabi potujitvenega efekta se ne prepusti niti postmodernisticni dekonstrukciji subjekta niti koncu pripovedi. Prav nasprotno, Loher gradi na konceptu revolucionarne marksisticne estetike Walterja Benjamina, s katero je slednji skušal ohraniti cloveškost v umetnosti, element cloveškosti, ki bi lahko kljuboval tehnicnim inovacijam njegovega casa. (Haas 74) Pri tem pa ne gre za vracanje k realizmu, ampak za skrajno fragmentarne tekste, ki nosijo pecat postdramskega, saj avtorica namenoma gradi obcutek negotovosti kot posledico mešanice zasebnih in javnih politicnih diskurzov. [...] Njeno delo je kreativno in uspešno obujanje brechtovskega gledališca v kontekstu postmoderne dobe, dobe, v kateri so ljudje ponovno zavzeli gledališki prostor. [...] Gledališce Dee Loher je gledališce opravnomocenja, politicno gledališce, ki gledalca ne pusti povsem zmedenega pred podobo družbe po koncu zgodovine. (Haas 85) Podobna spoznanja srecamo pri Tomažu Toporišicu, ki analizira dramsko pisanje po postdramskem. Pri tem ugotavlja, da avtorice Anja Hilling, Milena Markovic in Simona Semenic na razlicne nacine presegajo ne vec dramsko gledališko pisavo. Tako detektira nezmožnost komunikacije in razstavljanje telesa in glasu ob Anji Hilling, dekonstrukcijo in rekonstrukcijo reprezentacije realnosti ob dramah Simone Semenic in kontaminacijo z lirskim in epskim ob delih Milene Markovic. Poglejmo si le njegov opis strukture dramatike Simone Semenic, ki nas bo v nadaljevanju posebej zanimala: Dialoško obliko sicer vztrajno predeluje v družbi z raznorodnimi besedilnimi strategijami: od odrskih smernic do opisov, ki so bližje romanu in prozi, pripovednih, esejisticnih, teoreticnih in drugihtehnik, ki obcinstvo opominjajo, da to, kar bere ali gleda, ni vec realen dialog. Toda pri tem proizvede izrazito dramaticne ucinke, ki bi jih Haasova najbrž imenovala »dramaticno dramske«. (»Dramska« 114) Élisabeth Angel-Perez pride do podobnih ugotovitev. Namrec, da postdramsko gledališce preko dekonstrukcije drame pravzaprav kreira novo fikcijo, s tem pa se vraca k elementom, ki jih je prvotno dekonstruiralo. Kot zapiše sama ob koncu clanka »Nazaj k verbalnemu gledališcu«: Avtor na odru izrisuje novo vrsto lirskega subjekta, ki obstaja nekje vmes med gledališcem in performansom in, ceprav se giblje v polju avtobiografskega [govori o Zanimivo je, da Angel-Perez tu vzpostavlja povezavo med gledališcem in performansom, torej med eksperimentalnimi praksami iz šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let in sodobnim gledališcem, ki prav prek vdora realnosti ponovno ustvarja fiktivni svet drame, s tem pa tudi zunanjo referenco. Z druge strani se problemu približa Anne Monfort v clanku »Po postdramskem: pripoved in fikcija med odrsko pisavo in neodramskim gledališcem«. Odrska pisava ji pomeni celoten sistem znakov uprizoritve, med katerimi je besedilo le eden od njih in ostalim ni predhoden. Uprizoritve tako lahko vsebujejo neko besedilo, a se to ves cas meša z realnostjo odrske uprizoritve. Primer tega so izstopi igralcev iz vlog, pripovedovanje o prikazovanem svetu, elipse, zgošcevanje itd. Vse to pa seveda pomeni vdor pripovedi v gledališce. Na drugi strani gre za neodramsko gledališce, pri katerem obstajajo dramski liki in dejanje, ceprav so skrajno fragmentarni in se ves cas poigravajo z dvojnostjo fikcije in realnosti v gledališcu. Kot zapiše Monfort: »Ta tekst [Zasebno življenje Ulrike Syha, op. a.] je tipicen primer neodramskega gledališca, pri katerem dejanje kljub vsemu ostaja, pa ceprav samo fragmentarno, prek oseb ali likov, ali celo ce se igra z ambivalentnostjo med osebo in igralcem« (151). Kot vidimo, tudi Anne Monfort ugotavlja, da gre pri sodobnem gledališcu za prevpraševanje razmerja med realnostjo in fikcijo, ki ima svoje korenine v performansu in postdramskem gledališcu. Ob tem pa velja poudariti, da obe avtorici odkrivata v teh tekstih in uprizoritvah ponovno vzpostavitev dramskih elementov, kakršni so dramske osebe in dramsko dejanje, ceprav je to vecinoma skrajno fragmentarno. Poleg tega Monfort poudarja še eno poglavitno lastnost, ki smo jo opisali že ob estetiki performativnega. To je vkljucenost gledalca in njegova aktivna vloga. Kot zapiše v zakljucku svojega clanka: »Kot odgovor svetu, ki je vse bolj prežet s fikcijo in dramaticnostjo, sodobne gledališke oblike kakor znova pretresajo vprašanje resnicnega in izmišljenega, obenem pa gledalcu pušcajo prosto pot, da si zamisli dramo, ki je na odru ni« (158). Gledališko besedilo torej ni le material, ki ga poljubno spreminja ustvarjalna ekipa ob uprizoritvi, ampak je tudi v celoti odprta struktura, ki gledalca/bralca vabi k razmišljanju in ustvarjanju lastne interpretacije oz. celo zgodbe. Pomudimo se sedaj še ob dokaj radikalni tezi Blaža Lukana, ki jo je formuliral ob najmlajši generaciji slovenskih dramskih piscev, konkretno ob Varji Hrvatin, ki nas bo v nadaljevanju posebej zanimala. Kot zapiše, tak tekst »ne vsebuje nobene didaskalije, pri cemer izkazuje tudi povsem nerazvidno dialoško linijo, hkrati pa z nobenim namigom v svoji pisavi ne napotuje na uprizoritev« (115). Kljub temu ta besedila proizvajajo mocne dramaticne ucinke, zahtevajo aktivno participacijo bralca oz. gledalca in jih zato nedvomno cutimo kot dramske, morda bolje uprizoritvene ali gledališke tekste. Takšno je tudi besedilo Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov, ki ga bomo analizirali v nadaljevanju in predvideva vec razlicnih branj. Avtorica bralca/ gledalca usmerja, da si glede na svoje poglede in razpoloženje ustvari svojo zgodbo iz predlaganih delov ali pa prebere besedilo od zacetka do konca. A vse skupaj ni le igra v postmodernisticnem smislu, ampak avtorica prek teh prizorov izpoveduje svojo zgodbo iskanja identitete, spopadanja z anoreksijo, strahovi itd. Lukan na koncu clanka vendarle tvega z napotkom, kako brati in uprizoriti to dramatiko: »[O] svobojena kreativna evforija sodobnega dramskega pisca pricakuje tudi adekvaten odziv sodobnega režiserja in njegove ekipe« (118). Iz predstavljenih teoreticnih izhodišc lahko zakljucimo, da je modernizem šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let pomenil predvsem dekonstrukcijo dramske forme, vdor realnosti v gledališko uprizoritev in vkljucevanje gledalcev/bralcev oz. kreiranje skupnosti. Ta dedišcina je mocno opazna tudi v obdobju po postdramskem, ko pa sicer fragmentarna struktura ponovno proizvaja dramaticne ucinke in izkazuje nekatere elemente drame (npr. dramske like in dejanje). V nadaljevanju bomo s pomocjo primerjave konkretnih besedil skušali dognati paralelemed eksperimentalnimi teksti iz obdobja modernizma in sodobno dramatiko na Slovenskem. Sinopsis za happening Hlapci in mi, evropski mrlici Prvi tekst, s katerim se bomo podrobno ukvarjali, je Sinopsis za happening Hlapci, ki je bil objavljen v reviji Problemi Katalog kot del repertoarnega nacrta Male Drame SNG v Ljubljani v sezoni 1968/69. Izvedba je bila nacrtovana v sklopu Slovenska izvirna besedila, kot avtorji pa so bili navedeni Žarko Petan (režiser), Dušan Jovanovic (avtor) in Andrej Inkret (dramaturg). Do izvedbe ni nikoli prišlo, je pa Dušan Jovanovic režiral Cankarjeve Hlapce v Mestnem gledališcu ljubljanskem v sezoni 1980/81 (prim. Generator 356). Gre za hepening, ki poveže gledalce in igralce v skupnost, obenem pa je usmerjen v zbujanje mocnih, vecinoma negativnih custev, kot so strah, nelagodje, tesnoba. Zacne se z vstopom v dogodek, ki spominja na ritual. Naslov tega dela je »Dvigalo groze«, preko katerega gledalci na koncu tudi zapustijo dogodek. V dvigalu med potovanjem ugasne luc in iz »teme se zaslišijo razni kriki, elektronski zvoki, molk, pospešeno dihanje in konkretna glasba. Dvigalo za nekaj casa obtici, medtem zvocniki opozarjajo potnike, naj zadržijo mirno kri in ohranijo živce, ker jih bodo še potrebovali« (Jovanovic 76). V foajeju in kadilnici se mešata na eni strani zabava – razstava slik, kipov, fotografij, prodaja pecenic in hrenovk ter cevljarske usluge in frizer – in ponovno glasna glasba in hrup. Obcutek nelagodja se stopnjuje v dvorani, kamor gledalce zaklenejo, luc ugasnejo, od zunaj pa se slišijo trkanje in pozivi, naj spustijo igralce noter. Sledi Jermanov govor v gostilni iz cetrtega dejanja Cankarjevih Hlapcev, ki pa ga komentirajo socasne projekcije: »mladinske delovne brigade/ ceste/ podjetja/ delovni uspehi«(78). Sledi župnikova replika o tem, da so secasi spremenili in da je ljudstvo izbralo, kakor je izbralo, ki pa jo spremljajo projekcije hipijevskega življenja ter policijske represije. Besedilo je tako ves cas relativizirano, obenem pa pripeljano v neposredno sodobnost. Dogajanje se sprosti s prihodom recitatorja in plesalke, ki ju spremljajo projekcije soncne pokrajine in abstraktnih kompozicij. Temu intermezzusledita prihod Jermana in scena v gostilni iz cetrtega dejanja Cankarjevih Hlapcev. Vendar je v tej sceni vse pretirano in groteskno. »Kostumi so mešanica pižam, spalnih srajc, poklicnih oblacil in golote [...]Možje so v cudnih pozah. [...] Nekdo med prisotnimi sedi na ogromni nocni posodi, ki v prizorišcu dominira z megafonom v rokah in se napenja. To naj bi bila govorniška tribuna« (79). Zbrani imajo nekakšen samoupravljavski sestanek, vmes igrajo družabne igre, Jermani pa se množijo do številke šest. Vsak novi Jerman interpretira iste odlomke iz Cankarjeve drame na drugacen nacin in s tem ustvarja nekakšno polemiko. »Polemika med petimi Jermani se zacne živo in na moc razgibano. Govore se vse replike. Velik hrup, v katerem se polagoma besede vec ne razlocijo« (81). Sledi vnovic bolj sprošceno dogajanje, ko se iz zvocnikov predvajajo reklame in napoved barskega programa, spremljajo pa jih projekcije cirkuških atrakcij. Na koncu igralec skozi megafon govori pesem o Robespierru, iz zvocnikov pa slišimo šest Jermanov, ki pojejo pesem o Hlapcih. Ko zvocniki naznanijo konec hepeninga, ponovno sledi prehod skozi dvigalo groze. Jovanovicev hepening je emblematicen primer gledališkega dogodka po performativnem obratu. Temelji na samonanašalni feedback zanki med izvajalci in udeleženci, vzbuja pri gledalcih mocna custva, ki so vecinoma neprijetna, ob tem pa ustvarja obcutek skupnosti že z ritualnim vstopom in izstopom, celo s fizicno ujetostjo v dvorani (zaklenjena vrata), sestankom, na katerem so obravnavani »vsi problemi, ki zadevajo prisotne v gostilni in vse druge obcane in državljanke« (79). Pomen je ves cas relativiziran – tako Jermanove in Župnikove replike spremljajo nasprotujoce si projekcije – pogosto se govora sploh ne sliši ipd. Pomen besed je tako izvotljen in interpretacija je prepušcena vsakemu gledalcu, pri cemer le-ta nima obcutka, da se njegova sklada z doživljanjem in interpretacijo ostalih, še manj pa mu je jasno, kaj mu skuša povedati ustvarjalna ekipa. Simona Semenic je besedilo mi, evropski mrlici napisala leta 2015, leta 2016 je bilo uprizorjeno v Slovenskem mladinskem gledališcu (režija Sebastijan Horvat, premiera 5. 6. 2016). Gre za besedilo z mocno prepoznavnimi postdramskimi znacilnostmi – dogajanje je skrajno fragmentarno, besedilo pogosto ni izpisano in je prepušceno uprizoritveni ekipi, avtorica ves cas pripoveduje s stališca gledalca/bralca, dramske osebe so bolj funkcije v celoti kot psihološko izdelani liki. Kljub temu je celota skrajno napeta in dramaticna ter politicno angažirana. Na eni strani so konferansje, ki je nekakšen politicni agitator in nam ves cas dopoveduje, da smo v dreku in da moramo nekaj ukreniti. Njegovo, javno, pozicijo dopolnjujejo vodovodarji, ki skušajo rešiti realno iztekanje dreka, v katerem se duši gledališka dvorana, Jolanda, ki kot nekakšen ovaduh beleži dogajanje na odru, in Milena, ki se lepa sprehaja sem in tja ter nas skuša ocarati. Na drugi strani imamo intimne zgodbe, ki služijo kot kontrast družbenemu stanju in kot relativizacija javnega delovanja. Vecinoma so staticne. Takšna je Lojzka (Alojzija Bizjak), ki je prva na odru in ves cas le caka. Na koncu se izkaže, da caka na Smrt. Podobno pasivna je partizanka Milica, ki je v hospicu in ne more vec govoriti, nam pa njeno tragicno zgodbo družinskega nasilja pripoveduje avtorica. Sledi par »jakob in andreja / ali / jakob in silvo / ali / nina in andreja / ali / silvo in nina« (369, 370), ki kot podoba zaljubljencev pocasi hodi proti rampi in se drži za roke. Nasprotje tema predstavljata »jožica, 88 let, in milan, 91 let«. Ravno tako ljubimca, ki pa sta podoba mesenosti in užitka. »mi gledamo in se ne moremo prav odlociti, ali nam / je to prijetno / lepo je, ce se dva poljubljata / ampak gledati jožico, 88 let, in milana, 91 let, kako / se žvalita, v nas prebuja mešana obcutja« (371). Celotno dogajanje se stopnjuje proti koncu, ko dvorano ogrožajo ogromne kolicine dreka, ki mezi iz kanalizacije. Skupina vodovodarjev ga skuša zaustaviti, a brez uspeha. Kriv je kurba židovska škrta, ki ni hotel odobriti popravila, tako da so sedaj igralci in gledalci ne le v metaforicnem dreku, o katerem govori konferansje na zacetku, ampak tudi v dejanskem dreku. Konec se iztecev dvojno poanto. »politika je kurva iz kažina, bi cisto na koncu rekla / partizanka milica [...] ampakpartizanka milica nikoli vec / nikoli vec ne bo prišla do besede« in »sonce, vetrc, morje / svoboda« (429). Politika je torej nered in kurba, temu nasprotna pa je podoba narave, ki morda pomeni svobodo. Simona Semenic radikalizira nastavke, ki smo jih srecali že pri Jovanovicu. Besedilo je popolnoma naravnano na sprejemnika in na njegovo izkustvo. Besedilo pripoveduje pripovedovalka, ki jo bralec enaci z avtorico in je obenem ena od bralk/gledalk: »cetrta replika je res dolga / mi se že presedamo na stolih / ker nam preseda / jebemumater, kako nam preseda ta agitka / raje pogledujemo proti mileni / milena je res lepa / res lepa« (367). Hrup ni vec glasna glasba in razlicni posneti zvoki, ampak je realiziran na ravni teksta kot hitro menjavanje diskurzov, ki mu mora bralec dolociti tocke izjavljanja oz. dramske osebe. to je res, je res, da smo v dreku, ampak vsaj plavamo / tako moraš na to gledat / vsaj plavamo zadostikrat povedal, da na ta nacin stvari ne peljejo / nikamor katere stvari stvari / stvari pac /družba / družbena ureditev / državna ureditev / ureditev vrtov / vrtovi / nisem še / nisem še za vstop v združene države amerike ne rabim vizuma / rabim esta obrazec, karkoli naj bi že to bilo onkraj cesa, jebemumater? milena odide (374, 375) Zgornji citat je le odlomek, ki naj ponazori strukturiranost celotnega besedila. Na prvi pogled gre morda za nizanje razlicnih govorov, ki med seboj niso povezani po kavzalni logiki, ampak po absurdnem nakljucju, vendar ta zmes replik, didaskalij in refleksij dogajanja vendarle proizvede obcutek dramskih oseb, o katerih smo že govorili. Skratka, ta kakofonija glasov se zvede na nekaj prepoznavnih nosilcev diskurza, ki se umešcajo v vecjo, konfliktno strukturo, v kateri dogajanje poteka simultano. Slednje bega sprejemnikovo recepcijo, saj mora posameznemu dogajanju pripisati dolocen pomen v celoti. Še vec, samo besedilo se zaveda, da je le eden od elementov uprizoritve in da ga bo ustvarjalna ekipa temeljito predelala, dopisala, brisala ... Ves cas ostaja odprto in razpoložljivo. Tako npr. replike konferansjeja, ki je osrednji lik, saj ima najvec prostora na odru, vecinoma sploh niso izpisane. režijska domislica in potem je šele zacel prva replika premolk, v katerem se zacne vmes, vmes med prvo in zadnjo repliko druga replika druga replika je izraz naklonjenosti / drža pozdravila / nekaj vsebinsko zelo pomembnega pravzaprav. ampak v civilizirani družbi v komunikaciji med odraslimi ljudmi bistvenega pomena / za vzdrževanje nivoja kultiviranosti / formalna rec, nepogrešljiva v prenosu zahtev in želja/ izraz naklonjenosti / drža pozdravila (361) Sam konferansje je lahko kdorkoli: »morda konferansje / alimobilizator / moški lik, ki ga lahko igra tudi ženska [...] morda je bolje, da ga igra ženska / materinska figura / mehka, zaobljena, topla / z mirom v glasu / mirom / in strastjo« (363). Govorjene replike na odru niso vec kljucnega pomena. Replike partizanke Milice, ki so pravzaprav najbolj pretresljiva zgodba o nasilju v družini in nasilju nad ženskami, ne morejo biti izgovorjene, saj Milica ne govori vec. Avtorica pa izvede še eno izvotlitev besede. Besede, ki jih tekst slovarsko definira, da postanejo prazne. Npr. drkati, ki se veže na konferansjejevo agitacijo in na ljubezenski par: drkati / prvic / samozadovoljevati se, masturbirati / france si ga drka štirikrat dnevno / drugic / drsati, starinsko / fantje so se drkali po ledu / tretjic / s stalnim rahlim premikanjem ali zgolj dotikanjem cesa delati hrup ali motiti prisotne / nehaj že drkati stol! / cetrtic / nekoga muciti, nesorazmerno obremenjevati, zafrkavati / 20 eur za parkiranje? ne me drkat! (369) Drug postopek je pregibanje besede, ki sicer spada v kontekst: »je kot tofu napram / biftek / bifteka / bifteku / biftek / bifteku / biftekom / je kot tofu napram bifteku / drkanje napram seksu je kot tofu napram bifteku« (376). Simona Semenic tako združuje številne postopke neoavantgardnega gledališca in postdramske pisave, kot so fragmentarizacija, simultanost dogajanja, izvotljenje besed, razpoložljivost besedila in s tem njegova detronizacija, obenem pa v mi, evropski mrlici lahko ponovno zaznamo obrise dramskih oseb, ki so med seboj v konfliktnih razmerjih. Slednja gradijo prepoznavno dogajanje ali vsaj nasprotje ter se iztecejo v zakljucno poanto, ki ni povsem eksplicitna, a jo lahko kljub temu jasno prepoznamo kot poziv k svobodi, intimi in obrat stran od politicnih projektov. V formalnem smislu jo zaznamuje fragmentarnost besedila in simultanost dogajanja, kar je nedvomno dedišcina postdramske pisave, obenem pa mocan vdor lirizacije (glavna pripovedovalka celotno besedilo govori iz sebe in tudi komentira svoje intimno doživljanje dogajanja na odru) in epizacije (besedilo je mocno prežeto s pripovedovanjem, kar pravzaprav omogoca njegovo simultanost in fragmentarnost). Tako je pri Simoni Semenic vidna mocna dedišcina uprizoritvenih tekstov iz obdobja modernizma, obenem pa že tudi njihovo preseganje in razvoj, ki ponovno vzpostavlja prav elemente drame, ki jih je dekonstruirala. Generator, ki iz dolocenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov in Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov Rastko Mocnik je leta 1970 v 85. številki revije Problemi objavil dva teksta, ki pa tvorita celoto. Gre za Generator, serijo kombinacij prostorov, ljudi, drž, glasov in gibov, ki sledijodolocenim pravilom. Ta pravila so bila objavljena na drugem mestu v številki pod naslovom Drama. Slednja je programska utemeljitev Generatorja, ki izhaja iz analize dramskega teksta. Zanj je znacilno, da zelo natancno doloca govorno razsežnost uprizoritve, veliko ohlapnejše pa so doloceni drugi elementi (fonicne vrednosti izvedbe, položaji in premiki aktantov ter gibi). Mocnikova Drama prav nasprotno zelo togo definira fonicno in kineticno razsežnost, ohranja pa svobodo oz. nakljucnost vsakokratne izvedbe, saj izhodišcne situacije doloci žreb, razvoj pa je izbira med možnimi kombinacijami razlicnih elementov (prim. Mocnik 101). Avtor v nadaljevanju definira enote in pravila dramskega teksta, pri cemer je zanimivo, da med enotami (prostori, ljudje, drže, glasovi in gibi) ni besedila, ampak gre za drugacna izvajalceva izrazna sredstva oz. elemente uprizoritve. Ti se združujejo po dolocenih pravilih, predvsem pa se izmenjujejo v vnaprej dolocenih serijah. Tako je »zaporedje drž: a-b-c-d-e-a... [...] smeri gibanja skoz prostore: a) smer urinega kazalca: I-II-III­IV-I-..., b) smer, nasprotna od gibanja urinega kazalca« (102). Gre torej za nekakšno kompleksno igro, ki proizvaja poljubno število kombinacij osnovnih elementov, s tem pa tudi poljubno število dramskih kompleksov, kot jih imenuje avtor. Slednje so omejene z »nemožnimi kombinacijami«, ko bi bila ena od serij prekinjena oz. je ne bi bilo mogoce pravilno nadaljevati. V tem primeru se prekine gibanje skozi prostor in se kombinacija ponovi v istem prostoru ter nadaljuje z naslednjo kombinacijo v istem prostoru. Na koncu Drame Mocnik zapiše navodilo: »Zacetek: izhodišcne kombinacije in smergibanja iz vsakega prostora doloci žreb; konec: igre je konec, ko se hkrati zgodijo 4 nemožne kombinacije in zato vsi štirje ljudje hkrati obstanejo« (102). Besedilo je izrazito usmerjeno v uprizoritev in stran od besedila. Slednjega ni, saj so dramski kompleksi sestavljeni iz drugih elementov uprizoritve. Še najbliže diskurzu je šest glasov, ki pa so predjezikovni elementi. Dogajanje je simultano, izvajajo ga štirje ljudje v štirih prostorih. Posamezni gledalec gradi pomen glede na lastno sprejemanje in doživljanje predstave, ki v njem lahko vzbuja le dolocene vtise, nikakor pa ne sugerira možnih pomenov. Tekst tako na prvi pogled spada v postdramsko tradicijo, pri cemer pa je manj poudarka na kreiranju skupnosti. Še vec, zdi se, da je za to strukturo kljucno nakljucje, žreb, kar izkljucuje racionalni subjekt. S tem je ta tekst mocno zasidran v modernizmu z idejami o toku zavesti, avtomatski pisavi ipd. Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov je dramski tekst, ki je nastal leta 2019 in bil istega leta tudi uprizorjen na Novi pošti Slovenskega mladinskega gledališca (režija Eva Kokalj, produkcija KUD Krik in JSKD v sodelovanju z Novo pošto), Varja pa je leta 2020 za to besedilo dobila tudi Grumovo nagrado za mladega dramatika v okviru 50. Tedna slovenske drame. Tudi to besedilo se zacne z navodili za uporabo oz. s »Prologom, ki je zelo dolga opomba«. V njej med drugim beremo: 1. Ce se imaš za bolj razumsko osebo, ki daje prednost racionalnemu, si nagnjen k analiziranju ter sprejemaš odlocitve na podlagi tega, kaj se ti najbolj splaca, potem je zate najprimernejša MOŽNOST A [...] 2. Ce se imaš za bolj emocionalno osebo, ki se hitro prepusti custvom, si nagnjen k sanjarjenju ter sprejemaš odlocitve na podlagi trenutnega razpoloženja, je zate najprimernejša MOŽNOST B [...] 3. Ce pa si eden od bolj impulzivnih ljudi, se rad znajdeš v nenavadnih, nakljucnih situacijah, ravnaš spontano in se zanašaš na sprejemanje odlocitev v trenutku, brez kakršnih koli pricakovanj, ti priporocam MOŽNOST C. (947) Kar je skupnega Generatorju in Vse se je zacelo, je uporabnost besedila. Bralec/gledalec ga odkriva glede na dolocene izbire. Celota predstavlja igro, skozi katero se ustvarja pomen. Vendar pri Varji ta igra ni vec stvar nakljucja in ni locena od sprejemnika. Prav nasprotno, glavna igralca sta, kot zapiše avtorica: »dramski avtor in bralec + ostali soigralci, ki v tišini pridno cakajo na stranski klopi« (945). Tu ne gre vec za nakljucje in avtomatsko pisavo, pac pa za sprejemnikovo izbiro. Še vec, ta izbira ga v temelju doloca. Avtorica uporablja diskurz iz revij za življenjski slog ali knjig za samopomoc, ki dajejo nasvete glede na psihološki ustroj posameznika. Ce smo racionalni, je za nas možnost A itd. Sprejemnik se torej z izbiro tudi psihološko definira oz. bo izbral glede na to, kako se želi ali sevidi. Te izbire se skozi celoten tekst ponavljajo, le da sedaj niso vec vezane zgolj na psihološki profil sprejemnika, pac pa tudi na njegovo željo po smeri nadaljevanja: »CE ŽELIŠ, DA GREM ŠTUDIRAT NEKAJ UPORABNEGA, obrni na stran 971« (969), ali življenjske izkušnje: »CE SI TUDI TI KDAJ PREVARAL/-A SVOJEGA FANTA ALI PUNCO, obrni na stran 970« (968). Celota so izseki iz avtoricine avtobiografije, na kar kažejo številne podrobnosti, kot so preimenovanje njenega oceta Emila Hrvatina v Janeza Janšo, njena izbira študija dramaturgije na AGRFT ... Ob teh zunanjih podrobnostih, ki sugerirajo branje drame na kljuc, pa Varja ves cas razkriva svoje notranje doživljanje in psihološki razvoj, ki je potekal prek obcutkov krivde in drugacnosti v otroštvu, prek kasnejšega spopadanja z anoreksijo, iskanja partnerja itd. Kako setorej ta struktura in vsebina umešcata v postdramsko ali celo neodramsko paradigmo? Besedilo ostaja nekaj povsem razpoložljivega. Lahko ga beremo na vec nacinov in s tem sami kreiramo zgodbo avtorice. Slednja se tako kaže kot nekaj fikcijskega, kot pripoved, ki pa kljub temu temelji na resnicnih dejstvih, kar ji daje veliko mero avtenticnosti. Sprejemnik je aktivni soustvarjalec lastne izkušnje in ta je pravzaprav povsem osebna in neponovljiva. Izbor je narejen glede na trenutno razpoloženje, videnje samega sebe, iz tega izhajajocih odlocitev, ki jih mora sprejeti, in obcutka, da bo v vsakem primeru nekaj izpustil, zamudil. Vsaka izbira namrec prinaša tudi izgubo vseh ostalih možnosti. Prav to drugacno dojemanje, pogled pa je že za Lehmanna eno temeljnih dolocil postdramskega. Tudi povezava med izvajalko/ avtorico in sprejemnikom, ki se ves cas vzpostavlja preko nagovorov in izbir, je nekaj, kar bistveno definira gledališki dogodek, kot ga razume Erika Fischer-Lichte. Vendar pa gre v Vse se je zacelo tudi za vdor pripovedi v dramsko besedilo. Ceprav je bilo besedilo nagrajeno kot najboljša drama mlade dramaticarke v letu 2020 in je bilo leto prej tudi uspešno uprizorjeno, Blaž Lukan že na zacetku svoje analize opozori na vec dilem: 1. Kako analizirati novo dramo zunaj vseh okvirov, definicij? 2. Kako to dramo brati? in 3. Kdo sploh bere? (prim. »Tega« 99, 100). Izhaja torej iz obcutka, da gre za novo pisavo, ki »se vcasih zdi resnicno nova, nato pa spet nekaj že zdavnaj – še posebej v modernisticni dramatiki in postdramatiki – videnega in reflektiranega« (prav tam 97). Kot smougotovili tudi sami, gre za preplet postdramske tradicije in mocne epizacije in lirizacije. Po eni strani za vdor pripovedovalca, v konkretnem primeru dramaticarke same, ki pripoveduje o svojem življenju, ki pa nima vec funkcije epizacije, preboja cetrte stene v smislu Szondijevega koncepta, ampak skozi to pripoved prinaša lirski subjekt. Ta epizacija namesto potujitvenega ucinka prinaša, prav nasprotno, ucinek povezanosti med dramaticarko in gledalcem, ki sooblikujeta avtoricino intimno zgodbo oz. eno od njenih možnih interpretacij. Ceprav bi ob besedilu lahko govorili o prepoznavni dramski osebi (pripovedovalka/avtorica) in dramskem dejanju (prizorih iz njenega življenja, ki jih strukturira bralec s svojimi izbirami in imajo vnaprej doloceno strukturo/-e), sta taelementa drame uporabljena na izrazito postdramski nacin, ki temelji na dogodku, fragmentarnosti in aktivni vlogi sprejemnika. Tako izkazuje Varja Hrvatin mocan vpliv postdramskega, ki pa ga cepi na enako mocan vdor epizacije in lirizacije, s cimer ustvarja izrazito dramaticne ucinke. Sklep Sedaj lahko poskušamo odgovoriti na izhodišcni vprašanji. Kje so podobnosti in razlike med obravnavanimi teksti? Podobnosti so ocitne. Vsem gre za ustvarjanje gledališkega dogodka, ki je neponovljiv in zahteva aktivno udeležbo sprejemnika (bralca ali gledalca). Vta namen manipulirajo s sprejemnikovimi custvi (npr. ustvarjanje nelagodja, tesnobe, zmedenosti), uporabljajo simultano dogajanje in fragmentarnost dejanja, s cimer od sprejemnika zahtevajo odlocitev za izbiro lastnega dogodka in seveda tudi lastne interpretacije. Z vsem tem spadajo ti teksti v domeno postdramskega in v tem smislu lahko potrdimo, da je vpliv eksperimentalnih besedil iz obdobja neoavantgard še vedno mocno prisoten v sodobni slovenski dramatiki. Vendar pa se med tema generacijama kažejo tudi nekatere pomembne razlike. Ce gre pri Jovanovicu in Mocniku v prvi vrsti za destrukcijo gledališke uprizoritve, za detronizacijo dramskega besedila z vsemi posledicami, je pozicija Simone Semenic in Varje Hrvatin bistveno drugacna. Gledališce se je v vmesnem obdobju že vrnilo k besedi in postalo družbeni forum v osemdesetih letih, se ponovno odvrnilo od besede in šlo v smer fizicnega gledališca, sodobnega plesa ... (devetdeseta leta) pa se spet vrnilo k besedilu (po letu 2000). Skratka, napetost med tekstom in odrom ni vec osrednja tocka dramske pisave, ampak postane to razmerje nekaj razpoložljivega. Podobno kot elementi tradicionalne drame (npr. dramska oseba, dejanje) in postopka epizacije in lirizacije. Semenic in Hrvatin uporabljata vse to na nove nacine, da bi dosegla kar najvecjo vkljucenost sprejemnika. Predvsem izkušnja gledalca/bralca postane osrednja tocka te pisave. Pri Semenic je nenehno reflektirana, saj se zdi, da avtorica/pripovedovalka pripoveduje prav s stališca gledalke. Varja jo izpostavlja z nenehnimi pozivi k izbiri, ki je vezana na gledalca, njegov psihološki profil in življenjske izkušnje. Tako smo prica mocnemu vdoru pripovedi, ki se meša s prikazovanjem (diegezis in mimezis, kot ugotavlja Anne Monfort) in z mocnim obcutkom intimnosti ter avtenticnosti. Avtorici nas namrec potegneta v lastni svet oz. lastni pogled na svet, ki sezdi, da izhaja iz lirskega subjekta, ne nazadnje pa tudi iz sprejemnikovega, saj postanemo soustvarjalci predstave in njenih pomenov. Ravno ta preplet pa je tisto, kar ustvarja visoko stopnjo dramaticnosti in pritegne današnjega bralca/gledalca. Literatura Angel-Perez, Élisabeth. »Nazaj k verbalnemu gledališcu: post-post-dramska gledališca od Crimpa do Croucha.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišic, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2021, str. 23–30. Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Estetika performativnega. Prev. J. Drnovšek, Študentska založba, 2008. Koda. Haas, Birgit. »History through the Lens of the Uncertainty Principle: Dea Loher‘s 'Leviathan'.« The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, letn. 39, št. 1, 2006, str. 73–87. Hrvatin, Varja. »Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov.« Sodobnost, letn. 84, št. 7/8, str. 945–978. Jakovljevic, Branislav. Ucinki odtujitve. Performans in samoupravljanje v Jugoslaviji, 1945–1991. Maska, 2021. Zbirka Transformacije, 45. Jovanovic, Dušan. »Sinopsis za happening Hlapci.« Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov, ur. Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, str. 76–83. Dokumenti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, letn. 58, št. 103. Kralj, Lado. Teorija drame. DZS, 1998. Literarni leksikon, 44. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramsko gledališce. Prevedel K. J. Kozak, Maska, 2003. Lukan, Blaž, ur. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021. Dokumenti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, letn. 58, št. 103. —. »Tega teksta nikoli ni bilo. Vse je samo fikcija.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišic, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2021, str. 97–120. Mocnik, Rastko. »Drama, Generator, ki iz dolocenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov.« Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov, ur. Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, str. 101–105. Dokumenti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, letn. 58, št. 103. Monfort, Anne. »Po postdramskem: pripoved in fikcija med odrsko pisavo in neodramskim gledališcem.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišic, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2021, str. 147–160. Orel, Barbara. »K zgodovini performansa na Slovenskem.« Dinamika sprememb v slovenskem gledališcu 20. stoletja, ur. Barbara Sušec Michieli, Blaž Lukan in Maja Šorli, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, Maska, 2010, str. 271–327. Poschmann, Gerda. Der nicht mehr dramatische Theatertext: Aktülle Bühnenstücke und ihre dramaturgische Analyse. Niemeyer, 1997. Semenic, Simona. tri drame. Beletrina, 2017. Sierz, Aleks. Gledališce »u fris«. Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2004. Toporišic, Tomaž. »Dramska pisava po postdramskem: Anja Hilling, Milena Markovic in Simona Semenic.« Slavisticna revija, letn. 68, št. 2, 2020, str. 109–124. Troha, Gašper. Ujetniki svobode. Aristej, 2015. UDK 821.163.6.09-2 DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/124-145 To some extent, contemporary drama is the heir of the neo-avant-garde of the late 1960s and 1970s. This time was that of the so-called performative turn, which pulled theatre away from representation and towards presentation. The subsequent development can be designated by various labels, such as postdramatic theatre, the aesthetics of the performative and, in the case of dramatic texts, the no longer dramatic theatre text, “In-Yer-Face” theatre, etc. In Slovenia, a decisive turn from text to event took place towards the end of the 1960s. During this time, the first happenings and performance art pieces were taking place. In reviewing the performance Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki (Pupillja, Papa Pupilo and the Pupilceks), Veno Taufer went as far as to declare the death of literary theatre. At first glance, it would thus appear that contemporary playwriting is merely repeating earlier patterns. While contemporary playwriting may more radically formulate linguistic and aesthetic games, it deconstructs the dramatic form and thus radicalises the premises of the neo-avant-gardes; in the last two decades, we have been talking about a return to dramatic, post-postdramatic and dramatic drama, etc. Through a comparative analysis of two of the more radical texts from Blaž Lukan’s anthology Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes), namely Dušan Jovanovic’s Sinopsis za happening Hlapci (Synopsis for The Happening of Lackeys) and Rastko Mocnik’s Generator, ki iz dolocenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov (A Generator that Produces Any Number of Drama Complexes from Given Units and According to Simple Rules) as well as Simona Semenic’s mi, evropski mrlici (we, the european corpses) and Varja Hrvatin’s Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov (It All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash), the paper shows that the neo-avant-garde is more about the question of theatrical performances and the form of the dramatic text, while contemporary drama is more about the search for authenticity and dramatic effects. Keywords: Dušan Jovanovic, Rastko Mocnik, Simona Semenic, Varja Hrvatin, Slovenian experimental theatre, Slovenian drama Gašper Troha holds a PhD from the Department of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. His research interests include the sociology of literature, especially the contemporary world and Slovenian drama and theatre. He is a researcher at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana. He has published in numerous national and international scientific journals. He is a co-author with Vanesa Matajc and Gregor Pompe of History and its Literary Genres (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), Literarni modernizem v »svincenih« letih (Literary Modernism in the “Leaden” Years, Študentska založba, 2008) and Lojze Kovacic: življenje in delo (Lojze Kovacic: Life and Work, Študentska založba, 2009). In 2015, he published the monograph Ujetniki svobode (Prisoners of Freedom, Aristej) about the development of Slovenian drama and theatre under socialist rule. gasper.troha@guest.arnes.si Contemporary Drama and the Question of the Neo-avant-garde Legacy of the 1960s and 1970s Gašper Troha Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana Introduction1 To some extent, contemporary drama is the heir of the neo-avant-garde of the late 1960s and 1970s. This period saw the so-called performative turn, which pulled theatre away from representation and towards presentation. As Barbara Orel notes about the development of performance art: “The path to performance art in Slove­nia also went through the aesthetics of the performative, in which ritual forms of theatre and ritual-related artistic and social practices that bind all participants into a community played a major role” (“K zgodovini” 278). The subsequent develop­ment can be designated by various labels, e.g., postdramatic theatre (Lehmann), the aesthetics of the performative (Fischer-Lichte) and, in the case of dramatic texts, the no longer dramatic theatrical text (Poschmann), “In-Yer-Face” theatre (Sierz), etc. In Slovenia, a decisive turn from text to event took place towards the end of the 1960s. During this time, the first happenings and performance art pieces were tak­ing place. In reviewing the performance Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki (Pupilija, Papa Pupilo and the Pupilceks), Veno Tauferwent as far as to declare the death of literary theatre. At first glance, it would thus appear that contemporary playwriting is merely repeat­ing earlier patterns. While contemporary playwriting may more radically formulate linguistic and aesthetic games, it deconstructs the dramatic form and thus radicalises the premises ofthe neo-avant-gardes; in the last two decades, we have been talking about a return to dramatic (Toporišic “Dramska pisava”), post-postdramatic (An­gel-Perez) and dramatic drama (Haas), etc. 1 Acknowledgements: The paper was written in the framework of the research programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” (P6-0376), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget. Thus, there are two questions that we have to ask here: What are the differences be­tween the experimental texts of the second half of the 20thcentury and contemporary Slovenian drama? And what are their common features? We will highlight these questions by analysing two of the more radical texts from Blaž Lukan’s anthology Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes), namely Dušan Jovanovic’s Sinopsis za happening Hlapci (Synopsis for The Happening of Lackeys) and Rastko Mocnik’s Generator, ki iz dolocenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja pol-jubno število dramskih kompleksov (A Generator that Produces Any Number of Drama Complexes from Given Units and According to Simple Rules) and comparing them to Simona Semenic’s mi, evropski mrlici (we, the european corpses)and Varja Hrvatin’s Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov (It All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash). But before we analyse the selected texts, we need to consider the basic theoretical concepts that theatre studies and literary history use to describe the development of playwriting over the last 60 years. The Performative Turn and Its Consequences in Theatre and Dramatic Writing As pointed out at the beginning, radical changes in art and its relationship to society occurred towards the end of the 1960s in the USA, Europe and Yugoslavia. In her seminal book, The Transformative Power of Performance, Erika Fischer-Lichte later referred to these changes with the term the aesthetics of the performative. She based this term on the performance by the Yugoslav artist Marina Abramovic entitled Lips of Thomas, which she performedon 24 October 1975 at the Krinzinger Gallery in Inns­bruck. The author describes the crucial point of this change as follows: Such a performance eludes the scope of traditional aesthetic theories. It vehemently re­ sists the demands of hermeneutic aesthetics, which aims at understanding the work of art. In this case, understanding the artist’s actions was less important than the experienc­ es that she had while carrying them out and that were generated in the audience. In short, the transformation of the performance’s participants was pivotal. (Fischer-Lichte 16) In orderto be able to describe such events and to attribute particular meanings to them, a different approach is needed, which Fischer-Lichte calls the aesthetics of the performative since traditionalaesthetic theories of art are not able to consider the work ofart after the performative turn. “However, they are unable to grasp its key as­pect – the transformation from a work of art into an event” (Fischer-Lichte 23). These conceptual pairings overlap and thus produce the effects of liminality, a threshold that transforms the participants or results in the emergence (contingent appearance) of effects or meanings. Another author who has significantly conceptualised this development of theatre and theatre texts after the performative turn is Hans-Thies Lehmann with his book Post-dramatic Theatre. Lehmann also proceeds from the insight that theatre is, first and foremost, a matter of community. “Theatre means the collectively spent and used up lifetime in the collectively breathed air of that space in whichthe performing and the spectating take place[...] The theatre performance turns the behaviour onstage and in the auditorium into a joint text, a ‘text’ even if there is no spoken dialogue on stage or between actors and audience” (17). Thus, he emphasisesthe capacity of theatre to form a community. Then he puts into question the position of the text, which has traditionally been considered the source and measure of the success of a theatrical performance and the element that guaranteed the synthesis of theatrical signs. In postdramatic theatre, this hierarchy shatters, and different performance elements become equal in status while their simultaneity and multiple meanings become em-phasised. As Lehmann writes in the introduction to his book: By alluding to the literary genre of the drama, the title “Postdramatic Theatre” signals the continuing association and exchange between theatre and text. Nevertheless, the dis­course of theatre is at the centre of this book and the text therefore is considered only as one element, one layer, or as a “material” of the scenic creation, not as its master. (17) Consequently, the postdramatic theatre produces different dramatic texts, which Ger­da Poschmann designates as no longer dramatic theatre texts, “in which language ap­pears not as the speech of characters – if there still are definable characters at all – but as an autonomous theatricality” (18). We can no longer speak about the elements of traditional drama theory, such as the dramatic person, the dramatic act, the creation of illusion ... (cf. Kralj), but rather about language which becomes autonomous and about languagesurfaces, as Elfriede Jelinek calls them, that create tension and reflect the contemporary world. Another important aspect for us is Lehmann’s view of the neo-avant-garde, which he considers to be the third stage in the development of postdramatic theatre, as this is the period to which the texts published in The Generator anthology belong as well. While Lehmann considers the neo-avant-garde primarily as the drama of the absurd and lyrical drama, he is aware that “the 1960s see the development of a new spir­it ofexperimentation in all arts” (53), which culminates in the 1968 movement. He also mentions happenings and performance art and points out that “In 1969, Richard Schechner stages Dionysius 69, in which the spectators are invited to get into physical contact with the players” (53).And this already takes us into the area of the postdra­matic. For Lehmann, the defining characteristic of the postdramatic is precisely the position of the dramatic text. As he endeavours to discern the differences between epic theatre and the theatre of the absurd on the one hand and postdramatic theatre on the other, Lehmann writes: Yet the step to postdramatic theatre is taken only when the theatrical means beyond language are positioned equally alongside the text and are systematically thinkable without it. Hence we cannot speak of a “continuation” of absurdist or epic theatre in the new theatre but must name the rupture: that epic, as much as absurdist theatre, though through different means, clings to the presentation of a fictive and simulated text-cos­mos as a dominant, while postdramatic theatre no longer does so. (55) Since the dramatic text becomes dethroned within the performance, this also puts into question the meaning of the whole, which is no longercoherent and is quite challenging to define. It becomes fluid and depends on the interpretation of the individual. Leh­mann states, “The aim is no longer the wholeness of an aesthetic theatre composition of words, meaning, sound, gesture, etc., which as a holistic construct offers itself to percep­tion. Instead, the theatre takes on a fragmentary and partial character” (57). And, as we shall see below, these are also the main characteristics of the dramatic texts underdis­cussion. In them, the elements of drama are disappearing, and the text becomes dispos­able and directs the other aspects of theatrical performance. Meaning is lost or remains extremely open, which leads to fragmentation and arbitrariness of interpretation. In the former Yugoslavia, this development of theatre and the arts in general, which emerged from the spirit of the 1968 student riots, aligned with the aspirations for complete freedom of creativity and the search for a new way of life. As Barbara Orel notes, this generation pursued “the imperative of a creative life, and maintained its radical stance in a free-thinking leftist spirit, resisting all forms of political, social, economic and cultural despotism” (“K zgodovini” 278, 279). The demand for freedom naturally pointed away from established modes of performance, away from hierarchi­cal relations within performances and towards the formation of community. This, however, was not exclusively a Slovenian phenomenonbut a broader Yugoslav one. Branislav Jakovljevic, for example, in his detailed study of the relationship between the development of performance art and Yugoslav socialism, also detects the spontaneous emergence of the student movement in 1968, which was, however, soon neutralised. Self-management was presented as a social form that allowed for extreme individual freedom, thus fulfilling the demands of students. Nonetheless, it was always a bit problematic. This is how Jakovljevic analyses Raša Todosijevic’s performance piece entitled Decision as Art, first performed in August 1973 at the Richard Demarc Gallery in Edinburgh. Mere months later, he performed it at the Student Cultural Centre in Belgrade at the exhibition Information II, where the performance took on completely different connotations. As his partner, Marinela Koželj sits impassively on a chair placed upstage right, the artist, stripped to the waist, first applies white paint to four small ficus plants positioned along the front edge of the stage. He covers his naked torso with salt, picks a live carp from a tank and places it on the floor. As the fish wriggles about the stage, he begins swallowing large quantities of water. The artist and the fish suffer in unison: the carp slowly suffocates on dry land, and Todosijevic gulps water until he throws up, then drinks again. This “game” goes on until the carp dies. The performer paints one of his ears white and then faces the audience, holding a small battery-operated flashlight in his extended right arm. He holds it until the battery dies or until he can no longer hold up his arm (cf. 142). Although the British monarchy is far from the absolutism of the 18th century, its ideological, political and theological background imbued the first performance of Todosijevic’s Decision as Art with a note of noble and emphatically anti-democratic art of decision-making. However, when reprised in the post-revolutionary society of Yugoslavia, the same performance brought a whole new set of questions to the foreground. “[...] whereas the former was commercial, the latter was not; and while the former was fully integrated within the network of art institutions, the latter was an expression and continuation of the communal spirit of Belgrade’s June ’68” (Jakovljevic 144). In the United Kingdom, this functioned as a commentary on capitalist social relations in the monarchy. In Yugoslavia, it was seen as a government reckoning with the students after the 1968 movement. Therefore, such artistic explorations of artists were also a commentary on the freedom of expression and the individual’s right to choose their lifestyle, thus indirectly presenting social commentary. At first glance, Marina Abramovic’s performance appears to be more explicit. “When, in the early evening of 20 April 1974, Marina Abramovic stepped into a burning five-pointed star, having first clipped her finger- and toenails and cut some of her hairand thrown them into the flames, she entered into an intersection of art and politics, conceptualism and ideology, that was unique to post- 1968 Yugoslavia” (Jakovljevic 177). Marina Abramovic pointed out the connection between power and art much more explicitly. She would repeat this gesture on later occasions (e.g., using the five-pointed star in her piece Lips of Thomas). However, this act cannot be read as a symbol of government violence or the extinguishing of fiery revolutionary ideals. “The situation in Yugoslavia was much more complex, and it might be more appropriate to read the five points of this burning structure as a constellation of mutually opposed forces at work in Yugoslavia at that time” (Jakovljevic 179). I make a similar point in my study of Slovenian drama and theatre between 1945 and 1990 when I demonstrate the delicate balance between the largely conflicting tendencies of artists, authorities and audiences that allowed for the flourishing of Slovenian playwriting and theatre after 1960 (Cf. Troha, Ujetniki). A discussion on the relationship between art and power under socialismis beyond the scope of our present purpose, so let us here merely summarise the realisation that art, with its aesthetic breakthroughs and explorations in the former Yugoslavia, also achieved political impact. Contemporary Dramatic Writing between Postdramatic and Dramatic After 1990, precisely due to the abovementioned position of alternative culture, which in the 1980s transitioned from the margins to the centre, theatre in general, and experimental art in particular, faced a challenge. As Barbara Orel so aptly for­mulates it: “How to preserve and maintain the identity of the alternative when it no longer speaks from the structural place of the marginal since the distinction between the centre and the margin has been abolished in principle?” (“K zgodovini” 320). The answer to this question was to search fornew conceptual and aesthetic starting points that could provide an alternative to the independent state’s new cultural and political conditions. After 2000, we can see this alternative emerge in the radicalisation of postdramatic theatre and later in its coexistence with a return to the dramatic form. Since we have already described postdramatic theatre and the no longer dramatic theatre text, letus now look at the latest tendencies in dramatic writing, which be­come mixed with postdramatic or more traditionally dramatic elements, depending on individual authors. Birgit Haas notes that, aftera long postdramatic period, contemporary German dra­ma has begun reintroducing some dramatic elements. She writes about the play­wright Dea Loher: Despite the defamiliarized Verfremdungseffekt, however, she neither subscribes to the postmodern decentering of the subject nor to the end of the metanarratives. Instead, Loher draws on Walter Benjamin’s revolutionary Marxist aesthetic that he established in order to retain a human element in the arts, a human element that would resist the technical innovations of his time (Haas 74, 75). Loher is not, however, implying a return to realism but rather to the creation of radi­cally fragmentary texts that bear the mark of the postdramatic, as she deliberately causes a feeling of uncertainty, mainly due to the mixture of private and public political discourses. [...] her work is a creative and productive revival of the Brechtian theatre in the context of the post-postmodern age, an age in which human beings have again reclaimed the theatrical space. [...] Loher’s theatre is a theatre of em­powerment, a politically engaged theatre that does not leave the bewildered spectator in front of a destroyed history. (Haas 85) Tomaž Toporišic reaches similar insights when analysing dramatic writing after the postdramatic. In doing so, he notes that in different ways the authors Anja Hilling, Milena Markovic and Simona Semenic reach beyond the no longer dramatic theatre writing. Thus, he detects the inability to communicate and the deconstruction of the body and voice in Anja Hilling’s plays, the deconstruction and reconstruction of the representation of reality in Simona Semenic’s plays, and the contamination with the lyrical and the epic in Milena Markovic’s works. Let us look at his description of the structure of Simona Semenic’s dramatic works, which will be of particular interest to us later on: She persistently reworks the dialogic form in conjunction with a variety of textual strategies: from stage directions to descriptions that are closer to novels and prose, to the narrative, essayistic, theoretical and other techniques, reminding the audience that what they are reading or watching is no longer a real dialogue. However, in doing so, she produces distinctly dramatic effects that Haas would probably call “dramatic drama”. (“Dramska pisava” 114) Élisabeth Angel-Perez reaches similar conclusions. Namely, that postdramatic theatre, through the deconstruction of drama, actually creates a new fiction, thus returning to the elements it was originally deconstructing. As Angel-Perez writes at the end of her article “Back to Verbal Theatre: Post-Post-Dramatic Theatres from Crimp to Crouch”: The author on the stage delineates a new sort of lyrical subject, half way between the­atre and performance and, albeit on the mode of autobiography [author’s note: here, she is referring to Tim Crouch’s play The Author], relegitimizes fiction at the heart of post-dramatic theatre and therefore somehow recreates the drama. (30) Interestingly, Angel-Perez establishes a link here between theatre and performance art, thatis, between the experimental practices of the 1960s and 1970s and contem­porary theatre, which re-creates the fictional world of drama, and thus external refer­ence, precisely through the intrusion of reality. In her article “Aprčs le postdramatique: narration et fiction entre écriture de plateau et théâtre néo-dramatique”,Anne Monfort approaches this problem from a different angle. To her, stage writing means the whole sign system of a performance, in which text is only one of the elements and does not precede the others. Thus, while perfor­mances may contain a text, it is constantly mixed with the reality of the stage per­formance itself. Examples of this can be seen in actors breaking the fourth wall or narrating about the depicted world, ellipsis, condensation, etc. All of this, of course, represents an intrusion of the narrative into the theatrical. On the other hand, there is neo-dramatictheatre, where we can find dramatic characters and action. They are, however, highly fragmentary and constantly play with the duality of fiction and reality in the theatre. As Monfort writes: “This text [Author note: Ulrike Syha’s Private Life] is a typical example of neo-dramatic theatre in which there isstill action, even if only fragmentary, through persons or characters, or even if playing with the ambiguity of the person and the actor” (151). As we can see, Anne Monfort also notes that contemporary theatre is about question­ing the relationship between reality and fiction, which draws its origins from perfor­mance art and postdramatic theatre. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that in these texts and performances, both authors discover the re-establishment of dramat­ic elements, such as dramatic characters and dramatic action, even if they are mostly highly fragmentary. In addition, Monfort emphasises another principal feature, which we have already described when discussing the aesthetics of the performative. This feature refers to the involvement of the spectator and their active role. As Monfort writes in the conclusion of her article, “As a response to an increasingly fictionalised and dramatised world, contemporary forms of theatre are rethinking the question of the real and the fictional, leaving the spectator free to imagine the drama that does not occur on the stage” (158). A theatre text, therefore, is not only the material that the creative team arbitrarily changes in their performance. It is also a completely open structure that invites the spectator/reader to think and create their own interpretation or story. Let us now turn to the rather radical thesis that Blaž Lukan formulated concerning the youngest generation of Slovenian playwrights, specifically Varja Hrvatin, who will be particularly interesting to us later. As Lukan writes, such a text “contains no stage directions, its line of dialogue is also completely indistinct, while at the same time, in such writing, there is no hint of direction whatsoeverabout its performance” (115). Nevertheless, such texts produce strong dramatic effects and require active participation on the part of the reader or spectator, and therefore undoubtedly feel like dramatic, or rather stage or theatre texts. This also goes for the play It All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash, which we analyse below and which anticipates several different readings. The author directs the reader/spectator to either create their own storyaccording to their own opinions and attitudes from the suggested sections or to read the text from beginning to end. But this is not merely a game in the postmodernist sense; through the scenes, the playwright tells her own story of searching for her identity, coping with anorexia, her fears, etc. At the end of his article, Lukan nevertheless takes a risk and suggests how to read and perform such drama: “The liberated creative euphoria of a contemporary playwright expects an appropriate response from the contemporary director and their crew” (118). From the presented theoretical starting points, we can thus conclude that the mod­ernism of the 1960s and 1970s meant, above all, the deconstruction of the dramatic form, the intrusion of reality into the theatrical performance, and the involvement of the spectators/readers, i.e., the creation of a community. This legacy can also be noted in the period following the postdramatic when the otherwise fragmentary structure once again produces dramatic effects and displays some elements of drama (e.g., dra­matic characters and action). Below, we try to detect potential parallels between the experimental texts from the modernist period and contemporary Slovenian drama by comparing specific texts. Synopsis for The Happening of Lackeys and we, the european corpses The first two texts we will deal with in detail are Synopsis for The Happening of Lack­eys, published in the journal Problemi Katalog as part of the repertoire plan for the 1968/69 seasonof the small stage of the Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana. The production was planned as part of the Original Slovenian Texts section, with Žarko Petan (director), Dušan Jovanovic (author) and Andrej Inkret (dramaturg) listed as authors. The production was never carried out, but Dušan Jovanovic directed Ivan Cankar’s Hlapci (Lackeys)at the Ljubljana City Theatre in the 1980/81 season (cf. The Generator 356). It isa happening that joins spectators and actors into a community while aiming to arouse strong, mostly negative emotions such as fear, discomfort and anxiety. It starts by entering an event that resembles a ritual. The title of this part is The Elevator of Terror, through which the audience eventually leaves the event. During the ride in the elevator, the lights go out and “various screams, electronic sounds, silence, rapid breathing and concrete music are heard in the dark. The elevator is stuck for a while, while loudspeakers warn passengers to keep calm and hold their nerves, as they will need them” (Jovanovic 76). A party – an exhibition of paintings, sculptures, photo­graphs – is going on in the foyer and smoking room. Somebody is selling sausages and hotdogs, a shoemaker and hairdresser are offering their services – and again, loud music and noise. A feeling of discomfort intensifies in the auditorium, where the spec­tators are locked inside, the lights are switched off, and they start hearing knocking from the outside and calls to let in the actors. Next follows Jerman’s speech in the tavern from Act Four of Cankar’s Lackeys, which is commented on by simultaneous projections of “youth work brigades/ roads/ busi­nesses/ labour successes [...]” (Jovanovic 78). It is followed by the parish priest’s reply that times have turned and the people have made their choice, accompanied by pro­jections of hippie life and police repression. The text is thus constantly relativised. At the same time, it is also updated with the immediate present. The action becomes a bit lighter with the appearance of a reciter and a dancer, ac­companied by projections of a sunny landscape and abstract compositions. This in­termezzo is followed by the arrival of Jerman and the tavernscene from Act Four of Cankar’s Lackeys. Everything in this scene, however, is exaggerated to the grotesque. “The costumes are a mixture of pyjamas, nightgowns, professional clothes and nudity [...] The men appear in strange poses. [...] One of them is sitting on a huge bedpan, dominating the scene with a megaphone in hand and straining. This is supposed to be a speaker’s podium” (79). The assembled crowd holds a kind of self-management meeting, during which they play board games, and Jerman starts multiplying until there are six of them. Each new Jerman interprets the same passages from Cankar’s play differently, thus creating a kind of polemic. “The polemic between the five Jermans begins in a lively and vigor­ous manner. They speak all the lines. A great noise, in whichgradually the words are no longer distinguishable” (81). Then it is back to more simple action, with commercials and bar announcements play­ing over the loudspeakers, accompanied by projections of circus acts. In the end, an actor recites a poem about Robespierre through a megaphone, and the six Jermans can be heard singing a song about the lackeys over the loudspeakers. After the loudspeakers announce the end of the happening, the audience leaves in the elevator of terror again. Jovanovic’s happening is an emblematic example of a theatrical event following the performative turn. Based on a self-referential feedback loop between performers and participants, it evokes strong, mostly unpleasant emotions in the audience while cre­ating a sense of community already with the ritual entrance and exit, and even through physical confinement to the auditorium (with locked doors), a meeting at which “all the problems that concern the people present in the tavern, as well as all the other citizens, are confronted” (Jovanovic 79). All meaning is constantly relativised – con­tradictory projections accompany both Jerman’s and the Priest’s lines – often, their speeches cannot be heard at all, etc. The meaning of the words is thus hollow, and their interpretation is left to each spectator without any reassurance that their inter­pretation is in line with the experience and interpretation of the others. And it is even less clear what message the creative team is trying to convey. Simona Semenic wrote her play we, the european corpses in 2015, and it was first staged at the Mladinsko Theatre in 2016 (directed by Sebastijan Horvat, premičre 5 June 2016). It is a text full of readily recognisable postdramatic features – the action is highly fragmented, the text is often not entirely written out, and it is up to the per­formance team to supplement it. The author is all the time narrating from the point of view of the spectator/reader. The characters appear more like wholesome functions than fully psychologically articulated persons. Nevertheless, the whole is extremely tense and dramatic as well as politically engaged. On one side, there is the character of the master of ceremony (emcee), a kind of po­litical agitator who keeps telling us that we are swimming in shit and that we need to do something about it. His public position is complemented by a group of plumbers who are trying to resolve the issue of the actual leakage of faeces that is drowning the theatre auditorium, as well as Jolanda, who is keeping track of the action on stage as a kind of a snitch, and Milena, who is wandering around looking all pretty and trying to charm us. On the other side, there are intimate stories that serve as a contrast to the social situationand a relativisation of public action. They mostly appear very static. This is the case with Lojzka (Alojzija Bizjak), who is the first one to come on stage and is just waiting for the whole duration of the performance. In the end, it turns out that she is actually waiting for the character death. Thepartisan Milica, who is in hospice care, is similarly passive, unable even to speak, while her tragic story of domestic violence is related to us by the author. Next comes the couple “jakob and andreja/ or/ jakob and silvo/ or/ nina and andreja/ or silvo and nina” (Semenic 8). They represent the image of a couple of lovers slowly strolling towards the ramp, holding hands. Their opposites can be seen in “jožica, 88, and milan, 91”, who are also a couple oflovers. They, however, represent the image of carnality and pleasure. “we’re watching and can’t really decide whether we’re comfortable with this/it’s nice when two people are kissing/ but to watch jožica, 88, and milan, 91, make out evokes mixed emotions in us” (Semenic 9). The action intensifies towards the end when the auditorium is threatened by vast amounts of shit pouring out of the sewers. The group of plumbers is trying to stop it but to no avail. The one to blame for this is a motherfucking stingy Jewish git who re­fused to authorise replacing the pipes, so now the actors and the audience find them­selves not merely in metaphorical shit the emcee talks about at the beginning but also in actual shit. The ending ends in a double punchline: “politics is a whore from a brothel, milica the partisan would say in the end [...] but milica the partisan will never again/never again get her words in edgeways” and “sun, breeze, sea/ freedom” (Semenic 39, 40). Thus, politics turns out to be a mess and a whore, while its opposite is represented by the image of nature, which perhaps stands for freedom. Simona Semenic radicalises the starting points we have encountered in Jovanovic’s text. Her text is wholly oriented towards its receiver and their experience. The text is narrated by a narrator whom the readers identify as the author herself but who, at the same time, appears to be one of the readers/spectators: the fourth line is truly long /we’re fidgeting in our chairs already/because we’re tired/ bloody hell how we’re tired of this agit-prop/we prefer to glance towards milena/mile­na is truly beautiful/ truly beautiful. (Semenic 6, 7) The noise here is no longer produced by the loud music and various recorded sounds; rather, it is actualised at the level of the text as the rapid exchange of discourses, for which the reader has to identify their points of enunciation, i.e., their dramatis personae. it is true that we’re in shit, but at least we’re swimming/this is how you should be looking at it/at least we’re swimming often told enough that this way, things will lead us nowhere what things things/ things, like/society/social structure/state structure/garden structure/gar­ dens/i haven’t yet/i haven’t yet to enter the united states of america, i don’t need a visa/ i need the esta form, what­ ever that’s supposed to be beyond what, dammit? milena leaves. (Semenic 11) The above quotation is just an excerpt to illustrate the structure of the whole text. At first glance, it may appear to be a series of diverse speeches, not related by any causal logic but rather by absurd coincidence. However, this pell-mell of lines, stage directions and reflections on the action nevertheless produce the sense of dramatis personae we have already discussed. In short, it is possible to reduce this cacophony of voices to some identifiable representatives of the discourse, situated within a more extensive, conflicting structure in which the action is happening simultaneously. The latter interfereswith the receiver’s reception since they have to attribute to individual events specific meanings in the grand scheme of what is happening. The text is aware that it is merely one element of the performance and will be exten­sively reworked, rewritten, crossed out, etc., by the creative team. Thus it remains open and disposable at all times. For example, the lines of the emcee, who appears to be the play’s central character, are mostly not written out at all since he is given the most time and space on stage. a theatrical effect and only then he started the opening line a pause, in whichthe in-between begins, the in-between between the opening and clos­ 138 ing lines the second line the second line is an expression of affection/a stance of a greeting/something trifling in content, in fact, but in a civilised society of utmost importance in communication among adults/to maintain a level of sophistication/a formal thing, indispensable in the transfer of de­mands and wishes/an expression of affection/a stance of a greeting (Semenic 3). The emcee himself can be anyone: “perhaps the emcee /or the mobilizer/ a male character that can also be played by a woman [...] perhaps it’s better that he’s played by a woman/a maternal figure/ soft, rounded, warm/ with peace in her voice/ peace/ and passion” (4). The lines spoken on stage are no longeressential. The lines of the partisan Milica, which tell a shocking story of domestic violence and violence against women, cannot be spo­ken since Milica can no longer speak. The author here performs another hollowing out of the word. In a dictionary-like manner the text defines words to make them empty, e.g., to jerk off, which refers to the emcee’s agitation and the loving couple: to jerk/ one/ to jerk off: to masturbate./ france jerks off four times a day/two/to make spasmodic motions:/my legs jerked from fatigue/ three/to make and serve (ice-cream sodas, for example) at a soda fountain./why don’t you go outside and jerk yourself a soda?/four/to jerk around: to take unfair advantage of, deceive, or manipulate/ 20 eu­ros for parking? don’t try to jerk around with me! (Semenic 7, 8) A different approach is to play around with a word which otherwise fits the context: “is like tofu compared to/beefsteak/rump steak/skirt steak/sirloin/ top loin/flank/ is like tofu compared to beefsteak/jerking off compared to sex is like tofu compared to beefsteak” (Semenic 11, 12). Simona Semenic thus combines many procedures of neo-avant-garde theatre and postdramatic writing, such as fragmentation, simultaneous action, hollowing out of words, the disponibility of the text and thus its dethronement, while at the same time,it is possible to detect in we, the european corpses the outlines of the dramatis personae who are in conflicting relationships with each other. These make up recog­nisable actions or at least contrasts and culminate in a conclusion that is not entirely explicit but can nevertheless be identified as a call for freedom, intimacy and turning away from political projects. The formal structure is characterised by the fragmentary nature of the text and si­multaneous lines of action, which undoubtedly represents the legacy of postdramatic writing, but also a decisive irruption of lyricisation (the narrator tells us the entire text from her own personal position, commenting on her intimate perception of what is going on on stage) and episation (the text is heavily infused with narration, which allows for its fragmentary nature and simultaneous action). Thus we can discern a strong legacy of performance texts of the modernist period in Simona Semenic’s work. At the same time, she also reaches beyond them and develops them in a way that re-establishes the very elements of drama that she has deconstructed. A Generator that Produces Any Number of Dramatic Complexes from Given Units and According to Simple Rules and It All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash In 1970, in issue 85 of the journal Problemi, Rastko Mocnik published two texts that, however, form a unit. A Generator is a series of combinations of spaces, people, stanc­es, voices and movements thatfollow specific rules. These rules were published in a different section of the journal entitled Drama. This was a conceptual explication of A Generator, which derived from an analysis of the dramatic text, which is character-ised by an exact definition of the spoken dimension of the performance. In contrast, other elements (phonic values of the performance, the characters’ stances and move­ments) are much more loosely defined. Contrary to that, Mocnik’s Drama defines the phonic and kinetic dimensionsvery precisely while retaining the freedom or rather the contingent nature of each performance, as the starting situations are determined by the luck of the draw, and the subsequent development depends on the possible combinations of various elements (Cf. Mocnik 101). The author goes on to define the units and rules of the dramatic text, and it is interesting to note that the text does not feature among its units whichinstead consist of other means of expression by the performers or other elements of the performance (spaces, people, stances, voices and movements). These are combined according to specific rules, but above all, they alter­nate in predefined series. Thus, the “sequence of attitudes is: a-b-c-d-e-a... [...] the di­rections of movement through the spaces are: a) clockwise: I-II-III-IV-I-..., b) counter­clockwise” (Mocnik 102). Thus, what we are dealing with is a kind of complex game that can produce any number of combinations of its essential elements and, therefore, also any number of dramatic complexes, as the author calls them. The latter is limited by “impossible combinations”, which we would get if any of the series got interrupted or could not be continued properly. In this case, the movement through space would be interrupted, and the combination would be repeated in the same space and contin­ued with the following combination in the same space. At the end of Drama, Mocnik writes down the instructions: “Start: the starting combinations and the direction of movement from each space are determined by draw; end: the game is over when four impossible combinations happen at the same time, and thus all four people stop at the same time” (102). The text is explicitly performance-oriented and moves away from the text. There is no text, as the dramatic complexes are composed of otherperformance elements. The clos­est thing to discourse is the six voices which, however, represent pre-linguistic elements. The action is simultaneous, performed by fourpeople in four spaces. The individual spectator constructs meaning according to their own reception and experience of the performance, which can only evoke certain impressions, but in no way suggest poten­tial meanings. Thus, at first sight, the text could be said to belong to the postdramatic tradition, however, with not so much emphasis on the creation of community. Moreover, it would appearthat chance, and the luck of the draw is crucial to its structure, which excludes the rational subject. In this sense, the text is firmly rooted in modernism with its ideas about the stream of consciousness, automatic writing, etc. It All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash is a play written in 2019 and first staged at the Nova pošta (The New Post Office) of the Mladinsko Theatre in the same year (directed by Eva Kokalj, produced by KUD Krik and JSKD in coproduction with The New Post Office). In 2020, Varja won the Young Playwright Award for this text at the 50thWeek of Slovenian Drama. Her text also begins with someinstructions for use, i.e., a “Prologue, which is a very long footnote”. Here one can read: 1. If you consideryourself to be more of a rational person, who prefers the rational, is prone to analysis and makes decisions based on what promises the biggest payoff, then go for OPTION A [...] 2. If you consider yourself to be more of an emotional person, who is quick to be over­whelmed by emotion, is prone to daydreaming and makes decisions based on momen­tary disposition, go for OPTION B [...] 3. If, however, you are one of the more impulsive people, who like to get involved in un­usual, random situations, act spontaneously and rely on making decisions on the spur of the moment, without any expectations, I recommend OPTION C. (Hrvatin 947) What A Generator and It All Started have in common is how the text can be used. The reader/spectator discovers it according to particular choices. The whole represents a game through which meaning is created. But in Varja’s case, this game is no lon­ger a matter of chance and is not separated from the receiver. On the contrary, the main players are, as the author writes: “the playwright and the reader + the other players waitingin silence on the side bench” (Hrvatin 945). It is no longer a matter of chance and automatic writing but rather a consequence of the receiver’s choice. What is more, this choice fundamentally determines them. The author uses the dis­course from lifestyle magazines or self-help books, which offer advice adapted to the individual’s psychological makeup. If we are more of a rational type, we should go for option A, etc. Thus, by makingtheir choice, the receiver also psychologically defines themself, i.e., they choose according to what they want to be like or how they want to perceive themself. These choices are repeated throughout the text, except that now they are no longer linked to the psychological profile of the receiver alone but also to their desire forwhich direction to follow: “IF YOU WANT ME TO STUDY SOMETHING USEFUL, turn to page 971” (Hrvatin 969), or to their life experience: “IF YOU EVER CHEATED ON YOUR BOYFRIEND OR GIRLFRIEND, turn to page 970” (Hrvatin 968). The bulkof the play comprisesexcerpts from the author’s autobiography, as indicated by many details, such as her father Emil Hrvatin changing his name to Janez Janša, her choice to study dramaturgy at the Academy for Theatre, Radio, Film and Television ... Besides these external details, which suggest a turnkey reading of the play, Varja con­tinuously reveals her inner experience and psychological development that unfolded through feelings of guilt and alienation throughout her childhood, her later struggles with anorexia, her search for a partner, etc. How dothis structure and content fit the postdramatic or even neo-dramatic para­digm? The text remains perfectly disposable. We can read it in different ways and thus create the author’s story by ourselves. The latter thus manifests itself as a fictional story. However, one that is nevertheless based on facts, which gives it imbues it with a great deal of authenticity. A recipient actively co-creates their own experience, which is, in fact, entirely personal and unrepeatable. The choice depends on their mood at the moment, the way they see themself, the resulting decisions they have to make and the feeling that, in any case, they will miss something, for every choice entails the loss of all other possibilities. For Lehmann, it is precisely this different perception – this different view – that essentially defines the postdramatic. Also, the connection be­tween the performer/author and the receiver constantly maintained through direct addressing and choices, fundamentally defines the theatrical event as understood by Erika Fischer-Lichte. However, It All Started is also about the intrusion of the narrative into the dramatic text. Even though the text was awarded the Best Young Playwright Award in 2020 and was successfully staged the year before, Blaž Lukan points out sev­eral dilemmas from the beginning of his analysis: 1) How to analyse a new drama that is outside all frameworks and definitions? 2) How to read this drama? And 3) Who is the one reading it at all? (cf. “Tega teksta” 99, 100). He proceeds from the intuition that this is a piece of new writing, which “sometimes appears to be genuinely new, but then again as something already seen and reflected long ago - especially in modernist drama and postdrama” (“Tega teksta” 97). As we have determined, the play combines postdramatic tradition and strong episa­tion and lyricisation. On the one hand, the intrusion of the narrator, in this concrete case, this is the playwright herself, who narrates her life, no longer has the function of episation, of breaking the fourth wall in the sense of Szondi’snotion; instead, the nar­rative introduces the lyrical subject. Rather than producing an alienating effect, the episation has the opposite effect of creating a connection between the playwright and the spectator, both co-creatingthe author’s intimate story or, rather, one of its pos­sible interpretations. Although we could speak of an identifiable dramatic character (the narrator/author) and dramatic action (scenes from her life, which are structured by the reader’s choices and have a predetermined structure or structures), these two elements of the play are used in a distinctly postdramatic way, based on the event, fragmentation and the active role of the receiver. Thus, Varja Hrvatin displays a strong influence of the postdramatic, which she combines with the equally strong intrusion of episation and lyricisation, thus creating distinctly dramatic effects. Conclusion At this point, we can try to answer our two starting questions. What are the similari­ties and differences between the analysed texts? The similarities are apparent. All of the plays endeavour to create an unrepeatable theatrical event that requires the active participation of the receiver (be it the reader or spectator). To this end, they manipulate the receiver’s emotions (e.g., creating dis­comfort, anxiety, confusion) and introduce simultaneous activities and fragmented action, thus requiring the receiver to choose their own event and, of course, their own interpretation. All of this places these texts clearly into the domain of the postdra­matic. In this vein, we can confirm that the influence of experimental texts from the neo-avant-garde period is still strongly present in contemporary Slovenian drama. However, there are also some crucial differences between the two generations. If Jovanovic and Mocnik are primarily concerned with the destruction of theatrical performance and the dethronement of the dramatic text with all consequences that this leads to, the position of Simona Semenic and Varja Hrvatin is fundamentally different. In the intervening period, theatre already returned to the spoken word and became a social forum in the 1980s, then turned away from the word again and moved in the direction of physical theatre and contemporary dance (the 1990s), and finally returned to the text once more (after 2000). In short, the tension between text and stage isno longer the focal point of playwriting; instead, this relationship becomes disposable, just like the elements of traditional drama (e.g., dramatic characters and action) and the process of episation and lyricisation. Semenic and Hrvatin use all of these in new ways to maximise the receiver’s involvement. Above all, the experience of the spectator/reader becomes the focal point of this writing. In Semenic’s work, this is constantly reflected upon, as the author/narrator appears to be telling the story from the specator’s point of view. Varja emphasises the spectator’s experience by constantly calling upon them to make a choice bound to the spectator, their psychological profile and their life experiences. Thus, we are witnessing a forceful intrusion of the narrative combined with spectacle (diegesis and mimesis, as Anne Monfort notes)and a strong sense of intimacy and authenticity. The authors draw us into their own world, their own worldview, which seems to emanate from the lyrical subject, and, ultimately, also from the receiver themself, as we become co-creators of the performance and its meanings. And it is precisely this interplay that creates a high degree of drama and appeals to today’s readers/spectators. Literature Angel-Perez, Élisabeth. “Back to Verbal Theatre: Post-Post-Dramatic Theatres from Crimp to Crouch.” Études britannique contemporaines, no. 45, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4000/ebc.862. Accessed 4 March 2023. Fischer-Lichte, Erika. The Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics. Trans. by S. I. Jain, Routledge, 2008. Haas, Birgit. “History through the Lens of the Uncertainty Principle: Dea Loher’s ‘Le­viathan’.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 39, no. 1, 2006, pp. 73–87. Hrvatin, Varja. “Vse se je zacelo z golažem iz zajckov.” Sodobnost, vol. 84, no. 7/8, pp. 945–978. Jakovljevic, Branislav. Alienation Effects. Performance and Self-Management in Yugo­slavia, 1945-91.University of Michigan Press, 2016. Jovanovic, Dušan. “Sinopsis za happening Hlapci.” Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubne­ga števila dramskih kompleksov, edited by Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, pp. 76–83. Dokumenti sloven-skega gledališkega inštituta, vol. 58, no. 103. Kralj, Lado. Teorija drame. DZS, 1998. Literarni leksikon 44. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. Trans. by Karen Jürs-Munby, Rout-ledge, 2006. Lukan, Blaž, editor. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021. Dokumenti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, vol. 58, no. 103. —. “Tega teksta nikoli ni bilo. Vse je samo fikcija.” Drama, tekst, pisava 2, edited by Pe­tra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišic, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2021, pp. 97–120. Mocnik, Rastko. “Drama, Generator, ki iz dolocenih enot in po preprostih pravi­lih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov.” Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov, edited by Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, pp. 101–105. Doku­ menti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, vol. 58, no. 103. Monfort, Anne. “Po postdramskem: pripoved in fikcija med odrsko pisavo in neodramskim gledališcem [After the postdramatic: narrative and fiction between stage writing and neo-dramatic theatre].” Drama, tekst, pisava 2, edited by Petra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišic, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2021, pp. 147–160. Orel, Barbara. “K zgodovini performansa na Slovenskem.” Dinamika sprememb v slo­ venskem gledališcu 20. stoletja, edited by Barbara Sušec Michieli, Blaž Lukan and Maja Šorli. Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, Maska, 2010, pp. 271– 327. Poschmann, Gerda. Der nicht mehr dramatische Theatertext: Aktüelle Bühnenstücke und ihre dramaturgische Analyse. Niemeyer, 1997. Semenic, Simona. we, the european corpses. 2015, https://www.simonasemenic.com/plays1. Accessed 5 March 2023. Sierz, Aleks. Gledališce ‘u fris’. Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2004. Toporišic, Tomaž. “Dramska pisava po postdramskem: Anja Hilling, Milena Markovic in Simona Semenic.” Slavisticna revija, vol. 68, no. 2, 2020, pp. 109–124. Troha, Gašper. Ujetniki svobode. Aristej, 2015. UDK 792.02(497.4):821.163.6.09-2 UDK 821.163.6.09-2:792.02(497.4) DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/146-158 Leta 2005 je skupina dramatikov in dramaturgov na pobudo dramaticarke Simone Semenic in v tesnem sodelovanju s teoretikom uprizoritvenih umetnosti Rokom Vevarjem v okviru Gledališca Glej osnovala PreGlej. Skupina se je ukvarjala s problematiko dramskega pisanja in v nekaj letih vzpostavila platformo za ustvarjanje, razvoj in mednarodno izmenjavo dramskih pisav. Njihovo delo je bilo zavezano vzpostavitvi samih pogojev za ustvarjanje dramskih besedil. S tem namenom so uporabili formo bralne uprizoritve – ne le kot javno predstavitev drame, temvec kot metodo za razvijanje drame, ki prinaša dramo kot delo v nastajanju. Clanek pokaže, da ima tovrstna praksa dramskega pisanja na slovenskih odrih svoje predhodnike v eksperimentalnih gledaliških praksah šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja (v izvedbi neoavantgardnih skupin pesnikov 441/442/443, Nomenklatura in LKB – Literarni klub Branik ter v nastopih pisateljev, ki so predstavljali svoja literarna dela v Pekarni). Pesniki in pisatelji so uprizarjali svoja dela, ki prvenstveno niso bila namenjena uprizarjanju, pri tem pa ustvarili teatralne oblike pisanja za oder, s katerimi so izstopali tako iz konvencij dramskega ustvarjanja kakor tudi iz tradicije gledališca. Uprizarjanje literature in bralne uprizoritve so obravnavane v kontekstu uprizoritvenega pisanja, ki oznacuje raznovrstna razmerja med pisavo in uprizoritvijo, pri tem pa se osredotoca na proces pisanja kot uprizoritvenega dejanja. Kljucne besede: literatura, poezija, drama, uprizoritev, bralna uprizoritev, uprizoritveno pisanje Dr. Barbara Orel je profesorica za podrocje dramaturgije in študijev scenskih umetnosti ter vodja raziskovalne skupine na UL AGRFT. Osrednja podrocja njenih raziskav so eksperimentalne gledališke prakse, avantgardna gibanja in sodobne scenske umetnosti. Napisala je knjigo Igra v igriin uredila vec znanstvenih monografij, med njimi Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: slovensko gledališce kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav. Redno sodeluje pri mednarodnih raziskovalnih projektih, med njimi v delovni skupini Theatrical Event (v okviru International Federation for Theatre Research). Bila je tudi selektorica nacionalnih gledaliških festivalov Teden slovenske drame (2006–2007) in Festival Borštnikovo srecanje (2008–2009). barbara.orel@agrft.uni-lj.si Uprizarjanje literature in bralne uprizoritve Barbara Orel Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza v Ljubljani Skupina PreGlej1je leta 2005 zacela organizirati dramske delavnice, v okviru katerih so potekale bralne uprizoritve novonastalih dramskih besedil. Bralno uprizarjanje je bilo zamišljeno kot nacin ustvarjanja drame – ne le kot njena javna predstavitev, temvec kot proces, v katerem imajo dramatiki priložnost izkusiti, kako njihova drama ucinkuje na gledališkem odru in kako jo doživlja obcinstvo, po koncani uprizoritvi pa jo v pogovoru z režiserjem, igralci in gledalci prediskutirati in na osnovi povratnih informacij dramsko besedilo izboljšati. Bralne uprizoritve v PreGlejevem Laboratoriju so vzpostavile pogoje za procesualno dramsko ustvarjalnost. Predhodnike takšnega nacina dramskega pisanja je na slovenskih odrih mogoce prepoznati v eksperimentalnih gledaliških praksah šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja, ki so raziskovale razsežnosti besede v mediju gledališca in pri tem razvile raznovrstne oblike uprizoritvenega pisanja. Uprizarjanje poezije v izvedbi skupin pesnikov Predstavljanje literature na slovenskih odrih je privzemalo razlicne uprizoritvene oblike. Poleg tradicionalnih literarnih vecerov (pesniških, proznih in – redkeje – dramskih del), ki redno spremljajo gledališko ponudbo v institucionalnih gledališcih, so se že vsaj od petdesetih let 20. stoletja, zlasti pa v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih, na eksperimentalnih odrih zacele pojavljati raznovrstne inscenacije literature, ki so izkazovale težnje po gledališkem eksperimentu, kot uprizoritve pa so bile pogosto prezrte. Mednje se uvršcajo uprizoritve poezije v skupini 441/442/443 (ki se je preobrazila v Gledališcu Pupilije Ferkeverk), raziskave zvocne podobe besed v skupinah Nomenklatura in LKB – Literarni klub Branik, predstavitve literarnih del slovenskih pisateljev v Pekarni. Njihovi avtorji so na gledaliških odrih preverjali razsežnosti besede in literarnih del, ki prvenstveno niso bila namenjena uprizarjanju. V gledališcu so prepoznali privlacen in ucinkovit medij za neposredno komunikacijo z obcinstvom in prostor za raziskavo besede. Odrske izvedbe so vkljucevale razlicne 1 Zahvala: clanek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave (P6–0376), ki ga sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proracuna. akcije, dejanja in situacije, ki so bile ožarjene z ustvarjalnim zanosom samih avtorjev in nelocljivo povezane z vedenjskimi praksami. Obravnavane bodo v kontekstu t. i. uprizoritvenega pisanja (performance writing). Ali kot ta pojem opredeli Caroline Bergvall: »Uprizoritveno pisanje raziskuje razmerja med besedilnimi in na besedilih utemeljenimi deli, ki se razvijejo v povezavi z drugimi mediji in diskurzi«, pri tem pa odpira prostor za »preiskovanje formalnih in ideološkihstrategij, ki jih pisatelji in umetniki razvijejo tekstualno, kot odgovor ali reakcijo na svoj lastni cas in svoja podrocja« (»What do We Mean«). Kot pojasni Ric Allsopp, oznaka uprizoritveno pisanje poskuša držati v napetosti »pisanje in njegovo uprizoritev, uprizoritev in njeno pisavo« ter vzpostavlja okvir za raznolike prakse pisanja in uprizarjanja, ki bi sprico tradicionalnih nacinov gledanja in pisanja sicer ostale utišane ali prezrte (77). Gre za nenehno spreminjajoce se razmerje med pisavo in uprizoritvijo, ki vsaka s svoje strani oznacujeta dve skrajni tocki, med katerima krožijo in se oblikujejo raznovrstne prakse uprizoritvenega pisanja. Pojem uprizoritveno pisanje ni casovno opredeljen ali vezan na dolocen slog uprizarjanja, saj zajema mnoštvo raznolikih razmerij med pisanjem in/kot uprizarjanjem oziroma uprizoritvijo kot pisavo, osredotoca pa se na »transformativno igro besedila kot uprizoritve« (prav tam). Najprej se bomo posvetili skupinam pesnikov, ki so na gledaliških odrih uprizarjali svojo poezijo. Neoavantgardna skupina pesnikov 441/442/443 (ta je z vsako naslednjo uprizoritvijo poezije spremenila zadnjo številko v svojem imenu in se preimenovala v Gledališce Pupilije Ferkeverk) je poezijo razumela »v njeni 'uporabnosti' za javno uprizarjanje v podobi gledališkega dogodka« (Svetina, »Gledališce Pupilije Ferkeverk« 92). V težnji po komunikativnosti poezije so pesniki iskali »ustrezen prostor za svoj javni 'performance'« in v gledališcu prepoznali medij, v katerem »lahko pesniška beseda dobi popolnoma novo razsežnost« (prav tam). Po pricevanju Iva Svetine so bili pri tem inspirirani tudi z javnimi branji poezije Allena Ginsberga in znamenitimi moskovskimi veceri Jevgenija Jevtušenka. Za našo razpravo sta zanimiva predvsem literarna nastopa na odru Male drame V pocastitev tisocletja nosecnosti in stoletja prve pomoci maja 1968, ko je pesnikom pri odrski realizaciji pomagal Jurij Soucek, in Žlahtna plesen Pupilije Ferkeverk,ki jo je leta 1969 režiral Dušan Jovanovic. V obeh so avtorji nastopili v vlogah pesnikov, ki sami uprizarjajo svojo poezijo. Pomen premestitve poezije v medij gledališca v skupini 441nazorno predstavi Ivo Svetina. Iz njegovega zapisa je dobro razvidno, kako je potekal proces »prevajanja« poezije v jezik gledališca, kot se izrazi, to je prenos in transkripcija jezikovnega znaka v znakovne sisteme odra. V njem je mogoce prepoznati slediBarthesove semiologije. Kot pravi Svetina, je v »ugledališcenju« poezije v Tisocletju nosecnosti vse bolj tudi »kretnja« postajala jezik, avtorji pesmi pa »igralci«, ki se sicer niso »vživljali« v like oziroma junake igre, dramskega teksta, ampak so prav z navzocnostjo na odru, vklenjeni v magicni ris razsvetljene kocke, oživljali svoje besede, verze, pesmi. To oživljanje je peljalo po poti »igre«, improvizacije in radosti nad jezikom, ki je širil odrski prostor in v hipu postavljal pred gledalce ves svet, ujet v mrežo pesniškega jezika. V dolocenem trenutku se je poezija, njena literarnoestetska funkcija umaknila v ozadje in v ospredje je stopilo telo, glas, kretnja, šum ... (Svetina, »Prispevek« 88) Živa navzocnost pesnika na odru je postajala pomembnejša od same pesmi, k cemur je pripomogla tudi glasba, ki je »pesniško tkivo razgrajevala, ovirala ali spodbujala njegovo interpretacijo, hkrati s to 'demontažo' poezije« pa je bledela podoba »aristokratskega pesnika« in poslušalci so »postajali vse bolj gledalci«. Svetina poudari, da je šlo za »kreacijo in manj za interpretacijo pesmi« (prav tam). VŽlahtni plesni Pupilije Ferkeverk,ki so jo pripravili v sodelovanju z režiserjem Dušanom Jovanovicem, so se pesnikom pridružili novi clani, ki niso bili literarni ustvarjalci. Pesmi niso vec interpretirali oziroma utelešali le njihovi avtorji, temvec tudi drugi nastopajoci. Kot opozarja Svetina, ni šlo vec »zgolj za avtorsko interpretacijo pesmi dolocenega avtorja, ampak za proces, ko so vsi nastopajoci postali akterji, igralci novega tipa, ki se niso vec utemeljevali na 'vživljanju' v posamezne dramske like, ampak so z individualno energijo in navzocnostjo, z gibom in besedo dajali novo podobo tako pesmim kot tudi njihovim avtorjem« (»Prispevek« 91). Vprocesu kolektivnega ustvarjanja predstave se je – povedano s Svetinovimi besedami – zgodila »'demokratizacija' pesniškega akta, saj pesniški akt ni le akt ustvarjanja, ampak tudi akt 'podajanja' pesmi, stik med pesnikom in'obcanom'« (prav tam). Življenje poezije kot gledališke predstave je pomenilo »odrekanje zahtevi pesmi kot absolutnega organizma jezika« (prav tam). Vnjihovi naslednji predstavi Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki so se pesniki prepustili uprizoritveni viziji Dušana Jovanovica, njihova poezijapa je bila le del besedilnega gradiva uprizoritve; postavljena je bila v kontekst drugih umetnostnih in raznovrstnih neumetnostnih besedil.2 Za to priložnost so se preimenovali v 443 oziroma Gledališce Pupilije Ferkeverk. Opredelili so se kot »gibanje 443«, in sicer kot gibanje, ki »deluje na podrocju gledališca, literature, filma, likovne umetnosti in še vsepovsod« (Svetina, »Prispevek« 96). V primeru skupine 441/442/443 je dobro razviden sam proces premešcanja poezije v medij gledališca. Pri skupini Nomenklatura pa se temu pridružuje teoretski premislek o zvocni podobi pesniške besede na odru. Gledališki eksperimenti skupine Nomenklatura temeljijo na preiskovanju odnosa med literaturo in glasbo, pri cemer sta beseda in zvok obravnavana kot enakovredna partnerja. Za konceptualna izhodišca na podrocju literature je skrbel Boris A. Novak, na podrocju glasbe pa Bor Turel. Za pricujoco razpravo so še posebej zanimivi zacetki njihovega dela v casu, ko so delovali kot literarna skupina in jih je – prav tako kot skupino 441/442/443 – vodila želja po komunikaciji z obcinstvom. 2 Besedilo so sestavljale: pesem Tomaža Kralja, ljudska pesem Lepa Anka kolo vodi, pesem Jovana Vesela Koseskega in Majakovskega, besedilo fotoromana v italijanskem jeziku, uganka, sporazumevanje v jeziku gluhonemih, besedilo reklame za Alpsko mleko, besedilo v latovšcini, besedilo iz rubrike Zaupni pomenki v reviji rumenega tiska. Besedilo Pupilije je objavljeno v monografiji Prišli so Pupilcki. Razmerje med pomenom in zvenom besed so igrivo preiskovali na glasbeno-literarnih dogodkih, na katerih so uprizarjali svojo poezijo.3 Na 3. kulturnem maratonu na Filozofski fakulteti, ki je bil zamišljen kot manifestacija študentske (sub)kulture in drugih študentskih dejavnosti, so leta 1973 svojo poezijo predstavili Boris A. Novak, Igor Likar, Milan Klec in Jure Perovšek. Skupinski nastop so izvedli tako, da so okrog prizorišca razpeli vrvi in po vzoru boksarskega ringa ustvarili neke vrste pesniški ring. V njem so pesniki socasno interpretirali vsak svoje pesmi, in sicer tako, da so si podajali verze svojih pesmi in si jih – kot udarce pri boksu – izmenjevali po nacelu »verz za verz«.Tako je do polnega izraza prišla zvocna podoba pesmi, sam pomen pesmi pa je bil dekonstruiran. V skladus pesniškim credom Borisa A. Novaka, po katerem naj »zven besede pomeni in pomen besede zveni!«,4se je Nomenklatura posvecala raziskovanju odnosa med zvokom in pomenom besede. To je v bistvu de Saussurjevo vprašanje o razmerju med oznacevalcem (zvocno in likovno podobo besede) in oznacencem (pomenom besede), na katero so se tudi teoretsko sklicevali. Usmerili so se v preiskovanje zvocne ravni jezika. To je dobro razvidno iz koncepta za hepening Zvok, ne jezi se (1974). Hepening je potekal po zgledu igre Clovek, ne jezi se. V Festivalni dvorani, kjer je bil izveden, so bilaoznacena polja, po katerih so se pomikali udeleženci. Njihovo gibanje je dolocal met kocke, ki jo je metal clan skupine Nomenklatura. Na poljih so bila navodila za izvedbo razlicnih nalog oziroma »zvocnih akcij«, njihov razpon pa je segal »od spocenjanja osnovnih zvocnih akcij preko vkljucitve pomensko še neformiranih glasov do glasbenega posredovanja pesmi, najvišje zvocne oblike pomensko razclenjene govorice« (Nomenklatura, »Koncept« 189). T. i. »zvocne akcije s telesom« (kot je denimo plosk z rokami: plosk z ravnimi dlanmi, zaokroženimi dlanmi, plosk po vrhnji strani zapestja; udarec dlani ob druge dele telesa, ob tlaitd.) so se stopnjevale v zahtevnosti vse do »branja teksta« (razlikovali so karikirano branje, branje z razlicno hitrostjo, jakostjo, višino, petje teksta) (prav tam 195). Šlo je za uprizarjanje zvocnega telesa besede, sporocanja njene glasovne vrednosti. Izpostavljanje fonicnega oznacevalca v razmerju do oznacene vsebine je odprlo pot t. i. zvocnemu pisanju. Podobno bi lahko ugotovili za skupino LKB – Literarni klub Branik (njihovo ime je parodija na priljubljeni mariborski Športni klub Branik). Leta 1965 jo je v Mariboru ustanovil Miroslav Slana, zato da bi mladim ustvarjalcem zagotovil možnosti javnega nastopanja. V tretjem letu dejavnosti so Miroslav Slana, Andrej Brvar, Tone Partljic, Drago Jancar in Francek Hedl svoje literarne proizvode (tako so jih imenovali sami) odmevno predstavili na malem odru SNG Maribor dne 19. septembra 1968. 3 Nomenklatura je tudipozneje, kot gledališka skupina oziroma »Laboratorij za alkimijo umetnosti«, obcasno prirejala glasbeno-pesniške vecere (tako so jih imenovali sami), med njimi: Ogledalo tišine oktobra 1974, poskus totalne improvizacije Uho trenutka decembra 1974, Zven, ki vene februarja 1976 itd. O eksperimentih skupine Nomenklatura sem natancneje pisala v razpravi »Raziskave besede in zvoka v skupini Nomenklatura«. 4 Citat je vzet iz zapisa »Poezija jezika«, ki ga je Boris A. Novak objavil ob izidu svojega pesniškega prvenca Stihožitje v Ljubljanskem dnevniku 31. decembra 1977. Predstavljeni sobili kot reklama (v Brvarjevem primeru) in na nacin zlogovne clenitve besednih zvez, vzetih iz telefonskega imenika (v Slanovem primeru). Predstavitve literarnih del v Pekarni V gledališcu Pekarna (kot »poskusu vmesnega medija med gledališcem in drugimi umetniškimi izrazi«, ki je izkazoval težnjo k »totalnemu gledališcu«, kot po Ladu Kralju povzame Ivo Svetina (Gledališce Pekarna 415)) so imeli posebno vlogo t. i. literarni veceri sodobnih slovenskih pisateljev. Natancneje jih predstavi Ivo Svetina v monografiji Gledališce Pekarna, v posebnem poglavju z naslovom »Gledališce in literatura« (415–420). To so bili gledališki dogodki, na katerih so ustvarjalci želeli na drugacen nacin predstaviti ustvarjalnost živih pisateljev in ki vecinoma niso bili deležni gledaliških kritik.5Kot pojasni Kralj, ni šlo »za tradicionalne literarne vecere, ampak za neke vrste hepeninge«, le da tega imena niso uporabljali (prav tam 416). Osredotocimo se na tiste, v katerih so nastopili sami avtorji. Ob izidu pesniške zbirke Iva Svetine Vaša partijska ljubezen, ocetje! Herojska smrt življenja ... je avtor leta 1976 priredil dogodek, ki je prevzel formo gledališke predstave. Po Svetinovem pricevanju je dogodek vzbudil precejšnjo pozornost; najbrž tudi zaradi provokativne vsebine in same zasnove zbirke, ki je slavila oktobrsko revolucijo in jo hkrati ironizirala. To je bil tudi razlog, da zbirka ni izšla pri mariborski založbi Obzorja (leta 1972), temvec v samozaložbi (leta 1976). Svetina je v Pekarni zrežiral prizore, v katerih so nastopili Aleš Valic (kot Lenin), Jerca Mrzel (kot Leninova žena Nadežda Krupska) in tudi on sam. Za to se je odlocil po zgledu predstave, ki si jo je nekaj let prej ogledalv Rimu v Teatru Laboratorio. Tam je videl recital pesmi Vladimirja Majakovskega v izvedbi znanega italijanskega igralca Carmela Beneja. Ta je s patosom in ironijo recitiral pesmi ob glasbeni spremljavi, kar je Iva Svetino tako navdušilo, da je takšen pristop v Pekarni ubral tudi sam. Oder je bil »okrašen z rdecimi zastavami, veliko Leninovo fotografijo, na kateri leži v ležalniku, in z diapozitivi z glavo Mossfilma, na katerem je znacilen kip dveh borcev za lepšo prihodnost, za raj na Zemlji, moškega in ženske v znacilni socrealisticni ikonografiji, razgaljenih prsi in s kladivom in srpom v roki, v ozadju pa rdeca zvezda na enem od kremeljskih zvonikov« (Svetina, Gledališce Pekarna 419). Dramaticnost dogodka je nakazoval »velikanski ventilator, ki je obcasno naredil (revolucionaren) veter, razgibal rdece zastave in napovedal prihod novega casa« (prav tam). 5 Izvedeni so bili: VecerLojzeta Kovacica (1972), Vecer Daneta Zajca (1972 v režiji Iva Svetine), Vecer Marka Švabica ali »Predavanje o slovenski paranoji«(1973 v režiji Lada Kralja), literarni vecer Matjaža Kocbeka z naslovom Smrt po smrti po bogu (literarno doživetje s toplim bifejem, žonglerjem, pesmicami, drobovino in zelnatimi glavami) prav tako leta 1973, Happening Iva Svetine ali »Tiskovna konferenca«(1973 v avtorjevi režiji, ob izidu njegove knjige Heliks in Tibija),Vecer Ferdinanda Miklavca (1973), Vaša partijska ljubezen, ocetje! Herojska smrt življenja ... (1976 v režiji Iva Svetine, ob izidu njegove knjige s tem naslovom). V Repertoarju slovenskih gledališc 1972–1977 v dveh primerih režiserja nista navedena. Leta 1973 je bil izveden Vecer Marka Švabica ali »Predavanje o slovenski paranoji« (1973), in sicer v obliki predavanja (danes bi ga oznacili za predavanje - performans, lecture performance). Pisatelj se je gledalcem predstavil kot predavatelj, »ki 'v asketski pozi' stoji za pultom z mikrofonom in kozarcem vode ter predava o 'slovenskiparanoji'« (prav tam 416). Izkaže se, da gre za »predavanje 'o paranoji Marka Švabica' oziroma razkrivanje njegovega pisateljskega procesa pred javnostjo« (prav tam). Ta je na obiskovalce ucinkoval osupljivo, saj je avtor spregovoril »o svojih kar najbolj intimnih doživetjih, sanjah, morah, obsesijah«, v nadaljevanju pa odgovoril še na nekajnovinarjevih vprašanj. Kot ugotavlja Svetina, je bila »'predstava', ki jo je uprizoril Švabic, nekaj popolnoma drugacnega od dolgocasnega branja, ki se skoraj po pravilu godi na obicajnih literarnih vecerih,« in jo oznaci za obliko totalnega gledališca (prav tam 417). Nastop MatjažaKocbeka Smrt, po smrti, po bogu pa je bil »pravi hepening«, o cemer zgovorno prica tudi oznaka dogodka: Literarno doživetje s toplim bifejem, žonglerjem, pesmicami, drobovino in zelnatimi glavami (1973). Sredi bogato aranžiranega dogajanja, »okrašenega« s precejšnjimi kolicinami mesa, je Kocbek interpretiral svoje pesmi, nastop pa je navezal na »nesramne ekshibicije« v predstavi Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki v izvedbi Gledališca Pupilije Ferkeverk, v kateri je pred leti tudi sam nastopil (prav tam 417). Konec šestdesetih in v sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja so pesniki in pisatelji v uprizoritvah svojih literarnih del igrivo preiskovali življenje jezika na gledaliških odrih, zvocno in vizualno podobo besede ter opazovali, kako ucinkuje na gledalce. Kako ugledališciti poezijo in prozo? To je bilo osrednje vprašanje, s katerim so se ukvarjali: kako lingvisticni znak prenesti in preobraziti v znakovne sisteme odra. Tri desetletja pozneje je skupina dramatikov in dramaturgov v PreGleju razprla problematiko ustvarjanja dramskih besedil. Ce je literate neoavantgardnih skupin gledališce zanimalo kot prostor, ki omogoca raziskavo novih razsežnosti literarne besede, in kot medij, ki (drugace kot knjižna objava) omogoca neposredno komunikacijo z obcinstvom, je bilo avtorjem PreGleja gledališce primarni medij, v katerem so uresnicevali svoje zamisli. VPreGleju so se ukvarjali z vprašanjem: kako napisati dramo? Osredotocili so se na vprašanje, kako premestiti logiko odra v dramsko besedilo, in na strategije prenosa znakovnih sistemov odra v lingvisticni znak. Bralne uprizoritve v PreGleju Leta 2005 je skupina dramatikov in dramaturgov mlajše generacije, zbranih okrog Simone Semenic, osnovala skupino PreGlej. V sodelovanju s teoretikom Rokom Vevarjem so v okviru Gledališca Glej v nekaj letih vzpostavili platformo za ustvarjanje, razvoj in mednarodno izmenjavo dramskih pisav. PreGlej je nastal iz želje po pridobitvi znanj in vešcin iz dramskega pisanja, pa tudi kot kritika obstojecih razmer na podrocju gledališkega izobraževanja in samega vrednotenja dramskih del. V tistem casu se je bilo v slovenskem prostoru mogoce seznaniti z vešcinami dramskega pisanja na delavnicah, ki jih je organiziral festival Teden slovenske drame v Kranju, ne pa tudi na Akademiji za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo.6Iz potrebe po razvijanju dramskih besedil so organizirali vrsto dejavnosti, ki so spodbujale in zagotavljale kontinuirano in sistematicno delo na dramskih besedilih. PreGlejcki (kot jih po analogiji s Pupilcki imenuje Maja Šorli, tudi sama aktivna clanica PreGleja) so o dramskem besedilu razmišljali kot o potencialni uprizoritvi. V PreGlejevem Laboratoriju so vsako drugo soboto v mesecu obdelovali nova oziroma nastajajoca dramska besedila, se o njih pogovarjali in jih nadgrajevali. Organizirali so predavanja, ki so spodbujala teoretsko premišljevanje dramskega ustvarjanja. Poleg tega so vpeljali bralne uprizoritve kot ucni proces ustvarjanja drame, ki omogoca procesualno dramsko pisavo in prinaša dramo v razvoju kot delo v nastajanju. Oder so uporabili kot medij za komunikacijo z obcinstvom – s prvimi bralci, poslušalci oziroma gledalci. Bralne uprizoritve so bile zastavljene kot nadaljevanje dramske delavnice, na kateri dramatiksprevidi, kako dramska beseda ucinkuje na odru, in ima priložnost skupaj z režiserjem, igralci pa tudi z gledalci predebatirati svoje delo. Pripravljali so jih v sodelovanju z režiserji in igralci svoje generacije. Po bralni uprizoritvi kot prvi javni predstavitvi novega dramskega dela je stekel pogovor, v katerem so bili k izmenjavi mnenj povabljeni vsi prisotni. Na ta nacin so PreGlejcki poskušali v proces nastajanja drame vkljuciti tudi gledalce. Z uprizoritvenega vidika so bile to neke vrste aranžirke, ki so po eni strani zagovarjale preprostost bralnouprizoritvenih prijemov, kot pravi Simona Semenic (Jesenko 27),po drugi strani pa nedovršenost samih uprizoritev. Ali kot bralno uprizoritev opredeli Blaž Lukan: »gre za vrnitev k tekstu, ki pa ne pomeni revitalizacije nekakšne anahronisticne dramskogledališke paradigme, temvec za metodološko vzpostavitev teksta kot uprizoritvenega polja, ki za svojo uprizoritev potrebuje le svojo 'tekstualnost'« (194). PreGlejeve bralne uprizoritve izkazujejo razumevanje dramskega ustvarjanja kot uprizoritvenega pisanja, ki pojmuje dramo kot zmeraj že premešceno v medij gledališca ter transkribirano v jezik odra. To je bilo razvidno tudi v izvedbi Devetih lahkih komadov (2007), zastavljenih kot provokativna politicna gesta in kritika vrednotenja dramskih besedil v slovenskem prostoru. Kot pravi Rok Vevar, je bil v Sloveniji eden osrednjih problemov ta, »da gledališka elita zelo natancno 've, kaj je dobra drama'« (»PreGlej« 19). Po njegovem mnenju je bil v slovenskem prostoru takrat najbolj cenjen »‘dramski realizem‘, tekoc dialog, jezik v funkciji okolišcin, 6 Predmet dramsko pisanje se je na UL AGRFT zacel izvajati ob uvedbi bolonjske reforme na Univerzi v Ljubljani v študijskem letu 2009/10. situacije in intence ter ne niti prevec kompleksne niti komplicirane strukture. Skratka: nekaj, kar se da nategniti na metodološke klišeje psihološkega realizma« (prav tam). V preucevanju in teoretskem premišljevanju drame kot literarne zvrsti in uprizoritvenega dogodka so na dramskih delavnicah v PreGlejevem Laboratoriju raziskovali, kaj vse je lahko drama. Vevar je dal udeležencem nalogo, naj razišcejo, kaj bi po analogiji z Duchampovim pisoarjem v dramatiki lahko pomenil ready-made. Rezultat je bil zbirka besedil – Devetih lahkih komadov, vzetih iz razlicnih kontekstov vsakdanjega življenja (kot so navodila za uporabo pralnega stroja, poljudnoznanstvena besedila, medicinska besedila, prepis strokovne debate, chata, foruma itd.), ki so jih udeleženci delavnice nato avtorsko obdelali.7Njihova uprizoritev je prevzela hibridno obliko bralne uprizoritve in performansa, ki so ga izvedli 1. aprila 2007, na dan, ko je v Kranju potekala zakljucnaslovesnost Tedna slovenske drame in so podelili tudi Grumovo nagrado za najboljše izvirno dramsko besedilo.8 Devet lahkih komadov je bilo zamišljenih kot »akcija«, s katero so »poskušali zmotiti red, ki narekuje kriterije za slovensko dramsko pisanje« (Šorli, »Politicnost« 18). Hkrati pa je šlo za temeljito preizpraševanje ne vec dramskih gledaliških besedil. Maja Šorli PreGlejcke primerja s Pupilcki, ki so leta 1969 v predstavi Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki prav tako uporabili raznovrstna umetnostna in neumetnostna besedila, vzeta iz drugih medijev in njihovih kontekstov, vendar njihova premestitev na oder ni bila sporna. Pravzaprav besedilo za Pupilijo in njegova sestava sploh nista bila deležna pozornosti. Šokanten je bil sklepni prizor, v katerem je bila obredno zaklana kokoš, ki je po presoji Vena Tauferja pomenila »smrt literarnega, samo esteticno funkcionalnega gledališca na Slovenskem« (42). Štiri desetletja pozneje je izvedba t. i.ready made besedil v PreGleju dodatno razvnela v tistem casu žgoce razprave o tem, kaj je drama. Osredinjala so jih vprašanja, kaj je izvirna drama in kaj je slovenska izvirna dramatika.9To je bil cas krize dramskega pisanja in pomanjkanja novih dram, ko so repertoarna gledališca izdatno uprizarjala dramatizacije proznih del (te so bile sicer stalnica na slovenskih odrih), socasno pa je porast uprizoritev snovalnega gledališca porodil vrsto t. i. ne vec dramskih gledaliških besedil. Skupina PreGlej je formo bralne uprizoritve popularizirala tudi na prvem festivalu dramske pisave v slovenskem prostoru PreGlej na glas! (leta 2006), ki je prerasel v mednarodni festival. V osmih letih svojega delovanja je uspešno spodbujal izmenjavo dramskih besedil (na relaciji Ljubljana–New York–Ljubljana – mesta v nekdanji 7 Postopke avtorske obdelave ready-made besedil predstavi Maja Šorli (»Dva primera« 76). Avtorji so bili: Zalka Grabnar Kogoj, Iztok Ilc, Jerneja Kušar, Miha Marek, Janko Oven, Peter Rezman, Simona Semenic, Maja Šorli in Rok Vevar. 8 Besedilo Devet lahkih komadov je konkuriralo tudi za Grumovo nagrado. Zanimivo je, da je bilo tri leta pozneje za Grumovo nagrado nominirano ready-made besedilo Janeza Janše Slovensko narodno gledališce. Uprizoritev (v formi dobesednega gledališca, t. i. verbatim theatre)je sicer že leta 2008 prejela Borštnikovo nagrado za gledališke inovacije in estetski preboj. To je bilo eno od petih dramskih besedil, ki so bila v letu 2010 nominirana za Grumovo nagrado. Podeljene so bile tri enakovredne nagrade: Ivu Prijatelju za dramo Totenbirt, Simoni Semenic za 24ur in Ivu Svetini za dramo Grobnica za Pekarno. 9 Ta vprašanja so pregledno analizirana v tematskem bloku »Literatura in teater« v reviji Literatura (januar/februar 2006, letn. 18, št. 175–176, str. 67–190). Jugoslaviji idr.) in pospešil uprizarjanje novih dram v slovenskih gledališcih. PreGlej je z entuziasticno kulturno-umetniško gverilo, kot se izrazi Rok Vevar (»Za dramsko pisavo« 3), sprožil pravi trend bralnih uprizoritev. Kot oblika javne predstavitve drame se je uveljavila na festivalu Teden slovenske drame, na katerem vsako leto bralno uprizorijo nominiranke za Grumovo nagrado za najboljše dramsko besedilo; prav tako na Akademiji za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, kjer jih kontinuirano pripravljajo študentje (bodisi pod mentorstvom Žanine Mircevske bodisi samostojno). Dramatiki in dramaturgi mlade generacije so vzpostavili tudi novo platformo dramske ustvarjalnosti in ustanovili festival dramske pisave Vzkrik (leta 2017). Dramaticarka in pobudnica PreGleja Simona Semenic je bralno uprizarjanje uporabila kot postopek pri snovanju dram tudi zunaj PreGleja, denimo pri pisanju besedila za uprizoritev še ni naslova v režiji Tomija Janežica in izvedbi Slovenskega mladinskega gledališca (2018). Besedilo je pisala sproti, ko so že potekale vaje in je bilo v sodelovanju z igralci mogoce preveriti njegovo odrsko dimenzijo ter ga uskladiti, ali bolje, razvijati v dialogu z režiserjem in uprizoritvenim konceptom. Ceprav takšen nacin uprizoritvenega pisanja redko zasledimo v repertoarnih gledališcih, je bil v zgodovini gledališca pogosta praksa. Kot opozarja Rok Vevar, je »klasicna dramatika nastajala sproti, se pravi: skupaj s prakso«, se pravi s sprotnimi »bralnimi uprizoritvami«, ki so sugerirale popravke (»PreGlej« 20). Kot zgled izpostavi Shakespearjevo dramatiko. V slovenskem gledališcu so na takšen nacin nastajala denimo besedila Emila Filipcica za uprizoritve v režiji Vita Tauferja: Altamira (SNG Drama Ljubljana, 1984), Atlantida (Slovensko mladinsko gledališce, 1988) in Božanska tragedija (Prešernovo gledališce Kranj, 1989). Tomaž Toporišic navaja, da je Filipcic nastopil kot rezidencni pisatelj, njegovo vlogo v procesu ustvarjanja uprizoritve pa primerja z Barthesovim modernim pisarjem (129). Ob tem ugotavlja, da je to vlogo pred njim prevzel tudi Milan Jesih, ko je v Eksperimentalnem gledališcu Glej pripravljal besedilo za Limite (1973)v režiji Zvoneta Šedlbauerja, v devetdesetih letih pa Andrej Rozman, denimo ko je v Slovenskem mladinskem gledališcu pisal besedilo za Tartifa (1993) v režiji Vita Tauferja (prav tam 129–130). Na takšen nacin so v SMG nastale tudi Žrtve mode bum-bum (1975) Dušana Jovanovica. Produkcija dramskih besedil kot praksa uprizoritvenega pisanja se je uveljavila tudi v snovalnem gledališcu. Sklep Neoavantgardnim gledališkim praksam in PreGleju je bilo skupno zanimanje, kako njihova (pesniška, prozna in dramska) dela ucinkujejo na obcinstvo. Povezovalo jih je vprašanje o naravi odrskega znaka. Všestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja so se pesniki in pisatelji ukvarjali s tem vprašanjem z vidika premestitve lingvisticnega znaka v znakovne sisteme odra. Vprvem desetletju 21. stoletja pa so dramatiki in dramaturgi v PreGleju pristopili k temu vprašanju prav znasprotnega vidika: kako naseliti logiko znakovnih sistemov odra v lingvisticni znak? Oziroma drugace povedano: kako misliti dramo, kot da bila že ugledališcena, in napisati dramsko besedilo? Pesniki in pisatelji, ki so predstavljali svoja literarna dela obcinstvu, so utelešali samo pisavo, ob tem pa dopušcali, da jih presega in se razrašca v druge znakovne sisteme odra. Pri tem so ustvarili raznovrstne oblike uprizoritvenega pisanja, ki so porajale zgodnje primere ne vec dramskih gledaliških besedil na slovenskih odrih, in z njimi oblikovali odrske estetike v zarisu postdramskega gledališca. Tri desetletja pozneje so udeleženci PreGleja uporabili formo bralne uprizoritve kot metodo za procesualno dramsko ustvarjanje. Na bralnih uprizoritvah so v dialogu zuprizoritelji in gledalci preverjali, kako njihove drame delujejo na odru, z namenom, da bi usvojili tehnike dramskega pisanja in vzpostavili dramo kot predstavo. Z uprizoritvenim pisanjem so funkcijo dramskega avtorja delili z ustvarjalci uprizoritve in tudi z gledalci. Zavezani raziskovanju drame kot zvrsti in v iskanju inovativnih pristopov k oblikovanju ne vec dramskih gledaliških besedil, so povezovali prakso dramskega pisanja s teorijo drame in gledališca. S celoto svojih dejavnosti (z organizacijo prvega slovenskega festivala dramske pisave PreGlej na glas!, konstruktivno kritiko sistemov vrednotenja dramskih besedil, popularizacijo bralnih uprizoritev) so med mlajšo generacijo gledaliških ustvarjalcev vzbudili zanimanje za dramsko pisanje kot trendovsko dejavnost, v slovenskem prostoru pa pomembno prispevali k revitalizaciji samega podrocja dramske ustvarjalnosti. Raznolikim umetniškim interesom neoavantgardnih skupin in skupine PreGlej navkljub pa so njihovi avtorji izstopali iz konvencij pisanja oziroma produkcije gledaliških besedil ter z uprizoritvenim pisanjem utirali poti novim pristopom in estetikam uprizarjanja. Literatura Allsopp, Ric. »Performance Writing.« PAJ – A Journal of Performance and Art, letn. 21, št. 1, 1999, str. 76–80. Barthes, Roland. Užitek v tekstu. Variacije o pisavi. Prev. Š. Žakelj. Beletrina, 2013. Knjižna zbirka Koda. Bergvall, Caroline. »What Do We Mean by Performance Writing?« Uvodno predavanje na prvem simpoziju na temo Performance Writing. Dartington College of Arts, Velika Britanija, 12. apr. 1996, docplayer.net/38120436-Caroline-bergvall-keynote-what-do-we-mean-by-performance-writing-w.html. Dostop 25. feb. 2023. Jesenko, Primož. »Da bi se dolgorocno pisalo vec in tudi vse bolje. Pogovor s Simono Semenic, koordinatorico projekta PreGlej.« Dialogi, št. 7–8, 2006, str. 23–28. Literatura in teater. Tematski blok v reviji Literatura, letn. 18, št. 175–176, 2006, str. 67–190. Lukan, Blaž. »Tekst kot oderali bralne uprizoritve v luci performativne ekonomije.« Umetnost med teorijo in prakso: teoretski pogledi na umetnostno realnost na pragu tretjega tisocletja, ur. Jožef Muhovic, Založba Univerze v Ljubljani, 2021, str. 187–200. Milohnic, Aldo, in Ivo Svetina, ur.Prišli so Pupilcki: 40 let Gledališca Pupilije Ferkeverk. Maska, Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2009. Nomenklatura. »Koncept in pravila igre happeninga 'Zvok, ne jezi se'.« Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov: slovenski eksperimentalni dramski in uprizoritveni teksti iz obdobja modernizma (1966–1986), ur. Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, str. 189–195. Orel, Barbara. »Raziskave besede in zvoka v skupini Nomenklatura.« Slovenska dramatika, ur. Mateja Pezdirc Bartol, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2012, str. 215–221. Obdobja, 31. Svetina, Ivo. Gledališce Pekarna (1971–1978): rojstvo gledališca iz duha svobode: pricevanje. Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2016. Knjižnica MGL, 167. Svetina, Ivo. »Gledališce Pupilije Ferkeverk ali vprašanje rituala.« Literarni modernizem v »svincenih« letih, ur. Gašper Troha, Študentska založba, Društvo Slovenska matica, 2008, str. 79–99. Svetina, Ivo. »Prispevek za zgodovino gledališkega gibanja na Slovenskem – Pupilija Ferkeverk.« Maske, št. 4, 1986, str. 86–101. Šorli, Maja. »Dva primera ready-made besedila v slovenskem gledališcu.« Drama, tekst, pisava, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišic, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2008, str. 69–86. Knjižnica MGL, 148. Šorli, Maja. »Politicnost in teatralnost v slovenskih postdramskih besedilih.« Dialogi, letn. 44, št. 3–4, str. 15–32. Taufer, Veno. Odrom ob rob. Državna založba Slovenije, 1977. Toporišic, Tomaž. Med zapeljevanjem in sumnicavostjo: razmerje med tekstom in uprizoritvijo v slovenskem gledališcu druge polovice 20. stoletja. Maska, 2004. Transformacije, 14. Vevar, Rok. »PreGlej.« Dialogi, št. 7–8, 2006, str. 18–20. Vevar, Rok. »Za dramsko pisavo s PreGlejem na glas!« Daj Dramo!: deset dramskih besedil, ur. Ana Perne in Iztok Ilc, Kulturno društvo Integrali, Gledališce Glej, Javni sklad RS za kulturne dejavnosti, WaxFactory, 2007, str. 3. UDK 792.02(497.4):821.163.6.09-2 UDK 821.163.6.09-2:792.02(497.4) DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/160-172 In 2005, on the initiative of playwright Simona Semenic and in close collaboration with performing arts theorist Rok Vevar, a group of playwrights and dramaturgs founded PreGlej within the Glej Theatre in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The group confronted the issues of playwriting and, within a few years, established a platform for the creation, development and international exchange of dramatic writing. Their work was committed to establishing the conditions necessary for creating dramatic texts. To this end, they used the form of staged readings – not only as a public presentation of dramatic plays but as a method for developing drama, bringing drama as a work in progress. The article shows that this kind of playwriting practice on Slovenian stages has its precursors in the experimental theatre practices of the 1960s and 1970s (as applied by the neo-avant-garde groups of poets 441/442/443, Nomenklatura and LKB – Literarni klub Branik, as well as in the performances of writers presenting their literary works at the Pekarna Theatre). Poets and writers staged their works, which were not primarily intended to be performed, creating theatrical forms of writing for the stage, which fit neither the conventions of drama nor the tradition of theatre. The staging of literature and staged readings are discussed in the context of performance writing, which characterises the multiple relationships between writing and performance, focusing on the process of writing as a performative act. Keywords: literature, poetry, drama, performance, staged reading, performance writing Barbara Orel, PhD, is a professor of performing arts at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana (UL AGRFT). She is also the head of UL AGRFT’s research group. Her main areas of research are experimental theatre, avant-garde movements and performance across disciplines. Her publications include the book Igra v igri (Play within a Play) and several edited collections, including Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika (Performing Arts, Migration, Politics). She has participated in the research projects of the Theatrical Event working group of the International Federation for Theatre Research. She was also a selector of the Slovenian national theatre festivals Week of Slovenian Drama in 2006–2007 and the Maribor Theatre Festival in 2008–2009. barbara.orel@agrft.uni-lj.si Performing Literature and Staged Readings Barbara Orel Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana In 2005,1the PreGlej group in Ljubljana, Slovenia, started organising drama work­shops, which included staged readings of newly written plays. The staging of readings was conceived as a way of creating drama – not only as its public presentation but as a process in which playwrights have the opportunity to experience how their play func­tions on the theatre stage, seehow the audience experiences it, and then, after the reading, discuss it with the director, actors and audience and, based on their feedback, improve the play. The staged readings in PreGlej Laboratory established the condi­tions forprocessual dramatic creativity. The precursors of this kind of playwriting on Slovenian stages can be identified in the experimental theatre practices of the 1960s and 1970s, which explored the dimensions of the word in the medium of theatre and, in the process, developed forms various of performance writing. Poetry Performed by Groups of Poets The presentation of literature on Slovenian stages has taken various forms of perfor­mance. In addition to traditional literary evenings (poetry, prose and, less frequent­ly, drama) that regularly supplement the repertoire in institutional theatres, various types of stagings of literature with a tendency towards theatrical experimentation began to appear on experimental stages as early as the 1950s, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s. Their performative qualities, however, were mostly ignored. They include stagings of poetry by the group 441/442/443 (which later transformed into the Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre), explorations of the sound image of words by the groups Nomenklatura and LKB – Literarni klub Branik (The Branik Literary Club) and presentations of literary works by Slovenian writers in the Pekarna Theatre. In these presentations, the authors could examine on theatre stages the dimensions of words and literary works that were not primarily intended for performance. They recognised theatre as an attractive and effective medium for direct communication 1 Acknowledgements: The paper was written in the framework of the research programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” (P6-0376), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget. with the audience and a place for exploring texts. Stage performances included var­ious actions, acts and situations animated by the authors’ creative enthusiasm and inseparably linked to behavioural practices. We will consider them in the context of the so-called performance writing since, as Caroline Bergvall defines it, performance writing needs to “explore the kinds of relationship text-based work entertains when developed in conjunction with other media and other discourses”, opening up a space for “investigation of the kinds of formal and ideological strategies which writers and artists develop textually in response or in reaction to their own time and their own fields” (“Keynote”). As Ric Allsopp explains, the label performance writing “attempts to hold in tension both writing and its performance, performance and its writing” and establishes a framework for diverse writing and performance practices that would otherwise remain silenced or ignored in the face of traditional ways of seeing and writing (77). The relationship between writing and performance is constantly chang­ing. Each marks the two extremes between which various practices of performance writing circulate and take form. The notion of performance writing is not temporally defined or tied to a particular style of performance, as it encompasses a multiplicity of diverse relations between writing and/as performance, or performance as writing and focuses on the “transformative play of text as performance” (77). Let us first look at the groups of poets who have performedtheir poetry on theatre stages. The neo-avant-garde group of poets called 441/442/443 (the group changed the final number in its name with each successive performance of poetry and later renamed itself the Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre) understood poetry “in its ‘usefulness’ for public performance in the form of a theatrical event” (Svetina, “Gledališce Pupilije Ferkeverk” 92). In the quest to make poetry more communicative, the poets sought “an appropriate space for their public ‘performance’” and identified the theatre as a medium in which “poetic words can take on a completely new dimension” (92). According to Ivo Svetina, they were also inspired by Allen Ginsberg’s public readings of his poetry and the famous Moscow evenings of Yevgeny Yevtushenko. Particularly interesting for our discussion are the literary presentations entitled V pocastitev tisocletja nosecnosti in stoletja prve pomoci (In Celebration of the Millennium of Pregnancy and the Century of First Aid), when the actor Jurij Soucek helped the poets with their stage realisation, and Žlahtna plesen Pupilije Ferkeverk (The Noble Mould of Pupilija Ferkeverk), directed by Dušan Jovanovic. They took place on the Small Stage of the Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana in May 1968and 1969, respectively. In both, the authors appeared in the roles of poets performing their own poetry. The importance of the transposition of poetry to the medium of theatre in group 441 is illustrated by Ivo Svetina. His account clearly shows how the process of “translat­ing” poetry into the language of theatre, as he puts it, i.e., the transfer and transcrip­tion of the linguistic sign into the sign systems of the stage, took place. Traces of Bar­thes’s semiology can be discerned in this. As Svetina says, in the “theatricalisation” of poetry in In Celebration of the Millennium of Pregnancy: It happened that increasingly “gesture” also became a language. The authors of poems became “actors” who, despite not “inhabiting” the characters or heroes of a play, a dra­matic text but who, precisely by their presence on the stage, lockedin the magic circle of the illuminated cube, brought their words, verses, poems to life. This animation took us along the path of “play”, improvisation and the enjoyment of language, which ex­panded the space of the stage and, in an instant, placed before the audience a whole world caught in the network of poetic language. At a particular moment, poetry, its lit-erary-aesthetic function, receded into the background, and what came to the fore was the body, voice, gesture, sound .... (“Prispevek” 88) The live presence of the poet on the stage became more important than the poem it­self. This was further aided by music, which “dismantled the poetic fabric, hindered or encouraged its interpretation, and at the same time, with this ‘dismantling’ of poetry”, the image of the “aristocratic poet” faded, and the listeners “were becoming more and more like spectators”. Svetina emphasises that it was “not so much about interpreting the poem but rather about creating” (Svetina, “Prispevek” 88). In The Noble Mould of Pupilija Ferkeverk, the poets were joined by new members who were not literary artists. Poems were no longer interpreted or embodied only by their authors but also by other performers. As Svetina points out, it was no longer “just a matter of an authorial interpretation of a poem by a particular author but a process in which all the performers became actors, actors of a new type, who no longerbased themselves on ‘inhabiting’ individual dramatic characters, but who, with theirindividual energy and presence, with movement and words, gave a new image to both the poems and theirauthors” (“Prispevek” 91). In Svetina’s words, in the process of the collective creation of the performance, “a ‘democratisation’ of the poetic act happened since the poetic act is not only an act of creation but also an act of ‘passing’ a poem, it is about the contact between the poet and the ‘citizen’” (“Prispevek” 91). The life of poetry as a theatre performance meant “renouncing the claim of the poem as an absolute organism of language” (“Prispevek” 91). In their next performance, Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilcki (Pupilija, Papa Pupilo and the Pupilceks), the poets surrendered themselves to Dušan Jovanovic’s vision, and their poetry functioned only as part of the textual material of the performance; set in the context of other artistic and diverse non-artistic texts.2 For the occasion, they renamed themselves 443, or Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre. They defined themselves as the “443 Movement”, namely as a movement “working in the field of theatre, literature, film, visual arts and everywhere else” (Svetina, “Prispevek” 96). 2 The text consisted of: apoem by Tomaž Kralj, the folk song “Lepa Anka kolo vodi” (“Pretty Anka Leads the Kolo”), a poem by Jovan Vesel Koseski and Mayakovsky, the text of a photo novel in Italian, a riddle, communication in sign language, the text of an advertisement for the Alpsko Mleko brand of milk, a text in Latin and a text from the “Confidential” section of a yellow press magazine. The entire text of Pupilija is published in the monograph Prišli so Pupilcki. In the 441/442/443 group, the process of shifting poetry into the medium of the the­atre is clearly discernible. In the case of the Nomenklatura group, this process is joined by a theoretical reflection on the sound image of the poetic word on stage. Nomen­klatura’s theatrical experiments are based on investigating the relationship between literature and music, treating words and sounds as equal partners. Boris A. Novak was responsible for the conceptual starting points in the field of literature, while Bor Turel took overthe music. Particularly interesting for the present discussion are the beginnings of their work when they were working as a literary group and – like the 441/442/443 group – were driven by the desire to communicate with the audience. The group playfully explored the relationship between the meanings and sounds of words at musical-literary events where they performed their poetry.3In 1973, Boris A. Novak, Igor Likar, Milan Klec and Jure Perovšek presented their poetry at the 3rd Cultural Marathon at the Faculty of Arts, conceived as a manifestation of student (sub)culture and other student activities. The group performance was carried out by stretching ropes around the venue and creating a kind of poetry ring in the form of a boxing ring. The poets interpreted their poems simultaneously by passing lines of their poems to each other and exchanging them – like punches in boxing – in a “verse for verse” manner. In this way, the sound image of the poems came to full expression while the meaning of the poem itself was deconstructed. Following BorisA. Novak’s poetic maxim that “the sound of the word means and the meaning of the word sounds!”,4Nomenklatura was devoted to exploring the relation­ship between the sound of the word and its meaning. This relationshsip is essential­ly Ferdinand de Saussure’s question of the relationship between the signifier (the acoustic and visual image of the word) and the signified (the meaning of the word), to whichthey theoretically referred. They focused on investigating the acoustic level of language. This investigation is well illustrated by the concept for their happening Zvok, ne jezi se (Sound, Don’t Get Angry, 1974). The happening was modelled on the cross and circle board game known in the Slovenian language as Clovek, ne jezi se (Man, Don’t Get Angry).5In the Festivalna dvorana (Ljubljana Festival Hall), where it was performed, they marked out the fields in which the participants moved. Their move­ment was determined by the roll of a die by a member of the Nomenklatura group. The fields contained instructions for the performance of various tasks or “sound ac­tions”, ranging “from the conception of basic sound actions, through the incorporation 3 Even later, as a theatre group or Laboratorij za alkimijo umetnosti (Laboratory for the Alchemy of Art), they would occasionally organise musical-poetry evenings (as they called them), including Ogledalo tišine (Mirror of Silence) in October 1974, an experiment in total improvisation Uho trenutka (The Ear of the Moment)in December 1974, Zven, ki vene (The Sound that Withers) in February 1976, etc. I have written in more detail about the experiments of Nomenklatura in the essay “Raziskave besede in zvoka v skupini Nomenklatura”. 4 This quotation comes from the essay “Poezija jezika”, published by Boris A. Novak on the occasion of the publication of his poetic debut Stihožitje in Ljubljanski dnevnik on 31 December 1977. 5 Editor’s note: The Slovenian game takesits name from the German cross and circle game, Mensch ärgere Dich nicht. English variations of this game are known as Sorry!, Parcheesi or Aggravation. of semantically still unformed voices, to the musical mediation of poems, the highest sonic form of semantically articulated speech” (Nomenklatura, “Koncept” 189). The so-called “sound actions with the body” (such as clapping the hands; clapping with straight palms, with rounded palms, slapping the top of the wrist; clapping the palms against other parts of the body, the floor, etc.) intensified in complexity all the way to “reading the text” (exploring exaggerated reading, reading at different speed, intensi­ty, pitch, singing of text) (195).It was about performing the acoustic body of the word, communicating its vocal value. The exposition of the phonic signifier in relation to the signified content opened the way to so-called acoustic writing. A similar observation could be made about the LKB group – Literarni klub Branik (The Branik Literary Club) (their name was a parody of the popular Branik Sports Club from Maribor), founded in 1965 in Maribor by Miroslav Slana to provide young artists with opportunities for public appearance. In the third year of their activity, on 19 September 1968, Miroslav Slana, Andrej Brvar, Tone Partljic, Drago Jancar and Francek Hedl presented their literary products (as they called them themselves) on the Small Stageof the Slovenian National Theatre Maribor. They presented them in the style of advertisements (in Andrej Brvar’s case) or as syllabic articulations of phrases taken from the telephone directory (in Miroslav Slana’s case). Presentations of Literary Works at the Pekarna Theatre Pekarna Theatre was “an attempt at an intermediate medium between theatre and other artistic expressions”, which demonstrated a tendency towards “total theatre”, as Ivo Svetina quotes Lado Kralj in his monography (Gledališce Pekarna 415). Here, the so-called literary evenings of contemporary Slovenian writers held a special place. They are presented in more detail in the monograph’s chapter entitled “Gledališce in literatura” (“Theatre and Literature”) (415–420). These were theatrical events in which the creators wanted to present the works of living writers differently and were mainly not subject to theatrical criticism.6As Kralj explains, these were “not tradition­al literary evenings, but a kind of happenings”, except that they did not use this label (qtd. in Svetina, Gledališce Pekarna 416). Let us focus on the events which featured the authors themselves. 6 They carried out the following events: Vecer Lojzeta Kovacica (Lojze Kovacic’s Evening), 1972; Vecer Daneta Zajca Dane Zajc’s Evening), 1972, directed by Ivo Svetina; Vecer Marka Švabica ali “Predavanje o slovenski paranoji” (Marko Švabic’s Evening or “A Lecture on Slovenian Paranoia”),1973, directed by Lado Kralj; Matjaž Kocbek’s literary evening entitled Smrt po smrti po bogu. (Literarno doživetje s toplim bifejem, žonglerjem, pesmicami, drobovino in zelnatimi glavami) (Death after Death after God. (A literary experience with a warm buffet, juggler, poems, tripe and cabbage heads)), also in 1973; Happening Iva Svetine ali “Tiskovna konferenca” (Ivo Svetina’s Happening or “Press Conference”), 1973, directed by the author alongside the publication of hisbook Heliks in Tibija (Heliks and Tibija); Ferdinand Miklavc’s Evening (Vecer Ferdinanda Miklavca), 1973; Vaša partijska ljubezen, ocetje! Herojska smrt življenja ... (Your Party Love, Fathers! The Heroic Death of Life ... ), 1976, directed by Ivo Svetina, alongside the publication of his book of the same title). In two cases, The Repertoire of Slovenian Theatres 1972–1977 does not note the directors. 166 In 1976, on the occasion of the publication of Ivo Svetina’s poetry collection Vaša partijska ljubezen, ocetje! Herojska smrt življenja ... (Your Party Love, Fathers! The Heroic Death of Life ...),the author staged an event that took the form of a theatre performance. According to Svetina’s testimony, the event attracted considerable attention, probably due to the provocative content and the very conception of the collection, which simultaneously celebrated and ironized the October Revolution. For this reason, the collection was not published by the Maribor publishing house Obzorja (in 1972) but rather as a self-published edition (in 1976). In the Pekarna Theatre, Svetina directedscenes which featured Aleš Valic (as Lenin), Jerca Mrzel (as Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupska) and himself. He decided to do this after a performance he had seen a few years earlier at the Teatro Laboratorio in Rome. There, he had seen a recital of Vladimir Mayakovsky’s poems performed by the well-known Italian actor Carmelo Bene, who recited the poems with a great deal of pathos and irony, accompanied by music, which impressed Ivo Svetina so much that he decided for a similar approach at the Pekarna Theatre. The stage was “decorated with red flags, a large photograph of Lenin lying in a deckchair, and slides with Mossfilm’s logo showing a typical statue of two people fighting for a better future, for a paradise on Earth, a man and a woman in typical socialist realist iconography, bare-chested and holding a hammer and sickle, with a red star on one of the Kremlin’s belfries in the background” (Svetina, Gledališce Pekarna 419). The dramatic nature of the event was indicated by “a giant fan that occasionally made (revolutionary) winds, unfurled the red flags and announced the coming of new times” (419). In 1973, Vecer Marka Švabica ali »Predavanje o slovenski paranoji« (Marko Švabic’s Evening, or “A Lecture on Slovenian Paranoia”) was performed as a lecture (today, it would be described as a lecture performance). The writer presented himself to the audience as a lecturer “standing ‘in an ascetic stance’ behinda lectern with a micro­phone and a glass of water, lecturing on ‘Slovenian paranoia’” (Svetina, Gledališce Pe­karna 416). This lecture turned out to be “‘on the paranoia of Marko Švabic’, or rather the revealing of his writing process to the public” (416). It had a striking effect on the audience, as the author spoke “about his most intimate experiences, dreams, night­mares, obsessions” and then went on to answer a few further questions posed by a journalist. As Svetina notes, “the ‘performance’ staged by Švabic was something com­pletely different from the boring reading that almost as a rule takes place at ordinary literary evenings” and describes it as a form of total theatre (417). Matjaž Kocbek’s performance Smrt, po smrti, po bogu (Death After Death After God) was “a real happening”, as the event’s label eloquently testifies: A literary experience with a warm buffet, juggler, poems, tripe and cabbage heads (1973). Amid the richly decorated action, “adorned” with considerable amounts of meat, Kocbek interpreted his own poems and related the performance to the “shameless exhibitions” in the performance Pupilija, Papa Pupilo and the Pupilceks, performed by the Pupilija Ferkeverk Theatre, in which he had also appeared a couple of years earlier (Svetina, Gledališce Pekarna 417). In the late 1960s and 1970s, poets and writers, in performances of their literary works, playfully investigated the life of language on the theatre stage, the acoustic and visual image of the word, and the effect it had on the audience. How to turn poetry and prose into theatre? This was the central question they addressed: how to transpose and transform the linguistic sign into the sign systems of the stage. Three decades later, a group ofplaywrights and dramaturgs in PreGlej addressed the problem of creating dramatic texts. If the writers of the neo-avant-garde groups were interested in theatre as a space for exploring new dimensions of the literary word and as a medium that (unlike the book form) allowed direct communication with the audience, for the PreGlej authors, the theatre was the primary medium in which they realised their ideas. In PreGlej, they addressed the question: How to write a play? They focused on the question of how to transfer the logic of the stage into a dramatic text and on the strategies for transferring the sign systems of the stage into the lin­guistic sign. Staged Readings in PreGlej In 2005, a group of playwrights and dramaturgs of the younger generation gathered around Simona Semenic and founded the PreGlej group. In collaboration with the theorist Rok Vevar, in a couple of years, they managed to establish a platform for the creation, development and international exchange of playwriting within the Glej The­atre. PreGlej was born out of a desire to acquire knowledge and skills in playwriting and as a critique of the existing situation in theatre education and the evaluation of dramatic works. At that time, it was possible to learn about playwriting skills in Slo­venia atworkshops organised by the Week of Slovenian Drama in Kranj but not at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana.7The need for developing dramatic texts led to organising a series of activities to encourage and ensure continuous and systematic work on dramatic texts. The PreGlejceks (PreGlejcki) (as Maja Šorli, herself an active member of PreGlej, calls them, in analogy with the Pupilceks) thought of dramatic text as a potential perfor­mance. On the second Saturday of every month, they worked on new or emerging drama texts in the so-called PreGlej Laboratory, discussing and improving them. Lec­tures were organised to encourage theoretical reflection on playwriting. In addition, they introducedstaged readings as a learning process of playwriting, allowing for 7 The course of DramaWriting was introduced at the UL AGRFT with the implementation of the Bologna Reform at the University of Ljubljana in the academic year 2009/10. processual playwriting and presenting the developing drama as a work in progress. They used the stage as a medium of communication with the audience – the first read­ers, listeners or spectators. The staged readings were conceived to be a continuation of the drama workshop, in which the playwright could learn how their dramatic text functions on the stage and get the opportunity to discuss their work with the direc­tor, the actors and the audience. The readings were prepared in collaboration with directors and actors of the generation. After the staged reading as the first public presentation ofa new play, a discussion took place in which all attendees were invited to exchange their opinions. In this way, the PreGlejceks triedto involve the audience in the process of the play’s creation. From a staging perspective, these were blocking rehearsals that advocated not only, as Simona Semenic puts it, the simplicity of reading and staging approaches (qtd. in Jesenko 27) butalso the unrefined nature of the performances. Or, as Blaž Lukan de­fines staged readings, “It does mean a return to the text, although this does not imply a revitalisation of some anachronistic dramatic theatre paradigm but rather a meth­odological legitimisation of the text as the area of performance that does not require anything but its own ‘textuality’ for its staging” (Text as Stage 211). PreGlej’s staged readings demonstrate an understanding of playwriting as perfor­mance writing that conceives of drama as always already transposed into the medi­um of theatre and transcribed into the language of the stage. This view of playwrit­ing was also evident in the performance of Devet lahkih komadov (Nine Easy Pieces, 2007), conceived as a provocative political gesture and a critique of the evaluation of dramatic texts in Slovenia. According to Rok Vevar, one ofthe central problems in Slovenia was that “the theatre elite ‘knows exactly what good drama is’” (“PreGlej” 19). In his opinion, what was most appreciated in Slovenia at the time was “‘dramat­ic realism’, fluent dialogue, language in the function of circumstances, situations and intentions, and neither too complex nor complicated structures. In short: something that can be adapted to the methodological clichés of psychological realism” (19). In the study and theoretical reflection on drama as a literary genre and a performance event, the drama workshops at PreGlej Laboratory exploredwhat else drama could be. According to the analogy with Duchamp’s urinal, Vevar gave the participants the task of exploring what Ready Made could mean in drama. The result was a collec­tion of texts – Nine Easy Pieces taken from various contexts of everyday life (such as washing machine instructions, popular science texts, medical texts, transcripts of a professional debate, a chat, a forum, etc.), which the workshop participants then au­thorially reworked.8Their performance took the hybrid form of a staged reading and performance, which was carried out on 1 April 2007, the day on which the closing 8 Theprocesses of authorial reworking of the “ready-made” texts are presented by Maja Šorli (“Dva primera” 76). The authors were Zalka Grabnar Kogoj, Iztok Ilc, Jerneja Kušar, Miha Marek, Janko Oven, Peter Rezman, Simona Semenic, Maja Šorli and Rok Vevar. ceremony of the Week of Slovenian Drama took place in Kranj and the Slavko Grum Award for the best new Slovenian play was awarded.9 Nine Easy Pieces was conceived as an “action” which “attempted to disrupt the order that dictates the criteria for Slo­venian playwriting” (Šorli, “Politicnost” 18). Besides this, it also meant a thorough questioning of no longer dramatic theatrical texts. Maja Šorli compares PreGlejceks with the Pupilceks, who also used diverse artistic and non-artistic texts taken from other media and their contexts in their performance Pupilija, Papa Pupilo and the Pu-pilceks in 1969. Their transfer to the stage, however, was not controversial. In fact, the text for Pupilija and its composition did not receive any attention at all. The shocking bit was the final scene, in which a chicken was ritually slaughtered, which, as inter­preted by Veno Taufer, signified “the death of literary, merely aesthetically functional theatre in Slovenia” (42). Four decades later, the performance of the so-called ready-made texts in PreGlej further inflamed the then-heated debates about what constitut­ed drama. These discussions focused on the questions of what is original drama and what is original Slovenian drama.10It was a time of crisis in drama writing and a lack of new plays, while repertory theatres were increasingly staging dramatisations of prose works (which have been a constant feature on Slovenian stages). At the same time, the increase in devised theatre productions brought forth many so-called no longer dramatic theatre texts. The PreGlej group also popularised the form of staged readings with the first festival of drama writing in Slovenia called PreGlej na glas! (PreGlej Out Loud!) (2006), which grew into an international festival. During the eight years ofits existence, it has suc­cessfully promoted the exchange of dramatic texts (Ljubljana – New York, Ljubljana – cities in the former Yugoslavia, etc.) and accelerated the staging of new plays in Slo­venian theatres. PreGlej, with its enthusiastic cultural-artistic guerrilla, as Rok Vevar puts it (“Za dramsko pisavo” 3), started a proper trend of staged readings, establish­ing it as a form of public presentation of drama at the Slovenian Drama Week festival where every year the nominees for the Slavko Grum Award for best new Slovenian play are presented in the form of staged reading; and at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, where they are continuously put on by students (either under the supervision of Žanina Mircevska or independently). Playwrights and dra­maturgs of the younger generation have also established a new platform for dramatic creativity, founding the Vzkrik! Festival of Dramatic Writing (in 2017). 9 Thetext of Nine EasyPieces also competed for the Slavko Grum Award. Interestingly, three years later, Janez Janša’s “ready-made” text Slovenian National Theatre was nominated for the Slavko Grum Award. The production (in the form of the so-called verbatim theatre) had already won the 2008 Borštnik Award for theatre innovation and aesthetic breakthrough. It was one of the five plays nominated for the 2010 Slavko Grum Award. Three equivalent awards were bestowed to Ivo Prijatelj for his play Totenbirt, Simona Semenic for 24ur (24HRS)and Ivo Svetina for his play Grobnica za Pekarno (A Tomb for Pekarna Theatre). 10 These issues are comprehensively analysed in the thematic section “Literatura in teater” (“Literature and Theatre”) in the Literatura journal (January/February 2006, Vol. 18, No. 175–176, pp. 67–190). The playwright and PreGlej initiatorSimona Semenic has used staged readings as a pro­cedure in the creation of plays also outside PreGlej, for example, when writing the text forthe production šeni naslova (no title yet)directed by Tomi Janežic and performed by the Mladinsko Theatre (2018). She wrote the text on the fly when rehearsals were al­ready underway, and it was possible to check its stage dimension in collaboration with the actors and to harmonise or, better, develop it in dialogue with the directorand the concept of the performance. Although this kind of playwriting can rarely be seen in rep­ertory theatre, it has been a common practice throughout the history of theatre. As Rok Vevarpoints out, “classical drama was produced on the fly, that is to say: together with practice”, that is to say, with ongoing “staged readings” that suggested further revisions (“PreGlej” 20). He points to Shakespeare’s dramatic work as an example. In Slovenian theatre, for example, Emil Filipcic’s texts for the productions directed by Vito Taufer were created in this way: Altamira (SNT Drama Ljubljana, 1984), At-lantida (Atlantis, Mladinsko Theatre, 1988) and Božanska tragedija (The Divine Trag­edy, Prešeren Theatre, Kranj, 1989). Tomaž Toporišic notesthat Filipcic acted as a writer-in-residence and compares the role of Filipcic in the process of creating a pro­duction to Barthes’s modern scriptor (129). He also notes that Milan Jesih had taken on this role even earlier when preparing the text for Limite (Limits, 1973), directed by Zvone Šedlbauer at the Glej Experimental Theatre and that, in the 1990s, Andrej Rozman took it on when writing the text for Tartif (Tartuffe) directed by Vito Taufer at the Mladinsko Theatre in 1993 (129–130). This is also how Dušan Jovanovic’s Žrtve mode bum-bum (Victims of the Bang-Bang Fashion) was created at the Mladinsko The­atre in 1975. The production of dramatic texts as performance writing has also be­come established in devised theatre practices. Conclusion Neo-avant-garde theatre practices and PreGlej shared an interest in how their (poetic, prose and dramatic) works affect the audience. What was common to them was the question of the nature of the stage sign. During the 1960s and 1970s, poets and writ­ers addressed this question regarding the transposition of the linguistic sign into the sign systems of the stage. In the first decade of the 21stcentury, however, playwrights and dramaturgs in PreGlej approached the question from the opposite perspective: how to inhabit the logic of the sign systems of the stage in the linguistic sign? Or, to put it another way: how to think of drama as if it had already been staged and to write a dramatic text? The poets and writers who presented their literary works to the audience embodied writing itself while allowing it to transcend them and grow into other sign systems of the stage. In doing so, they created diverse forms of performance writing that gave rise to early examples of no longer dramatic theatre texts on Slovenian stages, and this way shaped the stage aesthetics in the outline of post-dramatic theatre. Three decades later, the PreGlej participants used the form of staged readings as a method for processual playwrighting creation. In the staged readings, they were testing how their plays functioned on stage in dialogue with the performers and the audience in order to master the techniques of playwriting and to establish drama as a perfor­mance. Through playwriting, they shared the function of the playwright with the stag­ing’s creators and the audience. Committed to the exploration of drama as a genre and in search of innovative approaches to the creation of no longer dramatic theatre texts, they linked the practice of playwriting to the theory of drama and theatre. Through the totality of their activities (the organisation of the first Slovenian playwriting fes­tival PreGlej na glas!, constructive criticism of the systems of evaluation of dramatic texts and the popularisation of staged readings), they aroused interest in playwriting as a trendy activity among the younger generation of theatre artists. They significant­ly contributed to revitalising the field of dramatic creativity in Slovenia. Despite the diverse artistic interests of the neo-avant-garde groups and the PreGlej group, their authors reached beyond the conventions of writing or producing theatre texts and paved the way for new approaches and aesthetics of performance through perfor­mance writing. Literature Allsopp, Ric. “Performance Writing.” PAJ – A Journal of Performance and Art, vol. 21, no. 1, 1999, pp. 76–80. Barthes, Roland. Užitek v tekstu. Variacije o pisavi. Transl. by Š. Žakelj. Beletrina, 2013. Knjižna zbirka Koda. Bergvall, Caroline. “Keynote: What Do We Mean by Performance Writing?” Introduc­tory Keynote to the First Symposium on Performance Writing. Dartington College of Arts, Great Britain, 12 Apr. 1996, https://docplayer.net/38120436-Caroline­bergvall-keynote-what-do-we-mean-by-performance-writing-w.html. Accessed 25 Feb. 2023. Jesenko, Primož. “Da bi se dolgorocno pisalo vec in tudi vse bolje. Pogovor s Simono Semenic, koordinatorico projekta PreGlej.” Dialogi, no. 7–8, 2006, pp. 23–28. “Literatura in teater” (thematic section). Literatura, vol. 18,no. 175–176, 2006, pp. 67–190. Lukan, Blaž. “Tekst kot oder ali bralne uprizoritve v luci performativne ekonomije.” Umetnost med teorijo in prakso. Teoretski pogledi na umetnostno realnost na pragu tretjega tisocletja, edited by Jožef Muhovic, Založba Univerzev Ljubljani, 2021, pp. 187–200. —. “Text as Stage or Staged Readings in Light of Performative Economy.” Art Between Theory and Practice. Theoretical Reflections on Artistic Reality on the Threshold of the Third Millenium, edited by Jožef Muhovic, University of Ljubljana Press, 2023, pp. 203–220. Milohnic, Aldo, and Ivo Svetina, ed.Prišli so Pupilcki. 40 let Gledališca Pupilije Ferke­verk. Maska, Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2009. Nomenklatura. “Koncept in pravila igre happeninga ‘Zvok, ne jezi se’.” Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. Slovenski eksperimentalni dramski in uprizoritveni teksti iz obdobja modernizma (1966–1986), edited by Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, pp. 189–195. Orel, Barbara. “Raziskave besede in zvoka v skupini Nomenklatura.” Slovenska drama-tika, edited by Mateja Pezdirc Bartol, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2012, pp. 215–221. Obdobja, 31. Svetina, Ivo. Gledališce Pekarna (1971–1978). Rojstvo gledališca iz duha svobode: pricevanje. Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2016. Knjižnica MGL, 167. —. “Gledališce Pupilije Ferkeverk ali vprašanje rituala.” Literarni modernizem v “svincenih” letih, edited by Gašper Troha, Študentska založba, Društvo Slovenska matica, 2008, pp. 79–99. —. “Prispevek za zgodovino gledališkega gibanja na Slovenskem – Pupilija Ferkeverk.” Maske, no. 4, 1986, pp. 86–101. Šorli, Maja. “Dva primera ready-made besedila v slovenskem gledališcu.” Drama, tekst, pisava, edited by Petra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišic, Mestno gledališce ljubljan­sko, 2008, Knjižnica MGL, 148, pp. 69–86. —. “Politicnost in teatralnost v slovenskih postdramskih besedilih.” Dialogi,vol. 44, no. 3–4, pp. 15–32. Taufer, Veno. Odrom ob rob. Državna založba Slovenije, 1977. Toporišic, Tomaž. Med zapeljevanjem in sumnicavostjo. Razmerje med tekstom in upri­zoritvijo v slovenskem gledališcu druge polovice 20. stoletja.Maska, 2004. Transfor­macije, 14. Vevar, Rok. “PreGlej.” Dialogi, no. 7–8, 2006, pp. 18–20. —. “Za dramsko pisavo s PreGlejem na glas!” Daj Dramo!: deset dramskih besedil, edi­ted by Ana Perne and Iztok Ilc, Kulturno društvo Integrali, Gledališce Glej, Javni sklad RS za kulturne dejavnosti, WaxFactory, 2007, p. 3. UDK 792.02(497.4) DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/174-187 V pricujocem prispevku bomo obravnavali koncept bralnih uprizoritev. Ugotavljali bomo, da gre v polju mlade dramske pisave za prevladujoc uprizoritveni format, ki pa ga ne gre razumeti kot vmesno stopnjo med branjem in uprizarjanjem, temvec kot povsem samostojen in polnokrven umetniški žanr. Mnoge bralne uprizoritve so zato opustile funkcijo »prve informacije« o tekstu in njegovem avtorju ter namesto tega postale cisto prava uprizoritev teksta, s cimer se je odprlo široko polje za gledališki eksperiment. To bomo premišljevali na primeru konkretnih praks, za katere je znacilno, da besedilo postane glavno ali celo edino, kar je za gledališki dogodek potrebno, branje (na vse mogoce nacine in oblike) pa zato kljucno gledališko sredstvo. Kljucne besede: mlada generacija, bralna uprizoritev, eksperiment, generator, uprizarjanje, branje Varja Hrvatin (1993), Maša Radi Buh (1998) in Jakob Ribic(1995) kot pisci sodelujemo že od leta 2018. Skupaj smo ustvarjali oddajo Teritorij teatrana Radiu Študent, pripravili kolektivno predavanje v okviru Maskinega seminarja sodobnih scenskih umetnosti, objavljamo pa tudi v revijah (Maska, Amfiteater) in gledaliških listih. V študijskem letu 2022/23 smo kot teoretsko-raziskovalni kolektiv postali štipendisti Sklada Jerneja Šugmana (ZDUS). Trenutno raziskujemo vidike nevidenega in kolektivnega dela v uprizoritvenih umetnostih ter ustvarjanje mlade generacije dramskih avtorjev in avtoric. vid.jakob@gmail.com GENERATOR:: za poljubno število bralnih uprizoritev Varja Hrvatin, Maša Radi Buh, Jakob Ribic Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza v Ljubljani Uvod1 V zadnjem desetletju so se bralne uprizoritve v polju mlade dramske pisave vzpostavile kot prevladujoc uprizoritveni format, hkrati pa je za vecino avtorjev to pogosto postal tudi edini nacin, da se njihovo besedilo sploh lahko uprizori. Prav zato se je skupaj s tem pojavila potreba, da bralna uprizoritev ne bi bila vec le nekakšna vmesna faza v razvoju besedila, preludij k necemu potencialnemu, kar naj bi še prišlo, kar je torej zgolj odloženo v prihodnost, saj ta za mlade avtorje pogosto ni nic drugega kot le nedolocljiv ali neizvedljiv jutri. Mnoge takšne uprizoritve so zato opustile funkcijo »prve informacije« o tekstu in njegovem avtorju in namesto tega postale cisto prava uprizoritev teksta, s cimer se je odprlo široko polje za gledališki eksperiment.2 Pojem gledališkega eksperimenta je tako širok, da ga na tem mestu skorajda ni mogoce pojasniti drugace kot s pomocjo velikega poenostavljanja, grobega zgošcanja množice divergentnih in razvejanih uprizoritvenih praks oziroma nenatancnega, skorajda že nasilnega poenotenja mnogih singularnosti pod le en skupni imenovalec. Toda kljub tej raznolikosti se zdi, da gledališka eksperimentalnost prejšnjega stoletja, vsaj v svojem prevladujocem delu, kaže na neko splošno naravnanost, na neko rdeco nit, namrec na poskus detronizacije gledališkega besedila, torej na odvzem primata, ki ga je v odnosu do odra vzdrževala gledališka literatura. Kot je mogoce razumeti Blaža Lukana: zavezniški odnos medtekstom in odrom, ki je pomenil predvsem dominacijo prvega nad drugim, se je, ceprav nikoli ni bil zares zgleden in neproblematicen, v 20. stoletju spremenil v konkurencni odnos, kar je šlo skupaj s konstitucijo gledališke režije in avtonomizacijo gledaliških sredstev (prim. Lukan, Gledališka 185–87). Prav 1 Avtorji clanka so v letih 2022/2023 štipendisti Sklada Jerneja Šugmana, ki ga je ustanovilo Združenje dramskih umetnikov Slovenije (ZDUS). Jakob Ribic (šifra 54771) je poleg tega vkljucen v program »Mladi raziskovalci« in (so)financiran s strani Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proracuna ter v raziskovalni program »Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave« (P6–0376), (so)financiran s strani Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proracuna. 2 To seveda ne pomeni, da se bralne uprizoritve niso pojavljale že prej in da niso (bile) prisotne tudi v drugih kulturnih prostorih. Vendar to presega predvideni obseg in okvir naše raziskave, zato se v nadaljevanju namenoma osredotocamo na preucevanje bralnih uprizoritev zgolj v kontekstu dramske pisave mlade generacije. zato v tem na novo vzpostavljenem odnosu morda ne bi smeli iskati ciljne usmerjenosti gledališke eksperimentalnosti, pac pa prej podlago, osnovo za to, da je lahko oder spregovoril s svojim lastnim jezikom oziroma z vsem, kar temu jeziku lahko pripada. S tem se je seveda odprla brezmejna kopica možnosti za raziskovanje uprizoritvenih potencialov, torej vsega tega, kar gledališce lahko je ali kar je z gledališcem mogoce poceti, posledicno pa se je temeljno spremenila tudi dramska pisava sama. Nemogoce je tu našteti vse pomembne spremembe, ki so se zgodile, a že ce jih omenimo samo nekaj, ena od tendenc postane zelo ocitna: dramski avtor je izgubil prevladujoco vlogo, vzpostavilo se je režisersko gledališce, pojavile so se številne nove prakse, mnoge med njimi so razširile pomen gledališca ali pa so secelo pojavile iz, strogo vzeto, negledaliških umetniških sfer, med njimi denimo hepening in performans, konec koncev pa se je spremenilo tudi dramsko pisanje, kar je kmalu terjalo nove terminološke rešitve, kakršni sta bili denimo »ne vec drama« ali »postdrama«, ki vsaka na svoj nacin pricata o domnevnem koncu (klasicne) dramske pisave. Pri plastenju tega, kaj vse je lahko gledališki eksperiment, bomo v nasprotju s pravkar zapisanim na sledi dolocenemu obratu. To ne pomeni, da bomo ponovno skušali utrditi primat dramskega pisanja in se od uprizoritve vrniti nazaj k tekstualnosti. Ne bo nam šlo za advokaturo gledališkega teksta, ki bi v gledališce ponovno vrnila avtorja in njegovo besedilo ter napravila nekakšen obrat od performativnega obrata. To namrec ne bi bilo nic drugega kot konservativno pozivanje k vrnitvi v domnevno stare dobre case, ko naj bi bilo vse tako, kot mora biti. Nasprotno od tega nas bodo še vedno zanimali uprizoritveni potenciali odra, le da bomo o teh razmišljali v nekakšnem presenetljivem zglobu med branjem in uprizarjanjem. Na sledi bomo ustvarjalskim praksam, ki ohranjajo zanimanje za uprizoritev, vendar ne na racun dramskega besedila, pac pa prav znotraj njegovega lastnega okvira. Za to pa bo potreben dolocen premik v osnovni paradigmi. Gledališko besedilo za nas ne bo vec samo nosilec ali vir pomena, pac pa polnokrvni in samostojni akter. Bralne uprizoritve bomo zato razumeli kot neke vrste performans gledališkega teksta; performans, ki namesto igralcevega telesa uporablja telo besedila in njegovo materialnost, na tem preseku pa raziskuje, kaj vse je z njim mogoce napraviti ter kakšne vse uprizoritvene potenciale ima lahko preprosto branje. Eksperiment bomo zato razumeli predvsem kot poskus in tveganje nekaj napraviti drugace. Ce se eksperiment vzpostavlja kot odstopanje in alternativa že obstojecemu, predvsem pa tistemu, kar je v danem umetniškem, družbenem in politicnem kontekstu prepoznano kot prevladujoce, potem se bomo v nadaljevanju spraševali, ali ni morda estetsko opolnomocenje in refunkcionaliziranje žanra bralnih uprizoritev prav takšno podrocje eksperimenta. Bralne uprizoritve se namrec kot alternativa obstojecemu stanju uveljavljajo vsaj na treh nivojih: v situaciji, v kateri vecina besedil mladih avtorjev ostaja neuprizorjenih, najprej predstavljajo alternativno možnost, morda celo »zasilni izhod« za uprizoritev teh besedil, hkrati pa so vendarle precej vec kot samo »zasilni izhod«, saj z drugacnimi uprizoritvenimi postopki predstavljajo tudi alternativo prevladujocim uprizoritvenim metodam (za bralno uprizoritev namrec kostumi, scenografija, rekviziti, oder ipd. niso vec potrebni; zdi se, da sta dovolj že samo tekst in njegovo potencialno obcinstvo); dalje, bralne uprizoritve, ki se razumejo na tak nacin, torej kot polne in celostne uprizoritve, nasprotujejo in predstavljajo alternativo prevladujocemu razumevanju tega formata kot necesa, kar je le vmesna stopnja v razvoju besedila in zato samo nekakšna »poluprizoritvena forma«; navsezadnje pa bralne uprizoritve omogocajo tudi alternativo obstojecim dramaturgijam gledaliških tekstov in možnost drugacne besedilnosti, saj odpirajo vprašanje, kaj tekst vse lahko je in na kakšne vse nacine nam lahko sporoca. Ce je prevladujoc nacin uprizarjanja besedil takšen, da se tekst poskuša prevesti v odrske znake in s tem razpustiti v »jezik odra«, bralne uprizoritve radikalno vztrajajo pri tem, da je besedilo glavno, bistveno in celo edino, kar je za gledališki dogodek potrebno, branje pa zato kljucno gledališko sredstvo. To seveda omogoca razvoj bistveno drugacnih dramskih pisav, saj je s tem dokoncno suspendiran do neke mere še vedno prevladujoc, zagotovo pa nadvse omejujoc kriterij uprizorljivosti. V pricujocem zapisu se bomo posvetili prav bralnim uprizoritvam in to povezali z vprašanjem, kako danes še generirati eksperiment, kdo ga generira in kje se tu nahaja mlada generacija. Preverili bomo, ali so danes generator njenega eksperimenta prav bralne uprizoritve, hkrati pa to navezali na vprašanje siceršnjega statusa in pozicioniranosti dramatike in njenih avtorjev. Tako bomo najprej skušali definirati, kaj sploh razumemo pod pojmom »bralne uprizoritve« in kaj pomeni, ce uprizoritve te vrste vzpostavimo kot samostojen uprizoritveni format. V nadaljevanju se bomo spraševali, zakaj se med mladimi avtorji v nekem obdobju pojavi pravi val bralnih uprizoritev, pri tem pa ugotavljali, da je popularizacija tega formata verjetno tesno povezana s sodobnimi prekarnimi ekonomskimi razmerami, v katerih trenutno delujejo (ne nujno samo) mladi ustvarjalci. Ker so za bralne uprizoritve potrebna kar najmanjša sredstva, so pogosto namrec sploh edina možnost za uprizoritev, ki pa je lahko kljub minimumu produkcijskih pogojev vseeno estetsko polna in zanimiva. To bomo v zadnjem delu skušali prikazati na konkretnih primerih razlicnih praks mladih dramskih avtoric. Branje kot uprizarjanje Pojem »bralne uprizoritve« takoj vzbudi pozornost. Med seboj namrec združuje tisto, kar naj ne bi bilo združljivo. Branje povezuje z uprizarjanjem, a po klasicnem teatrološkem modelu branje ravno ni uprizoritev, je prav radikalno nasprotje uprizoritve – uprizoritev naj bi se domnevno zacela šele tam, kjer se konca branje, torej s prevodom ali prenosom besed, zapisanih na papirju in namenjenih branju, v »jezik odra«, sepravi v mizanscenske premike, v režijo luci, koreografijo gibov in gest, v scenografske in kostumografske rešitve, tudi v glasbo ipd. Gledališke vaje – proces, ko dramsko besedilo svoj status literature zamenja za polnokrvno uprizoritev na odru – so zato obicajno strukturirane prav po poti od branja do tistega, kar naj bi bilo pravo uprizarjanje. Tako se navadno zacnejo z »branjem za mizo«, cez cas, v kasnejši in domnevno zrelejši fazi, pa »se gre v prostor«, najprej morda tako, da si igralci še pomagajo s tekstom v svojih rokah, nazadnje pa že popolnoma brez njega. Takrat je branja konec, s tem pa naj bi menda nastopil cas za pravi gledališki dogodek. Zdi se, da je prav s tem razcepom povezan tudi dvojni status dramskega pisanja, razpetega med literaturo in gledališcem. Takšno aporijo precej znacilno vzpostavljata dve veliki in vplivni estetski teoriji, Aristotelova in Heglova. Ceprav obe do tako vzpostavljene opozicije pristopata z nasprotnega konca in zagovarjata povsem razlicni stališci, imata vendarle skupno to, da »uprizarjanje« in »branje« razumeta kot ekskluzivni možnosti, pri cemerje mogoce izbrati le eno ali drugo, ni pa ju mogoce misliti na isti estetski premici, torej prepleteni v medsebojni odnos, branje kot vrsto uprizoritve. Aristotel, denimo, zagovarja prepricanje, da je spektakel, opsis, najmanj pomemben od šestih elementov tragedije, saj da »lahko tragedija naredi vtis tudi brez gledališke uprizoritve in igralcev« (84), »že ob samem branju spoznamo njeno vrednost« (137);3Hegel pa po drugi strani poudarja nujnost uprizoritve, ceš da »nobene gledališke igre ne bi smeli natisniti, temvec bi moral biti rokopis [...] namenjen le odrskemu repertoarju« (44). Te njegove vrstice je morda treba brati v kontekstu casa, v katerem se je pojavila tako imenovana bralna drama (Lesedrama ali Buchdrama), ki je s tem, ko ni bila namenjena uprizoritvi, merila zgolj na bralce, ne pa tudi na gledalce. Toda v vsem tem se le ponavlja in utrjuje binarno razmerje med uprizoritvijo in branjem kot opozicijsko razmerje oziroma kot razmerje nasprotovanja in celo medsebojnega izkljucevanja. Ceprav med branjem in uprizarjanjem seveda obstaja razlika – tiho branje v samoti na primer še ne zadostuje za gledališki dogodek – in ceprav drži, da se pri »bralnih uprizoritvah« med njima vzpostavlja doloceno razmerje, nas bo tu, med Heglom in Aristotelom, branjem in uprizarjanjem, literaturo in odrom zanimal spoj, nekakšna dialektika med obema poloma, poskus eno postaviti v drugo. Dihotomija med tekstom in odrom se nam v današnjem casu namrec zdi presežena, morda celo nesmiselna in zastarela, zato bi jo bilo morda koristno zavrniti. V polju gledališke teorije se je to pravzaprav že zgodilo, in to na obeh koncih, torej tako na strani besedila, ki ga je Gerda Poschmann opredelila s pojmom gledališki tekst in mu pripisala »imanentno performativno, teatralno dimenzijo« (102), kot na strani odra, ki ga je po mnenju Bruna Tackelsa mogoce razumeti kot prazno stran, na katero se režija nanaša 3 Kot poudarja FlorenceDupont, že naslov Aristotelovega besedila, Poetika, »napeljujena tehniko pisanja gledališke igre ali epske pesnitve« (17) in ne na ritualni odrski dogodek. kot »nekakšno pisanje, odrska pisava ali pisava odra (fr. écriture de plateau)« (81). Tako kot je torej teatralnost inherentna kvaliteta besedila samega, je tudi režija neke vrste odrska pisava, ki ima »samosvojo slovnico, jezik, besedišce, slog in ritem« (prav tam) in zato predpostavlja obstoj gledalca kot »odrskega bralca« (88). Skratka, namesto da bi še naprej vztrajali v aporiji med tekstom in odrom, je oder sam že mogoce razumeti kot vrsto teksta, hkrati pa tudi tekst obravnavati v njemu imanentni teatralni dimenziji. Podobno tudi bralnih uprizoritev ne bomo obravnavali kot pojava, razpetega med ti skrajnosti. Kajti ce med branjem in uprizarjanjem postavimo zarezo in ju locimo na nasprotna si pola, potem bralna uprizoritev ne more biti zares ne eno ne drugo, lahko je samo nekaj vmesnega, nekakšna tretja pot, ki ni vec samo branje (tu so vendarigralci oziroma performerji in njihovo obcinstvo, branju pa je pogosto dodana interpretacija in nemalokrat tudi že kakšna režijska intervencija), niti še ne prava uprizoritev, saj je to navsezadnje še vedno pac »le« branje besedila. Bralna uprizoritev se tako v procesu od nastanka besedila, ki se obicajno piše v samoti avtorjevega delovnega prostora, do njegove javne uprizoritve pred gledališkim obcinstvom nahaja nekje na polovici in je tako pac le nekakšna vmesna faza v še nedokoncanem delovnem procesu. Avtorsvoj tekst sicer res že ponudi javnosti, a še ne tako, da bi šlo za cisto »pravo« uprizoritev, funkcija bralne uprizoritve pa je zato le informativna. Pisec dobi informacijo o svojem tekstu, ki ga preveri tako, da po eni strani svoje besede prvic položi v usta igralcev, po drugi pa tako, da zbere odzive obcinstva in morda tudi že njihova kriticna mnenja. Hkrati informacijo o tekstu in nemalokrat tudi o njegovem avtorju dobi tudi »zainteresirana« javnost, med njimi seveda predvsem tisti, ki bi tekst potencialno lahko uprizorili oziroma vsaj sprejeli odlocitev o njegovi uprizoritvi ali tiskani objavi, torej režiserji, producenti, direktorji gledaliških hiš in uredniki. Bralna uprizoritev tako za avtorja pomeni zgolj razvojno stopnjo v pisanju, saj z njeno pomocjo dobi pomembne in nemalokrat sploh prve povratne odzive o napisanem, na tej podlagi pa lahko svoje besedilo nato dopolni, popravi, izboljša in spremeni, za potencialne »gledališke agente« pa je to prav tako le nekakšna vmesna faza pri odlocitvi o uprizoritvi besedila in/ali angažmaju njegovega avtorja. To spomni na podobo gledališkega trga, na katerem avtorji potencialnim strankam ponujajo in prodajajo svoje blago, najsi bo to njihov tekst ali kar oni sami.4 Stranski ucinek tako razumljenega koncepta »bralnih uprizoritev« je, da ta umetniški žanr postane tako uprizoritveno kot teoretsko precej nezanimiv, saj je zreduciran le na funkcijo in namenjen zgolj temu, da gre besedilo skozi prvo (pre)izkušnjo odra, ki pa je le 4 O tem je sicer obširnopisal že Blaž Lukan, ki v misel priklicuje tudi precej zgovorno podobo trga: »Problematicen je takolahko, prvic, odnos samih, praviloma še neuveljavljenih avtorjev, ki z bralnimi uprizoritvami v resnici skoraj brez sredstev aliz minimalnim materialnim vložkom možnim ‘kupcem’ ponujajo potencialno ‘vrednost’, ki jo ta lahko pridobi na estetskemali realnem trgu. Od nje torej pricakujejo ‘profit’, ki se lahko udejanji kot možni angažma, ‘odkup’ ali samo kot prepoznanjeestetske vrednosti ponujenega kot naložba v prihodnost, v vsakem primeru pa gre za same negotove (ekonomske) kategorije.Ali pa se, drugic, kot problematicen izkaže odnos naslovnikov ali potencialnih ‘kupcev’, ki s pomocjo bralnih uprizoritev,ki jih ne pripravljajo sami, na dovolj preprost in lagoden nacin (torej brez posebnega lastnega vložka in truda, kakršnegadenimo predstavljajo poizvedbe, natecaji, štipendije, vlaganja v ‘talente’) pridejo do razloga in podlage za lastno investicijo (ininvencijo), ki jim bo prinesla drugacen ‘profit’ kot samim ustvarjalcem.« (Lukan, Gledališka 176, 177) eden od korakov na poti h koncnemu cilju, torej k objavi ali uprizoritvi besedila. Takšne »poluprizoritve« so lahko zanimive za avtorje in za redko, predvsem pa pragmaticno naravnano obcinstvo, torej tisto, ki si obeta kakšno novo kvalitetno besedilo ali vsaj potencialno zanimivega gledališkega sodelavca, ter v najboljšem primeru še za nekaj gledaliških entuziastov, ki se iznepojasnjenih razlogov radi seznanjajo s tekoco in novo produkcijo dramskih besedil. Ker pa so bralne uprizoritve za mnoge (pretežno mlade) avtorje edina možnost, da se njihovo besedilo sploh uprizori, se mnogi med njimi takšnemu funkcionalisticnemu nacinu razumevanja odrekajo in namesto tega vzpostavljajo estetsko avtonomijo tega umetniškega žanra. Le tako se namrec lahko izognejo temu, da bi bile bralne uprizoritve samo slaba tolažba, zasilni nadomestek za avtorje, ki težko upajo na tisto, kar naj bi bila domnevno prava dovršitev teksta, to je bodisi njegova uprizoritev na gledališkem odru bodisi njegova objava v kakšni od publikacij ali knjižnih izdaj. Namesto da bi branje in uprizarjanje postavljali v medsebojno nasprotje in namesto da bi vztrajali pri tem, da se med seboj nujno izkljucujeta, torej predlagamo, da ju postavimo v isti estetski kontinuum. Morda bi to razmerje najucinkoviteje ponazorila podoba Möbiusovega traku, pri katerem se pri postopnem napredovanju z izhodišcne tocke prej ali slej znajdemo na nasprotni strani. Na tem traku nas bo zanimalo mesto intersekcije, tisti spoj, pri katerem ena ravnina preide v drugo, ko torej branje postane popolnoma avtonomna uprizoritev.5To bi pomenilo, da bi lahko branje pod dolocenimi pogoji postalo cisto pravi gledališki dogodek. Ti pogoji so presenetljivo minimalni: Blaž Lukan je denimo že v osemdesetih letih ob javnem branju Ivana Mraka ugotavljal, da se je razkrilo »gledališce v svojem izvornem pomenu«, ceprav je bilo za to potrebno tako malo, kot so denimo samo »stol in miza, odprta knjiga na njej, skromna razsvetljava ter oddaljena muzika« (Lukan, Dramaturške 23). To je v prekarnih razmerah, v katerih delujejo (mladi) dramski pisci, opogumljajoce, saj jim za uprizoritev svojega besedila pogosto ne preostane drugega, kot da delajo v komaj ustreznih produkcijskih pogojih. Honorarji so nizki, zato casa za vaje ni veliko, prav tako je lahko zelo skromen tudi nabor avtorskih sodelavcev. Poleg tega je premalo denarja tudi za razkošne (ali sploh kakršne koli) kostume, scenografijo in rekvizite, pogosto pa ni niti odra, saj si avtorji namesto institucij svoj prostor obicajno izborijo le v kakšnih zelo obrobnih in alternativnih prostorih, kjer so tudi možnosti osvetlitve borne in minimalne. Vtakšnih pogojih je lastno besedilo nemogoce uprizoriti na nacin »velikih« gledaliških produkcij. Ti poskusi se lahko koncajo samo zelo klavrno, poleg tega pa so tudi ideološko problematicni, saj so v popolnem sozvocju s prevladujoco logiko kapitala, ki si s cim manj vložka želi 5 To je mogoce razumeti tudi povsem dobesedno, saj nekatere bralne uprizoritve ne vkljucujejo vec glasnega interpretativnega branja ali pa se poigravajo s tem, kdo bere (prim. Lukan, Gledališka 174). Lukan izpostavi nekaj sodobnih primerov bralnih uprizoritev, ki se jim slovarska definicija ne prilega vec (prim. 173,174), kar ne odpira le potrebe po spremenjenem slovarskem geslu, temvec morda tudi vprašanje ustrezne terminologije. Morda bi nekateri primeri sodobnih bralnih uprizoritev, ki presegajo klasicno definicijo tega pojava, potrebovali nov terminološki pojem ali pa bi bilo treba obstojecemu vsaj dodati kakšno predpono (npr. postbralna uprizoritev ali ne vec bralna uprizoritev). To vprašanje na tem mestu ponujamo samo v premislek. cim vec izkupicka, to pa je prav zato tudi kontraproduktivno: ce je mogoce s tako malo denarja ustvarjati predstave, potem pac ni potrebe, da bi ga bilo kadar koli vec. Ce pa v nasprotju s tem predpostavimo, da so lahko bralne uprizoritve popolnoma samostojen in polnovreden umetniški žanr, potem s tem izgubimo tudi potrebo, da se iz njih dela nekaj »vec« od tega, kar je mogoce napraviti glede na dane (predvsem financne) zmožnosti. Tako so lahko uprizoritve te vrste docela iskrene v tem, da nastajajo v prekarnih pogojih, da gre v nekem smislu celo za revno gledališce, a revno le glede produkcijskih pogojev in nikakor ne glede svoje estetske vrednosti. Spet pa je slednjo mogoce ustvariti le pod pogojem, da se bralni uprizoritvi kot umetniškemu žanru najprej sploh prizna, da ima kakršen koli uprizoritveni potencial. Prostor za raziskovanje se namrec odpre šele z opustitvijo ideje o tem, da gre pri bralnihuprizoritvah le za vmesno fazo med branjem in uprizarjanjem. Šele tako se lahko branje dojame kot potencialno zanimivo gledališko sredstvo, ki ga je vredno raziskati in ki obeta stvaritev povsem celostnega gledališkega dogodka.6To torej pomeni, da se je treba vztrajno upirati kakršni koli pretenziji po tem, da bi bralne uprizoritve vzbujale vtis, da nastajajo v dobrih, morda celo institucionaliziranih pogojih dela, hkrati pa se na racun skromnih pogojev tudi ne gre vnaprej resignirano odpovedati kakršnim koli uprizoritvenim ambicijam. Poanta je v tem, da so bralne uprizoritve, prav kolikor so zares bralne (in nic vec kot to), tudi uprizoritveno zanimiv umetniški format, hkrati pa svojo estetsko dimenzijo podkrepijo tudi s politicno, saj s tem, ko ne prikrivajo svojih produkcijskih pogojev nastanka, sporocajo nekaj v smislu: evo, to so pogoji, v katerih trenutno lahko delujemo. Generatorji eksperimenta Kot eksperimentalna forma so se bralne uprizoritve pojavljale v razlicnih obdobjih, v nadaljevanju pa bomo premislili, kdaj se ustvarjalci k takšnemu formatu zatekajo in zakaj. Eksperimentalne in celo gverilske bralne uprizoritve so se pojavile že v casu delovanja skupine PreGlej. Njeni takratni clani (dramski pisci, med katerimi so bili Simona Semenic, Simona Hamer, Peter Rezman idr.) so format bralnih uprizoritev razumeli predvsem kot odziv, komentar ali celo kriticno gesto, s katero so problematizirali stanje slovenske sodobne dramatike, njenih piscev ter predvsem nacinov in postopkov njihovega uprizarjanja. PreGlejevi ustvarjalci so si zaradi ekonomskih pogojev, še bolj pa zaradi okrnjenosti produkcijskih sredstev prisvojili format bralne uprizoritve, ki 6 O tem je Blaž Lukan pisal in govoril na razlicnih mestih, med drugim tudi na okrogli mizi o neodvisnosti bralne uprizoritve, ki jo je KUD Krik leta 2019 organiziral na Novi pošti: »Bralna uprizoritev išce možnosti uprizoritve znotraj samega besedila in to na vec ravneh. Ne samo na ravni interpretacije besedila, ampak tudi na ravni samega nosilca, graficnega zapisa, nacina podajanja besedila, projekcije, vzpostavljanja odnosa do besedila, vkljucitve obcinstva v to nastajanje besedila pred nami. V bistvu smo prica rojstvu gledališca iz duha besedila, ampak prav v tej primarni obliki. Odpira se veliko polje, ki pa zahteva cas. Najhujša oblika bralne uprizoritve so bralke, ki so provizoriji, nadomestki, tolažilne mini predstave. To je degradacija bralke.« (Potocan 21) je postal njihov zašcitni znak, iz avtorske svobode, ki jo je ponujal, pa so se scasoma razvili nekateri najprezentnejši sodobni dramski pisci pri nas. Zdi se, da je z uveljavitvijo omenjenih ustvarjalcev in s pogostejšim uprizarjanjem njihovih besedil v institucijah nastopilo obdobje zatišja, ko se bralne uprizoritve niso pojavljale tako pogosto. To se je spremenilo z vzpostavitvijo revije Adept in festivala dramske pisave Vzkrik, scasoma pa tudi z drugimi pobudami, s katerimi se je nova generacija piscev uprla prevladujocemu stanju. Med letoma 2017 in 2021 so se v okviru razlicnih festivalov in projektov bralne uprizoritve ponovno pricele množicno pojavljati: prisotne so bile na Novih branjih v SNG Drama Ljubljana ter v drugih podpornih programih institucionalnih gledališc; med koronskim obdobjem so se v produkciji Prešernovega gledališca Kranj pod naslovom Monologi s kavca pojavili celo videoprenosi bralnih uprizoritev; tradicionalno so bralne uprizoritve potekale v okviru Tedna slovenske drame, svoje sta organizirala tudi revija Adept in Vzkrik, pojavljale so se platforme, kot je bila denimo Instant drama ipd. Kljub temu so bralne uprizoritve pogosto ostajale na nivoju klasicnega interpretativnega branja brez konceptualnih ali performativnih premislekov. Zapolnile so manko v podpornih programih, obenem pa vzbujale obcutek, da se stanje sodobne slovenske dramatike in pozicija dramskih piscev bistveno izboljšuje. V resnici so takšne uprizoritve najpogosteje še vedno le nadomešcale domnevno »prave« uprizoritve besedil, zato so bile le nekakšnouprizarjanje v odlogu, samo potencial, ki se še mora zares realizirati. Podobno velja tudi za tekoco gledališko sezono, v kateri je sicer aktivno odprtih vec kot pet natecajev za dramska besedila, kar je rekordno veliko, a le redki od njih poleg denarne nagrade omogocajo tudi uprizoritev izbranih besedil. Zdi se torej, da je pojavljanje bralnih uprizoritev povezano predvsem s tem, kako pogosto se besedila avtorjev objavljajo in uprizarjajo oziroma kakšne so sploh možnosti za kaj takega, vsaj deloma pa tudi z osebnimi ambicijami in voljo dolocenih posameznikov. Morda prav zato z menjavo generacije (Jernej Potocan, Nina Kuclar Stikovic, Iza Strehar itn.), predvsem pa z njihovo postopno uveljavitvijo v bolj institucionaliziranih prostorih, potreba po takšnih eksperimentalnih gestah postopoma ponikne. Pri tem sta posebej zanimiva primera Festival dramske pisave Vzkrik in akademijska revija Adept.7Obe pobudi sta namrec nastali v casu, ko se je zacelo zanimanje za dramsko pisanje med mladimi avtorji vztrajno povecevati, hkrati pa je vse ocitneje postalo, da manjka takšen prostor, kjer bi lahko svoja besedila nato tudi javno predstavili. Na neodvisni sceni avtorsko besedilo namrec skoraj v celoti nastaja tekom ustvarjalnega procesa, v institucionalnih gledališcih pa se avtorski projekti kombinirajo s starejšimi (pogosto kanoniziranimi) besedili ter vnaprej narocenimi teksti praviloma že uveljavljenih avtorjev. Prav zato se je izkazalo, da bi morala takšno platformo, ki bi 7 Vzkrik je potekal odleta 2017 do 2021 in imel štiri festivalske edicije, v tem casu pa je nastalo kar 28 novih dramskih besedil. Prva številka revije Adept je bila objavljena leta 2014, revija pa izhaja še danes. skrbela za kontinuirano uprizarjanje besedil, vzpostaviti kar generacija sama. Festival Vzkrik je tako vrsto let nastajalpod zgovornim geslom »Ce nas ne boste uprizarjali, se bomo pa sami!«, na podoben problem pa sta z naslovom »Ne samo berite, uporabite!« v uredniškem uvodniku inavguracijske številke Adepta opozorila tudi Nina Ramšak in Žan Žveplan. Revija, ki je bila zamišljena tako, da bi bila vsako leto ena od dveh številk namenjena prav objavi dramskih besedil avtorjev mlade generacije, se je že spocetka uprla temu, da bi bila namenjena samo »linearnemu branju od zacetka do konca« (Ramšak, Žveplan 3), namesto tega pa je spodbujala branje v razmerju do potencialne uprizoritve. Prav zato je vsaki številki, v kateri so bila objavljena dramska besedila, sledila tudi njihova javna predstavitev v obliki bralnih uprizoritev, te pa so bile že od zacetka zamišljene v širšem smislu, torej »ne le kot korak do koncnega izdelka, ampak kot samostojn[a] form[a], vredn[a] raziskovanja« (prav tam). Prav to je bilo tudi temeljno izhodišce Vzkrika, v sklopu katerega so celo leto pod mentorskim vodstvom uveljavljenih dramskih avtorjev in avtoric potekale delavnice, na katerih so udeleženci pisali in izpopolnjevali svoja besedila, ob zakljucku delavnicpa so bila nato tudi bralno uprizorjena. Da te uprizoritve niso bile namenjene le funkciji prve informacije, pac pa da je šlo za pravi in samostojni uprizoritveni dogodek, je bilo nakazano že s samoopredelitvijo projekta kot festivala dramske pisave, navsezadnje pa sta to ambicijo potrjevali tudi njegova siceršnja odmevnost in dobra obiskanost. Geste in vzkriki Takšnim bralnimuprizoritvam je skupno, da si branja niso vzele le kot interpretacije besedil, pac pa kot svoj glavni uprizoritveni koncept, s cimer je besedilo postalo najpomembnejše (ali celo edino) gledališko sredstvo. Takšnih primerov bralnih uprizoritev je seveda še vec. Eden od njih je predstava bolgarskega dramatika Alexandra Manuiloffa Država, ki je na Novi pošti gostovala leta 2019. Publika je bila v dvorani posedena v krog, na sredi nje pa je bila postavljena škatla s pismi. Gledalci so kot skupnost ali država sami odlocali o tempu, dramaturgiji in poteku izvedbe, sami so tudi brali besedilo in ga nazadnje tudi zakljucili. Ceprav se je Država samoopredeljevala kot celovecerna gledališka predstava, je bilo v njej vseeno mogoce najti tudi glavne elemente tistega, kar sami razumemo pod pojmom eksperimentalne bralne uprizoritve, saj je bil tekst postavljen v ospredje in uporabljen kot edino gledališko orodje, zato sta bila na odru med seboj soocena le tekst in gledalec. Kar zadeva naš prostor, se eksperimentalnost, sploh v polju mlade dramske pisave, najocitneje pojavlja z vkljucevanjem avtobiografskih elementov ter vpletanjem avtorjeve prezence in telesnosti v akt javnega branja. Slednje s tem ni vec le branje besedila, temvec tudi branje oziroma razbiranje avtorja in njegovega statusnega konteksta. Takšen je bil denimo bralnouprizoritveni cikel Ko se žgem na 57. Festivalu Borštnikovo srecanje, v okviru katerega so Nina Kuclar Stikovic, Urša Majcen, Helena Šukljan in Manca Lipoglavšek predstavile svoje interpretacije in adaptacije znane Andersenove pravljice Deklica z vžigalicami, Šukljan in Lipoglavšek pa sta nekaj podobnega napravili tudi pri uprizoritvi njunega teksta Dramakurbija. Ker gre v omenjenih primerih predvsem za poskuse, ki so nastajali v študijskem okviru, je morda zanimivo omeniti tudi performativna branja avtorice Anje Novak, ki je že v svojo tiskano pesniško zbirko Ranerane na QR-kodah vstavila socasna tekstovna, vizualna, zvocna, interaktivna in uprizoritvena branja drugih ustvarjalcev njenih pesmi. S tem je nadaljevala tudi v kontekstu javnih predstavitev in branj te zbirke, ko je v vlogi alterega Anjute kot nevesta s svojo poezijo intervenirala v javne dogodke in tako v branje ponudila sebe in svojo subjektiviteto. Novak se je zvocnosti in glasbe kot enega od glavnih principov branja besedil – nekakšnih koncertnih bralnih uprizoritev – poslužila tudi v delu Moje telo, moja kletka, v katerem je bilo besedilo izcišceno na nekaj deset besed in stavkov, branje pa je bilo dopolnjeno z ozvocenim pokanjem njenih kosti in uporabo špagetov kot zvocnega orodja, s cimer je ustvarjalka podcrtala svoje notranje stanje anoreksije. Podoben primer koncertnega branja je bila tudi uprizoritev Nine Dragicevic, ki je branju dodala spremljavo bas kitare in s tem svoje besedilo Ljubav rece greva zasnovala kot partituro ritma in atmosfer. Vsi navedeni primeri so eksperimentalni po tem, da svojo domnevno primarno funkcijo bralnih vaj in interpretacij opustijo ter namesto tega zapopadejo celostno performativnost besedila. Hkrati pa so lahko bralne uprizoritve eksperimentalne tudi glede na to, kakšne družbene geste producirajo. Tu se njihov eksperiment nanaša predvsem na pozicijo dramskega besedila in njegovega avtorja. Eno od takšnih gest je z nizom participatornih bralnih uprizoritev besedila Delo in deklica I–V: Drame tlacank ustvarila Nika Švab. Avtorica se je namrec kot dramaturginja in književnica odlocila kandidirati na razpisu Avtorski opus Ministrstva za kulturo, na katerega se sicer s svojimi idejami za celovecerne uprizoritve in performanse praviloma prijavljajopredvsem režiserji in performerji. Švab se je temu uprla tako, da se je prijavila z dramskim besedilom in s konceptom serije bralnih uprizoritev, s cimer se je zoperstavila prevladujocemu pojmovanju razpisnih izvedbenih produkcijskih enot, hkrati pa je s tem bralno uprizoritev vzpostavila tudi kot samostojni uprizoritveni format, ki se na razpisu enakovredno bori z ostalimi performativnimi in gledališkimi dogodki. Dramaturški strukturi besedila, razdeljenega na pet prizorov, je sledila tudi konceptualna zasnova bralnih uprizoritev. Teh je bilo namrec pet, tako da se je vsak dan med15. in 19. novembrom 2022 prebral en prizor, vsak od vecerov pa je potekal pred novo publiko in drugimi povabljenimi gledališkimi ustvarjalci, ki so, sedec na tribuni v avditoriju, prebirali besedilo in ga skupaj z avtorico tudi komentirali. Dogodki so bili organizirani na Novi pošti, kjer razen velikega platna, na katerem se je projiciralo besedilo, ni bilo nicesar drugega. Edini gledališki element, ki je ostal na odru, je bilo tako prav besedilo, ki se ga je prebiralo prima vista, brez kakršnih koli interpretacij ali študijskih predpriprav. Potek branja ni bil dolocen vnaprej, pac pa so se bralci sami odlocali, kdaj bodo branje zaustavili s svojimi vprašanji, premisleki in pomisleki o kvaliteti in razumljivosti besedila ter s predlogi o potencialnih nacinih njegove uprizoritve. Tako branje kot pogovori, ki so se sprožali ob njem, so bili posneti in nato transkribirani v novo dokumentarno uprizoritveno besedilo z naslovom Nevarno razmerje dramatike in gledališca. To je torej nastalo in medias res, med bralnim uprizarjanjem in socasnim analiticnim komentiranjem nekega drugega besedila. Dogodek sam – branje in analiza prebranega – sta tako postala material (in ne le osnova) za nastanek novega gledališkega teksta. Ce torej Lukan pravi, da smo pri bralnih uprizoritvah, kadar te potekajo na vec ravneh, ne le na ravni interpretacije besedila, »pricarojstvu gledališca iz duha besedila« (Potocan 21), potem smo bili v primeru te bralne uprizoritve prica ne le rojstvu gledališca, pac pa tudi rojstvu povsem novega besedila. Logika je torej tu zaobrnjena: kar naenkrat bralna uprizoritev ni vec »zasilni izhod« za tekste, ki so sicer napisani, a neuprizorjeni, pac pa zdaj sama postane tako samostojen gledališki dogodek kot celo generator novega teksta. Ne le torej, da bralnauprizoritev lahko deluje kot polnokrven uprizoritveni format. Kot vse kaže, lahko deluje tudi kot povsem samostojen gledališki tekst. Sklep Skratka, ocitno je, da se bralna uprizoritev kot mesto eksperimenta (in morda tudi kot gesta upora) vzpostavi takrat, ko se tisto, kar naj bi bilo polarizirano, preseže, a ne tako, da se oba domnevno nasprotujoca si pola opusti, pac pa da se ju radikalno spravi na isto mesto. Tako so najboljše bralne uprizoritve tiste, ki v razmerju med bralnim in uprizorjenimniso nekaj vmesnega, pac pa so hkrati tako eno kot drugo, a spet ne nacin, da bi preprosto združile en pol z drugim, pac pa tako, da en pol vzpostavijo znotraj drugega. To smo poskušali ponazoriti s podobo Möbiusovega traku. Ne gre torej za to, da se vkljuci malo branja in malo uprizarjanja, pac pa da se branje – pod dolocenimi pogoji, seveda – lahko vzpostavi kot samostojna oblika uprizarjanja in da se eksperiment lahko zacne prav tu, pri raziskovanju, kakšne vse oblike uprizoritve branje lahko proizvede. Podobno velja tudi za opozicijo med literarnim in gledališkim, kajti kot smo videli na primeru projekta Nike Švab, je lahko gledališki dogodek – spet seveda pod dolocenimi pogoji – tudi generator novega literarnega besedila. Ne gre torej za to, da sta si gledališce in literatura povsem nasproti, da je med njima nepremostljivo brezno, pac pa, da se lahko v nekem hipu medseboj pokrijeta in da se nemara prav na tej tocki odpira neskoncno polje eksperimenta. Hkrati ima lahko vzpostavljanje bralnih uprizoritev kot povsem samozadostnega gledališkega dogodka tudi pomembne posledice za prekarno situacijo (mladih) ustvarjalcev. Kajti ce bralne uprizoritve niso zgolj nekaj tranzitnega, vmesnega in zacasnega, ce je z njimi moc generirati eksperiment in ce so lahko povsem celovit nacin uprizarjanja dramskih besedil, potem ne bi smele ostati odvisne le od partikularne volje posameznika, da se takšnega projekta loti, in še manj od žalostnega dejstva, da se besedila mladih avtorjev na »velikih odrih« praviloma ne uprizarjajo. Namesto tega bi morale postati ustrezno financno podprte in s tem sistemsko spodbujene, saj je ocitno, da so lahko generator novih in drugacnih pisav, morda pa tudi njihovih avtorjev. S tem bi se preprecilo, da bi se bralne uprizoritve pojavljale in presihale v bolj ali manj kontingentnih valovih, trajnostno pa bi se vzpostavilo polje za raziskovanje novih oblik dramskega pisanja. Ker pa se je paradoksalno izkazalo, da so bralne uprizoritve lahko pricele eksperimentirati ravno zaradi svoje samozadostnosti, saj ustvarjalci razen nase niso bili vezani na nikogar drugega, sistemska spodbuda, ceprav dobrodošla, nikakor ne bi smela iti na racun njihove avtonomije. Kajti šele v polju, ki lahko deluje avtonomno in neomejeno, se eksperiment zares lahko zacne. Lliteratura Aristoteles. Poetika.Študentska založba, 2012. Dupont, Florence. Aristotel ali vampir zahodnega gledališca.Knjižnica MGL, 2019. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Predavanja o estetiki: dramska poezija.Društvo za teoretsko psihoanalizo, 2001. Lukan, Blaž. Dramaturške replike. Knjižnica MGL, 1991. Lukan, Blaž. Gledališka sinteza: razprave o drami, gledališcu in performansu. Založba Univerze v Ljubljani, 2022. Poschmann, Gerda. »Gledališki tekst in drama: k uporabi pojmov.« Drama, tekst, pisava,ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišic, Knjižnica MGL, 2008, str. 97–116. Potocan, Jernej. »Vprašanje bralne uprizoritve.« Adept, letn. 6, št. 2, 2020, str. 16–22. Ramšak, Nina, in Žan Žveplan. »Ne samo berite, uporabite!« Adept, letn. 1, št. 1, 2014, str. 3. Tackels, Bruno. »Desakralizacija teksta, vendarle.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišic, Knjižnica MGL, 2021, str. 79–96. UDK 792.02(497.4) DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/188-201 In the paper, the authors discuss the concept of staged readings, arguing that they are the predominant performance format for presentations of young playwriting. However, such presentations should not be understood as an intermediate stage between reading and performing but as a fully-fledged and independent artistic genre. Many staged readings thus lose the function of “first information” about the text and its author. Instead, they have become a proper way of performing a text, thus opening up a wider area for theatrical experimentation. Using concrete examples, the authors will reflect on practices characterised by the text becoming the main or even the only thing necessary for a theatrical event and reading (in all its possible ways and forms) becoming the key theatrical means. Keywords: young generation, staged reading, experiment, generator, staging, reading Varja Hrvatin (1993), Maša Radi Buh (1998) and Jakob Ribic (1995) have been collaborating as writers since 2018. Collectively, they have co-created the show Teritorij teatra (Theatre Territory) on Radio Študent, lectured for the Maska Seminar of Contemporary Performing Arts and published texts in journals (Maska, Amfiteater) and theatre programmes. As a theoretical-research collective, they received the Jernej Šugman Fund scholarship bestowed by the Slovenian Association of Dramatic Artists (SADA) for the academic year 2022/23. Their current research focuses on perspectives on invisible and collective work in performing arts and the drama creation of authors of the young generation. varja.hrvatin@gmail.com, masaradibuh@gmail.com, vid.jakob@gmail.com THE GENERATOR:: for Any Number of Staged Readings Varja Hrvatin, Maša Radi Buh, Jakob Ribic Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana Introduction1 During the last decade, staged readings have become the dominant performance for­mat for presenting young playwriting. For most authors, however, this format has be­come the only way for them to present their texts as a public performance. For this reason, it is necessary to stop considering staged readings as a kind of intermediate stage in the development of a text, a prelude to some potentiality that has yet to be realised, something that is thus postponed into the future since, for young authors, this often means nothing else but an indefinable tomorrow that never comes. Many such productions, therefore, no longer serve as the “first information” about the text and its author. Instead, they have become a true and properstaging of the text, thus opening up the space for theatrical experimentation.2 The notion of the theatre experiment is so broad that it is almost impossible to explain it here without great simplification, roughly condensing a multitude of divergent and branching performative practices or by an imprecise, almost violent unification of nu­merous singularities under a single common denominator. Nevertheless, despite this diversity, the theatrical experimentation of the last century, atleast in its predominant part, seems to point in one general direction, a common thread, namely, the attempt to dethrone the theatre text, that is to say, to deprive it of its primacy preserved by the­atre literature in comparison to the stage. Blaž Lukan notes that the alliance between the text and the stage, which primarily involved the domination of the former over the latter – although it was never exemplary or unproblematic – shifted into a competitive 1 The authors of this article are the 2022/2023 fellows of the Jernej Šugman Fund, established by the Slovenian Association of Dramatic Artists (SADA). Jakob Ribic (54771) is included in the programme “Young researchers”, co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget, as well as in the research programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” (P6-0376), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget. 2 Of course, this statement does not imply that staged readings have not been present before and do not appear in other cultural spaces. However, this goes beyond the intended scope and context of our research. That is why we deliberately focus below on the research of staged readings only in the context of the dramatic writing of the young generation. relationship in the 20thcentury. This shift coincided with the emergence of theatre direction and the autonomisation of theatrical approaches (Gledališka 185–87). For this very reason, we perhaps should not look for the goal orientation of theatrical experimentalism in this newly established relationship but rather for a foundation, a basis for the stage to be able to speak through its own language or through every­thing that can be part of this language. This new relationship, of course, opened up an infinite number of possibilities for exploring the potential of performance, that is, of everything that theatre can be or do. As a consequence, dramatic writing itself was fundamentally changed. It is impossible to list all the significant changes that have taken place. To mention but a few, one trend becomes particularly obvious: as the di­rector’s theatre has become more established, the playwright has lost their dominant role, and numerous new practices have emerged, many of them expanding the mean­ing of theatre or even emerging from strictly speaking, non-theatrical artistic spheres, for example, happenings and performance art. Ultimately, however, playwriting itself also changed, which soon called for new terminological designations, such as “no lon­ger dramatic texts” or “postdramatic texts”, each of which in its own way testifies to the supposed end of (classical) playwriting. In contrast to what has just been written, we will follow a particular turn in exploring the layers of what a theatrical experiment can be. This approach does not mean that we will try to reassert the primacy of playwriting and return from performance back to textuality. We are not trying to advocate fora theatre text that would bring the author and theirtext back into the theatre and make a turn away from the performative turn. Doing so would be nothing but a conservative appeal for a return to the alleged good old days when everything was just like it should be. On the contrary, we are still interested in the performative potentials of the stage. However, we intend to considerthem in a surprising conjunction between reading and staging. We will follow the creative prac­tices that preserve the interest in the staging, not at the expense of the dramatic text but precisely within its own framework. This calls for a specific shift in the underlying par­adigm. Thus, the theatre text for us no longermerely represents a vehicle orsource of meaning but a full-blooded and independent agency. We thus understand staged read­ings as a performance of a theatre text, a performance that uses the body of the text and its materiality instead of the actor’s body, exploring all that can be done with it at this intersection and what are all the performative potentials that a simple reading can have. We, therefore, see experimentation primarily as an attempt and risk to do something differently. If experimentation is established as a deviation from and an alternative to the already existing and, above all, to what is recognised as dominant in a given artistic, social and political context, then we question whetherthe aesthetic empowerment and re-functionalisation of the genre of staged readings is not precisely one such area of experimentation. Staged readings are becoming an alternative to the status quo on at least three levels: Firstly, in a situation where the majority of texts by young authors are never actually performed, they represent an alternative option, perhaps even an “es­cape route” for performing such texts. At the same time, however, they are much more than merely an “escape route” since they also represent an alternative to the prevailing performative methods (a staged reading, namely, no longerrequires costumes, a set design, props, a stage, etc.; all that is necessary seems to be the text itself and its poten­tial audience). Furthermore, when understood in this way, that is, as full and complete performances,staged readings contradict and present an alternative to the prevailing understanding of this format as merely an intermediate stage in the development of a text and, therefore, only a kind of a “semi-performative form”. Finally, staged readings also allow for an alternative to the existing dramaturgies of theatre texts and the possi­bility of a different textuality since they raise the question of what a text can be and how it can communicate with us. While the dominant way of staging texts is to try to trans­late them into stage signs and thus dissolve them into the “language of the stage”, staged readings radically insist that the text is the principal, essential and even the only thing necessary fora theatrical event and that reading is, therefore, a key theatrical means. This understanding, of course, allows for the development of fundamentally different dramatic scripts, as it finally suspends the criterion of performability that is to some extent still dominant to this day and is undoubtedly also very limiting, In the paper, we focus on staged readings and relate this issue to the questions of how to still generate experiments today, who can generate them, and what is the young genera­tion’s position in such experiments. We examine whether it is the case that it is precisely staged readings that generate the theatre experiment today and, at the same time, relate this to the question of the status and positioning of drama and its authors. Thus, we first try to define “staged readings” and what it means to establish this type of performance as an independent performative format. We will then ask where this surge of staged read­ings emerging among young authors in a certain period comes from, noting that the pop-ularisation of this format is most probably closely linked to today’s precarious economic situation in which (primarily but not exclusively) young artists are currently working. Since staged readings require minimal resources, they often represent the only chance for staging a given text, which, despite minimal production conditions, can still be aesthetical­ly fulfilling and worthwhile. In the last part of the paper, we attempt to show this through concrete examples of different practices of young women playwrights. Reading as Performance The notion of “staged reading” immediately arouses interest. It meshes together what is supposed to be incompatible. It associates reading with staging, even though reading is precisely the radical opposite of staging, according to the classical theatre model. Staging supposedly begins only where reading ends, that is, with the translation or transposition of the words written on paper and intended for reading into “stage language”, for example, stage movements, light design, the choreography of movements and gestures, set and costume design, music, etc. Theatre rehearsals – the process by which a dramatic text transforms from its literary status into a full-blooded stage performance – are usually structured along the path from reading to what is supposedly a real performance. Thus, the rehearsals usually start with “reading at the table”. After a while, in a later and presumably more mature phase, they “move into the space”, atfirst perhaps with the actorsstill holding the text in their hands as an aid, and finally without it altogether. At that point, the reading is over, and this is supposedly when the time is ripe for the real theatrical event. It seems that the dual status of playwriting, torn between literature and theatre, is also linked to this split. This aporia is typically established by two great and influen­tial aesthetic theories: Aristotle’s and Hegel’s. Although they approach the opposition thus established from opposite ends and advocate completely different positions, they nevertheless share the understanding of “performing” and “reading” as two mutually exclusive possibilities, of which only one or the other can be chosen. However, it is im­possible to consider them along the same aesthetic line, that is, intertwined in a recip­rocal relationship, into reading as a type of performance.Aristotle, for example, argues that the spectacle, the so-called opsis, is the least important ofthe six elements of trag­edy since “the tragic effect is quite possible without a public performance and actors” (2321) and that “from the mere reading of a play its quality may be seen” (2340).3 Hegel, on the other hand, emphasises the necessity of performance, stating that “no play should really be printed but should remain [...] in manuscript for the theatre’s repertory” (1184). These words should perhaps be read in the context of Hegel’s time in whichthe so-called closet drama (Lesedrama or Buchdrama) emerged, aimed only at readers, not spectators, as it was not intended to be made into a performance. All of this, however, merely reiterates and reinforces the notion of a binary relationship between performance and reading as an oppositional relation, that is, a relation of op­position and even mutual exclusion. Nevertheless, although there is, of course, clearly a difference between reading and staging – silent reading in solitude, for example, is not yet sufficient for a theatrical event – and although it is true that in “staged read­ings”, a particular relationship is established between reading and staging, we are here principally interested in conjunction, a kind of dialectic between the two poles, Hegel and Aristotle, reading and staging, literature and the stage, that is, an attempt to position one within the other. Today it seems that we have overcome the dichotomy between text and stage, per­ 3 As Florence Dupont points out, the very title of Aristotle’s text, Poetics, “indicates a technique of writing a play or epic poem” (17), rather than a ritual stage event. haps it even appears meaningless and outdated, and thus it might be useful to reject it. In the field of theatre theory, this has, in fact, already happened from both sides, that is, on the side of the text, which Gerda Poschmann defined by the notion of the theatre text and attributed to it “an immanent performative, theatrical dimen­sion” (102), and on the side of the stage, which, according to Bruno Tackels, can be understood as a blank page to which directing is applied as “a kind of writing, a stage writing or a writing of the stage (Fr. écriture de plateau)” (81). Thus, just as theatricality is an intrinsic quality of the text itself, so too is directing a kind of stage writing, which contains “a grammar, language, vocabulary, style and rhythm of its own” (Tackels 81), and therefore presupposes the existence of the spectator as a “stage reader”(88). In short, instead of continuing to insist on the aporia between the text and the stage, the stage itself can already be understood as a kind of text. At the same time, the text can be considered in its inherent theatrical dimension. Similarly, we will not consider staged reading as a phenomenon split between these two extremes. Forif we put a notch between reading and performing and separate them into opposite poles, a staged reading cannot really be one or the other; it can only be something in between, a kind of third way that is no longer just a reading (since actors or performers are involved and an audience is present, the reading is often supplemented by interpretation and often also by some kind of directorial intervention). However, it is not yet a real performance since it is still “just” a reading of the text, after all. The staged reading is thus considered to reside somewhere in the middle of the process, from the creation of the text –usually written in the solitude of the author’s workspace – to its public performance in front of a theatre audience. It is thus only a kind of intermediate stage in a work-in-progress. While the author already offers his text to the public, this is not yet done in a way that would constitute a “proper” performance; the function of the staged reading is only informative. This way, the playwright can receive information about theirtext, which they verify by, on the one hand, putting their words in the actors’ mouths for the first time and, on the other hand, by collecting the reactions of the audience and perhaps also their critical opinions. At the same time, the audience also receives information about the text and often about its author as well, particularly the “interested” public, among them, of course, primarily those who could potentially perform the text or at least decide to perform it orpublish it in printed form, forexample, directors, producers, theatre company directors and editors. For the author, the staged reading thus represents only a developmental stage in the writing process; it gives them valuable and often even the first feedback on what they had written, based on which they can complete, correct, improve and modify theirtext. To the potential “theatre agents”, the staged reading also represents only an intermediate step in deciding to stage a text and/or engage its author. This point brings to mind the image of a theatrical marketplace where authors offerand sell theirwares to potential clients, whether their text or themselves.4 A side effect of the concept of “staged readings”, understood in this way, is that this artistic genre becomes rather uninteresting, both performatively and theo­retically, because it is reduced to a mere function and is intended only as a way forthe text to pass the first test or experience of the stage, which is only the first step on the path to the final goal: the publication orperformance of the text. Such “semi-performances” may be of interest to the authors and to a rare, but first and foremost pragmatically oriented, audience, that is, people who are hoping to find a new quality text or at least a potentially interesting theatre collaborator, and in the best case scenario, also to a few theatre enthusiasts who, forsome unex­plained reason, like to stay informed about the current production of dramatic texts. However, since staged readings are virtually the only possibility for many (mainly young) playwrights to have their text performed at all, many of them re­nounce this functionalist understanding and instead attempt to establish the aes­thetic autonomy of this artistic genre. Such reframing is the only way forthem to be able to consider staged readings as anything else but a poor consolation prize, a makeshift substitute for authors who can hardly hope for what is supposedly a properfulfilment of a text, which is either its performance on a theatre stage or its publication in a journal or book. Rather than juxtaposing reading and staging as opposed to each other and insisting that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, we propose to position them both on an aesthetic continuum. Perhaps the most effective way to illustrate this relationship is the metaphor of the Möbius strip, where, as one gradually progresses from the starting point, one sooner or later finds oneself on the opposite side. On this (s)trip, we will be most interested in the point of intersection, the junction at which one plane passes into another, and reading itself thus becomes a fully autonomous performance.5 4 Blaž Lukan has written extensively on this subject, which also brings to mind a rather telling image of a marketplace: “The first problem thus lies in the attitude adopted by the mostly unestablished authors themselves, as staged readings with zero budget or minimal material investment allow them to offer their potential ‘value’ to strong ‘buyers’ who might purchase it in the aesthetic or real market. This means that the authors expect to turn a ‘profit’ which can materialise in the form of potential employment, ‘commission’ or even mere recognition of the aesthetic value of the offered item as an investment into the future. In any case, we are talking about precarious (economic) categories. The second problem is the attitudeof the addresses, i.e., the potential ‘buyers’ or ‘commissioners’, as staged readings (unless they organise them themselves) enable them to easily find potential candidates (with no particular investment or effort on their side, i.e., inquiries, competitions, grants or investment into ‘talent’) for their own investments (and invention), which to them can bring a completely different kind of ‘profit’ than to the authors” (Gledališka 176, 177). 5 This can also be taken quite literally, as some staged readings no longer involve interpretive reading aloud or play with who is reading (Lukan, Gledališka 174). Lukan points out some contemporary examples of staged readings that no longer fit the dictionary definition (173, 174), which not only raises the need for a revised dictionary entry but perhaps also the question of appropriate terminology. Perhaps some examples of contemporary staged readings that go beyond the classical definition ofthe phenomenon would need a new terminological term or atleast a prefix to be added to the existing one (such as post-reading performance or no longer reading performance). This question is only offered for consideration at this point. This idea would mean that, under certain conditions, a reading could become a very real theatrical event. These conditions are surprisingly minimal. As early as the 1980s, for example, Blaž Lukan noted at a public reading of Ivan Mrak’s work that it revealed “theatre in its original sense”, even though it required as little as, say, “a chair and a table, an open book on it, modest lighting and distant music” (Dramaturške 23). This confirmation is particularly encouraging for (young) playwrights operating in today’s precarious conditions, as they often have no choice but to work in barely adequate production to stage their texts. Fees are low, so there is little time for rehearsals, and the pool of potential co-workers can also be very shallow. There is also little money to invest into lavish costumes, sets and props (if any), and often no stage since authors usually find space only in marginal and alternative venues, where lighting options are also poor and minimal, rather than in proper institutions. In such conditions, it is impossible to stage one’s text as a “spectacular” theatre production. Any such attempt could only fail miserably. It would also be ideologically somewhat problematic since it would be in perfect harmony with the prevailing logic of capital, which wants to make as much profit with as little input as possible. This is precisely why such an approach would be counterproductive: if it proved possible to produce performances with so little investment, there would be no need to invest more than that into performances. If, by contrast, we assume that staged readings can be a completely independent and fully-fledged artistic genre, then there is no need to make them into something “more” than what is possible, given the (mainly financial) limitations. Thus, this type of production can be quite honest about the fact that it is produced under precarious conditions, that this is a kind of poortheatre, in a sense, albeit poor only in terms of the conditions of production and certainly not in terms of their aesthetic value. Again, the latter can only be achieved if we first acknowledge staged readings as an artistic genre or as having any performance potential. The space forexploration only opens up by abandoning the idea that staged readings are merely an intermediate stage between reading and staging. Only in this way can reading be perceived as a potentially interesting theatrical means worth exploring and promising to create a fully integrated theatrical event.6 Thus, we should ultimately resist any ambition to make it appear that staged readings are being produced in good, perhaps even institutionalised, working conditions. However, we should not resignedly abandon all performative ambitions in advance on account of the modest conditions. The point is that staged readings, insofar 6 Blaž Lukan has writtenand spoken about this on various occasions, including at the round table on the independence ofstaged reading, organised by the KUD Krik association at Nova pošta (The New Post Office) in 2019: “A staged reading looksforthe possibilities of staging within the text itself, on many different levels. Not only at the level of interpretation of the textbut also at the level of the medium itself, the graphic notation, the way of presenting the text, its projection, the establishmentof a relationship with the text, the involvement of the audience in the creation of the text live in front of us. In fact, what we seehere is the birth of theatre out of the spirit of the text precisely in this primary form. This opens up a vast field of possibilities,but it also takes time. The worst form of staged reading is that which is considered to be merely provisional, substitutes,consolation mini-performances. This marks a degradation of the staged reading” (qtd. in Potocan 21). as they truly remain readings (and no more than that), arealso a performatively attractive artistic format while at the same time reinforcing their aesthetic dimension with a political one, since, by pointing out rather than concealing the conditions of their production, they communicate something along the lines of “Hey, these are the conditions in which we can work at the moment”. Generators of Experimentation As an experimental form, staged readings have emerged in different periods. Below we consider when artists have turned to this format and why. Experimental and even guerrilla-style staged readings appeared during the time of the PreGlej group. Its members at the time (playwrights including Simona Semenic, Simona Hamer, Peter Rezman et al.) understood the format of staged readings pri­marily as a response, a commentary or even a critical gesture to problematise the state of contemporary Slovenian drama, its writers and, above all, the methods and procedures of their performance. Due to economic conditions, and even more so due to the scarcity of production resources, PreGlej’s authors appropriated the for­mat of the staged reading, which became their hallmark format, and the creative freedom offered by this approach eventually gave rise to some of the most promi­nent contemporary playwrights in Slovenia. It would seem that the establishment of these artists and more frequent stagings of their texts in institutions marked a quieter period when staged readings were not so frequently presented. This situation changed with the founding of the journal Adept and the Vzkrik Festival of Dramatic Writing – with other initiatives eventually fol­lowing – by a new generation of writers to challenge the status quo. Between 2017 and 2021, staged readings again started to appear in larger numbers in the context of various festivals and projects: for example, the New Readings programme at the Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana and other supporting programmes in institutional theatres; during the COVID-19 lockdowns, even video streamings of staged readings appeared in the production of the Prešeren Theatre Kranj under the title Couch Monologues; staged readings were traditionally organised by the Week of Slovenian Drama Festival, the Adept journaland the Vzkrik Festival; and platforms such as Instant Drama appeared, etc. Nevertheless, staged readings often remained at the level of classical interpretive readings without further conceptual or perfor­mative considerations. They filled a gap in supportive programmes while at the same time giving the impression that the state of contemporary Slovenian drama and the position of playwrights was improving significantly. In reality, such productions were often mere substitutions for supposedly “proper” performances of texts, making them a kind of staging in deferment. This potential had yet to be fully and truly realised. The same goes for this year’s 2022/23 theatre season, in which more than five com­petitions for plays are actively open, a record number. Just a few, however, also offer the staging of selected texts in addition to the prize money. Therefore, the frequen­cy of staged readings seems to directly correlate to the frequency of publishing and staging the authors’ texts, or even to the possibilities for this happening at all, and at least partly to specific individuals’ personal ambitions and enthusiasm. Perhaps this is why the need for such experimental gestures is gradually disappearing when the generation changes (Jernej Potocan, Nina Kuclar Stikovic, Iza Strehar, etc.), and even more with the gradual establishment of the authors in more institutionalised spaces. Particularly interesting are the cases of the Vzkrik Festival of Dramatic Writing and the journal Adept of the University of Ljubljana, Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television.7 Both initiatives were launched at a time when interest in playwriting among younger authors was surging, while it was also becoming increasingly clear that there was a lack of space in which they could present their texts publicly. In the independent scene, the text is usually created during the creative process. In contrast, in institutional theatres, devised projects are usually combined with older (often ca­nonic) texts and commissioned texts, usually by established authors. This is why it became clear that the young generation had to establish its own platform for contin­uously staging new texts. It is also why the Vzkrik Festival ran for several years with the eloquent slogan, “If you refuse to stage us, we will stage ourselves!” Nina Ramšak and Žan Žveplan pointed out a similar problem in the editorial “Don’t just read it, use it!” of the inaugural issue of Adept. The journal was conceived to dedicate one of its two annual issues to the publication of plays by authors of the young generation. From the outset, it resisted the idea that it would be intended merely for “linear read­ing from beginning to end” (Ramšak and Žveplan 3). Instead, it encouraged reading in relation to a potential staging. For this reason, each issue in which the plays were published was followed by a public presentation in the form of staged readings, which were conceived from the very outset in a broader sense, that is, “not merely as a step on the way to the final product, but rather as an autonomous form worthy of explo­ration” (3). Thiswas also the fundamental starting point of the Vzkrik Festival, which organised workshops under the mentorship of established playwrights throughout the year, where participants wrote and refined their texts. When the workshops end­ed, these texts were also presented as staged readings. These stagings were not con­ceived to serve only the function of presenting the first information about the text, however, but rather as a proper and independent performative event, which was in­dicated already by the initial definition of the project as a festival of dramatic writing, and this ambition was ultimately confirmed by good attendance and media coverage. 7 The Vzkrik (Eng. shout) Festival ran from 2017 to 2021 and had four festival editions, during which 28 new plays were produced. The first issue of Adept journal was published in 2014, and the journal is still being published to this day. Gestures and Shouts8 What these staged readings have in common is that they do not consider reading only as an interpretation of texts but rather as their main staging concept, making the text the most important (if not the only) theatrical element. There are, of course, many similar cases of staged readings. One is also the performance by the Bulgarian play­wright Alexander Manuiloff, The State, presented at Nova pošta (The New Post Office) in 2019. The audience was seated in a circle in the auditorium, with a box of letters placed in the middle of the circle. The audience determined the performance’s pace, dramaturgy and course, like as a community or a state. They also read the text by themselves and finally finished it. Although The State was labelled as a full-length theatre performance, it was still possible to discern the main elements of what we ourselves understand by the notion of an experimental staged reading, as the text was placed in the foreground and used as the only theatrical tool, which meant that it was only the text and the spectator who were confronted with each other on stage. As far as our theatre space is concerned, experimentation, especially in young play­writing, is most evident in the inclusion of autobiographical elements and the involve­ment ofthe author’s presence and corporeality in the act of public reading. The latter is thus no longer merely a reading of a text but also a reading or decyphering of the au­thor and their status context. Such was the case, for example, with the staged reading cycle Ko se žgem[When I Burn (Myself)]at the 57thMaribor Theatre Festival, in which Nina Kuclar Stikovic, Urša Majcen, Helena Šukljan and Manca Lipoglavšek presented their interpretations and adaptations of Hans Christian Andersen’s famous fairy tale The Little Match Girl. Šukljan and Lipoglavšek did somethingsimilar in staging their text Dramakurbija (Dramawhoring). Since the abovementioned cases are mainly ex­periments created in the context of study courses, it is perhaps interesting to mention also the staged readings of the author Anja Novak, who inserted simultaneous textual, visual, audio, interactive and staged readings of her poems by other artists on QR codes in her book of poetry entitled Rane rane (Wounds Wounds). She also continued this practice in the context of public presentations and readings of her poetry, inter­vening in publicevents with her poetry in the role of her alter ego Anjuta, a bride, of­fering herself and her subjectivity to be read. Novak used sonority and music as one of the main principles for reading her texts – a kind of concert staged readings – also in her work My Body, My Cage,in which thetext was reduced to a few dozen words and sentences. The reading was supplemented with the sound of her bones cracking and the use of spaghetti as a sound source, thus underlining her inner state of anorexia. A similar exampleof a concert reading was also Nina Dragicevic’s performance, which supplemented the reading with bass guitar accompaniment, thus conceptualising her text ljubav rece greva (Love Says Let’s Go)as a score of rhythm and atmospheres. 8 Cp. the footnote no. 7. All of the examples mentioned above are experimental in that they abandon their supposedly primary function of reading rehearsals and interpretations and instead engage with the overall performativity of the text. At the same time, staged readings can also be experimental regarding the social gestures they produce. Here, their ex­perimentation refers primarily to the position of the dramatic text and its author. Nika Švab created one such gesture in a series of participatory staged readings of the text Delo in deklica I–V: Drame tlacank (Work and the Girl I–V: Drama of the Oppressed). As a dramaturg and writer, the author applied for funding at the Ministry of Culture’s Authors’ Opus call for proposals, usually intended for directors and performers with their ideas for full-length productions and performances. Švab resisted this by apply­ing a dramatic text and a concept for a series of staged readings, thus challenging the prevailing notion of performance production units while at the same time establish­ing staged readings as an autonomous performative format, competing on an equal footing with other performative and theatrical events in the call for proposals. The dramaturgical structure of the text, divided into five scenes, was followed by the conceptual design of the staged readings. There were five of them, so each day be­tween 15 and 19 November 2022, one scene was read, and each evening a new au­dience and other invited theatre-makers, seated on a grandstand in the auditorium, read the text and commented on it with the author herself. The events were organ-ised at The New Post Office, with no additional elements but a large screen on which the text was projected. The only theatrical element on stage was thus the text itself, which was read prima vista without any interpretation orpreparation. The course of the reading was not predetermined; the readers themselves decided when they wanted to stop it with their questions, reflections and doubts about the quality and intelligibility ofthe text, and with suggestions for potential approaches to staging it. The reading and the conversations it sparked were recorded and later transcribed into a new documentary performance text entitled Nevarno razmerje dramatike in gledališca (The Dangerous Liason between Drama and Theatre). This text was created in medias res during the staged reading and the accompanying analytical commen­tary on another text. The event itself – the reading and the analysis of what was read – thus became the material (and not just the basis) for creating a new theatre text. Lukan says thatwhen staged readings take place on several levels, not merely on the level of interpretation of the text, “what we see here is the birth of theatre out of the spirit of the text” (qtd. in Potocan 21). In the case of this particular staged reading, however, we saw not only the birth of theatre but also the birth of an entirely new text. The logic was thus reversed: suddenly, the staged reading was no longer an “escape route” for texts that, while written, are not performed but rather become a theatrical event in their own right and even the generator of new texts. Not only can a staged reading function as a full-fledged performative format, but it can also even function, so it seems, as a fully autonomous theatre text. Conclusion To summarise, it is obvious that the staged reading is established as a space of exper­imentation (and perhaps also a gesture of resistance) when that which is supposed to be polarisedis overcome, not by abandoning the two supposedly opposing poles, but by radically reconciling them in the same place. Thus, the best cases of staged readings are those that do not appear as something in-between in the relationship between reading and staging but instead function both as the one and the other at the same time, however, not in a way that simply merges one pole with the other, but so that it establishes one pole within the other. We have tried to illustrate this concept with the metaphor of the Möbius strip. It does not mean including both a little bit of reading and a little bit of staging, but rather that reading – under certain conditions, of course – can be established as an autonomous form of performance, and this is where the experimentation can start: in exploring all the potential forms of performance that can be produced by reading. Something similar could be argued about the opposition between the literary and the theatrical, as seen in the case of Nika Švab’s project. A theatrical event can – again, of course, under certain conditions – also be the genera­tor of a new literary text. It is not the case that theatre and literature are completely opposed to each other, that there is an unsurmountable gap between them; at some point, they can overlap, and perhaps it is precisely at this point that an infinite space for experimentation opens up. At the same time, establishing staged readings as fully autonomous theatre events can also have substantial consequences for the precarious situation of (young) authors. If staged readings were no longer perceived merely as something transitory, inter­mediate and temporary, if they could generate experimentation, and if they could be acknowledged as a comprehensive way of staging dramatic texts, then it should not be left to the particular will of individuals to undertake such a project, let alone depend on the sad fact that texts by young authors usually do not get to be presented on “big theatre stages”. Instead, staged readings should be adequately funded and thus sys­tematically encouraged, as it isobvious that they can be a generator of new and differ­ent writings and perhaps even new authors. Adequate funding and systemic support would prevent staged readings from emerging and disappearing in more or less con­tingent waves and create a sustainable space for exploring new forms of playwriting. Paradoxically, however, it turned out that staged readings could begin to experiment precisely because of their self-sufficiency, as their creators were not bound to anyone else except themselves. Although systemic support is welcome, it should not come at the expense of artistic autonomy. True experimentation can only begin in a field that operates autonomously and without limitations. Literature Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle: Volume Two. Princeton University Press, 1984. Dupont, Florence. Aristotel ali vampir zahodnega gledališca. Knjižnica MGL, 2019. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art.Oxford University Press, 1975. Lukan, Blaž. Dramaturške replike. Knjižnica MGL, 1991. —. Gledališka sinteza: razprave o drami, gledališcu in performansu. Založba Univerze v Ljubljani, 2022. Poschmann, Gerda. “Gledališki tekst in drama. K uporabi pojmov.” Drama, tekst, pisa­va, edited by Petra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišic, Knjižnica MGL, 2008, pp. 97–116. Potocan, Jernej. “Vprašanje bralne uprizoritve.” Adept, vol. 6, no. 2, 2020, pp. 16–22. Ramšak, Nina, and Žan Žveplan. “Ne samo berite, uporabite!” Adept, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, p. 3. Tackels, Bruno. “Desakralizacija teksta, vendarle.” Drama, tekst, pisava 2, edited by Petra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišic, Knjižnica MGL, 2021, pp. 79–96. UDK 821.163.6.09-2Kermauner T. DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/202-215 Meddeli verjetno najboljšega poznavalca slovenske dramatike in njenega prvega teoretika Tarasa Kermaunerja je mogoce najti tudi en sam dramski poskus: sodno razpravo o vrednosti avantgardisticne poezije na primeru obtoženega pesnika Tomaža Šalamuna. Sicer gledališko zelo uporabno zvrst sodnega disputa Kermauner zanimivo razvije, zakljuci pa jo s popolnoma antidramskim, antiklimakticnim sklepom, s katerim preloži odlocanje o stvari na drugi casoprostor. Natancnejši pregled besedila razkrije razlicne konceptualne nedoslednosti, ki jih je mogoce zajeti s pojmom paradoksa. V tekstu je bilo tako mogoce izslediti pet tock, ki bi jih bilo mogoce definirati kot paradoksne, in sicer zadevajo vsebinske kategorije, kot so bistvo umetnosti, vprašanja naroda za umetnost, umetnosti in marksizma ter življenja kot vrhovne estetske kategorije, zadnji paradoks pa je formalen, saj sodna razprava s svojim zakljuckom izzveni popolnoma v prazno: ne glede na dovolj izrazito in ostro predstavitev stališc obeh protagonistov, Toživca in Branivca, se Kermauner odloci – namesto za stopnjevanje konflikta do (gledališkega) vrhunca – za razvodenitev disputa na podlagi vkljucitve obcinstva in ugotovitve, da se slednje v vlogi porote ne more odlociti za nobeno od strani. (Raz)rešitev dileme o (nacionalni, umetniški) kvaliteti avantgardisticne poezije tako preostane – vsej pirotehniki Kermaunerjeve gledališke sodne razprave navkljub – prihodnosti in literarni teoriji. Kljucne besede: Taras Kermauner, Tomaž Šalamun, sodna drama, avantgardisticna poezija, vrednote, socrealizem, kriticni realizem Krištof Jacek Kozak je na Univerzi v Ljubljani študiral filozofijo in primerjalno književnost, doktoriral pa leta 2003 iz primerjalne književnosti na University of Alberta v Edmontonu, Kanada. Zaposlil se je na Oddelku za slovenistiko Fakultete za humanisticne študije Univerze na Primorskem. Objavil je dve monografiji (druga je izšla še v srbskem, slovaškem in angleškem jeziku) ter vrsto znanstvenih in strokovnih clankov, deloval pa je tudi kot gledališki kritik, prevajalec in dramaturg. Kot predavatelj je gostoval na številnih tujih univerzah. kjkozak@fhs.upr.si Disput o petih paradoksih »poezije stranišca« s prologom in epilogom Krištof Jacek Kozak Oddelek za slovenistiko, Fakulteta za humanisticne študije, Univerza na Primorskem Prolog Svoj edini dejanski avtorski tekst,1dramolet Avantgardisticni pesnik pred sodišcem, v katerem se posluži klasicnega gledališkega postopka sodnega procesa in na odru uprizori sodni besedni spopad, je Taras Kermauner spisal leta 1972, tema pa je seveda napad na in – skladno s pricakovanji – obramba poezije neoavantgardisticnega pesnika Tomaža Šalamuna. Slednji sodnega procesa – kot morda drugi pomembni evropski disidenti, kot so Václav Havel, Adam Michnik, Andrej D. Sinjavski in Julij M. Daniel – v resnici ni doživel, torej je Kermaunerjev literarni poskus fiktiven, je pa oblast pesnika osem let prej, torej leta 1964, zaradi poskusa objave pesmi Duma 1964 v zadnji številki Perspektiv, potem ko je bila ta zaplenjena, vseeno za nekaj dni zaprla. Na podlagi svincenega desetletja šestdesetih let se zdi vrednostna pozicija osrednjih akterjev zelo jasna: mladi ustvarjalci si za svobodni razmislek prizadevajo razširiti nazorski obroc, ki jih stiska, in se upirajo pritisku režimskega enoumja. Kermaunerjeva pozicija leta 1972 se zdi tako rekoc samoumevna tako glede na vrednote, ki jih je zastopala njegova generacija, kot tudi na podlagi osebne povezanosti, saj je šlo za somišljenike in znance, ce ne celo prijatelje. Zato bi glede na Šalamunovo usodo bilo pricakovati odlocno politicno obrambo mladostnega upora zoper politicno resnicnost. Toda Kermaunerjeva dramska sodna debata, ki ni toliko strastna kot cerebralna in – po sodno – teoreticno gostobesedna, predvsem ni politicna. Za tiste case bi bilo pricakovati, da bi bilo Toživcevo orožje, s katerim bi Šalamuna lahko obtoževal razredne, družbene ali politicne neustreznosti, nabito predvsem z družbenopoliticnimi naboji, vendar se Kermaunerju politicni ocitki najocitneje niso zdeli vec relevantni. Morda zato, ker je že mesec dni po zaplembi Perspektiv DZS kot 1 Drugi, Crtomirke (nanj je v opombi 2 svoje uvodne študije v zborniku Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov opozoril Blaž Lukan) je prvemu sledil takoj naslednje leto, ni bil pa cisto avtorski, saj je bil sestavljen iz odlomkov besedil Mire Puc - Mihelic, Vitomila Zupana, Igorja Torkarja, Ivana Mraka, Dominika Smoleta, Primoža Kozaka, Andreja Hienga in Dušana Jovanovica (prim. www.sigledal.org). Kritiko njegove uprizoritve v eksperimentalnem gledališcu Glej je napisal Aleš Berger. izdajateljica revije, kot poroca Kermauner (prim. 10; opombe zgolj s številko strani se tukaj in poslej nanašajo na Kermaunerjevo dramsko besedilo), v Naših razgledihobjavila celotno zaplenjeno Šalamunovo pesem, in sicer kot »dokazno gradivo« o upravicenosti svoje odlocitve o ukinitvi revije. Morda tudi zato, ker se je že pisalo leto 1972, leto ekonomske liberalizacije in politicne »odjuge«, Kavcicevega casa, ko se je zdelo, da je ljudstvo koncno le »dozorelo«, Partija pa da dejansko namerava pocasi sestopiti z oblasti v boljšo ekonomsko resnicnost. Ce je besedilo ostalo brez politike, bi s Kermaunerjeve strani kot presojevalno vrednostno paradigmo dramoleta pricakovali vsaj zagovor estetskega pristopa neoavantgardisticne književnosti, a tudi ta v glavnem umanjka. Osrednji argument Kermaunerjevega besedila se ne osredotoci na estetske, temvec predvsem na – karje v primeru neoavantgardisticne poezije še toliko presenetljivejša odlocitev – funkcionalne vrednote poezije. Res je namrec Šalamunova poezija tista, na katere hrbtu se lomijo sodna kopja vrednot in ki služi obema protagonistoma, Toživcuin Branivcu, za strelovod, vendar osrednji predmet obtožbe ni le Šalamunova, temvec celotna neoavantgardisticna poezija in njena funkcija v okviru narodne književnosti. Tudi izhodišca obeh protagonistov – Toživec napada z Vidmarjevimi stališci, Branivec zagovarja s stališca marksizma – odpirajo številna vprašanja. Težava je v tem, da Kermauner ne poda jasnih odgovorov gledališko razlocnega – ostanemo brez vrednostno nedvoumnega razpleta, kar dvoumja še bolj zaplete. Njegova sodna razprava se zato kaže ne kot dramsko ucinkovito, pac pa paradoksno besedilo. In paradoksov smo v dramoletu našli pet. Prvi paradoks Prvi paradoks se zgosti okoli kljucne predpostavke umetnosti, in sicer vprašanja o bistvu in funkciji književnosti. Ceprav je bila Šalamunova Duma 1964 zaplenjena prvenstveno zaradi politicnih razlogov (oblast je presodila, da gre za družbeno neustreznost pesmi), Kermauner funkcionalisticnega razumevanja umetnosti ne postavi pod vprašaj, pac pa svojo razlago umetnosti oblikuje prav na podlagi njene družbene vloge. Po Toživcevi teoriji – ki pa ji, pomenljivo, Branivec pravzaprav nikjerne nasprotuje – obstaja namrec prava umetnost, prava poezija, ki »izpoveduje vero v clovecanstvo« (19) in nas »plemeniti, dviga, osrecuje in nas dela vse bolj cloveške« (6). Umetnost je torej tista clovekova dejavnost, ki – cankarjansko receno – iz cloveka dela Cloveka, njen deontološki cilj pa je, da cloveka naredi za (družbeno) boljše bitje in ga dvigne na višjo moralno in eticno raven. Ta naloga umetnosti pa lahko obrodi sad zgolj, ko »utrjuje [clovekov] življenjski smisel in smisel življenja kot takega« (19). To pomeni, da je bistvo umetnosti predvsem vzgojno. Naravna konsekvenca te predpostavke je, da je modernisticna, larpurlartisticna kvaliteta oziroma sama­sebi-namenjenost umetnosti odrinjena v ozadje, njena funkcionalna lastnost pa vpliva na spremembo vsakega posameznika v ustrezno prilagojen in idealno delujoc zobnik v kolesju družbe. In ker je tako, je treba umetnost ocenjevati po njenih družbenih rezultatih. Na tej podlagi Kermauner avantgardisticno poezijo podvrže kritiki predvsem z aplikativnega stališca, izhaja torej natancno iz materialisticnega razumevanja umetnosti, tocno tako, kakor jo je razumel denimo marksisticni estetik György Lukács: umetnost ni le kantovska agnosticna avantura, temvec medicinsko uporabna specifika, ki pomaga v skrbi za – in zato krepi – »družbeno, zgodovinsko in osebno zdravje« (Lukács 14). Temu stališcu Kermauner doda še posebni obrat na primeru Vodnikovega Zadovoljnega Kranjca. Vodnikov junak je namrec »ubogljiv, vesel je, ce bo lahko izpolnil povelje – ukaz – domovine, šel na boj […], se […] pridno, vestno, rad ucil« (8). Sklep se ponuja sam od sebe: samo priden Kranjec je dober Kranjec in samo dober Kranjec bo preživel! Samo družbeno zgleden clovek je ustrezen posameznik. Zato pravi clovek ni tisti, ki se (samo) ukvarja z literaturo, ampak tisti, ki literaturo uporabi za pedagoški namen. Navedeno seveda spomni na velikane slovenske literature, ki jih je literarna zgodovina dvignila na piedestal »ocetov naroda«, kar potrjuje Kermauner sam: resnicni, pravi pesniki ne morejo biti drugega kot domoljubi. Vto smer gre Kermauner s Toživcevim vprašanjem, ali »naj damo naši mladini vroke pesem, ki jo bomo ravnokar slišali [gre za Šalamunovo pesem Zatonil je cas usranih poetov, op. pis., prim. »Pesmi Tomaža Šalamuna«]? Kaj naj jo ucimo, da je to umetnost?« (24). To prav tako potrjuje njegova ugotovitev, da so »ravno pesniki s svojo borbenostjo vzpodbujali ljudske množice k delu in graditvi boljšega življenja« in ji »vlivali samozavest« (17). Njegov poudarek je kljucen: umetnost ni samo prostocasna dejavnost blaziranih umetnikov, ampak je eksistencno pomemben medikament, borba zanjo pa je življenjsko kljucna za skupnost in posameznika. Naloga umetnosti torej ni umetniško nebrzdana, ustvarjalno originalna in miselno provokativna, temvec – zgolj za dobro posameznika in, posledicno, naroda – omejujoca, disciplinirajoca in sedativna. Zato se Toživcu ni treba bati za obstoj ljudstva (naroda), saj bo to – ustrezno kondicionirano in vzgojeno – vselej znalo opraviti tudi s tovrstnimi nihilisticnimi pesniki, saj jih bo »naše […] ljudstvo […] izpljunilo« (6). To stališce pred nami avtomaticno razpre naslednji paradoks: telos narodne literature. Drugi paradoks Poleg vzgojnega razumevanja poezije se v Kermaunerjevem sodnem dokazovanju prekrijeta še dva pogleda na umetnost: politicni, ceprav ga Kermauner omeni le enkrat, in še to ga (spet paradoksno) položi v usta Branivcu, ter narodni, ki pa predstavlja osrednjo os Toživcevega napada: ceš da prava poezija vsebuje »program celotnega naroda« (9). Obema pogledoma je skupno teleološko razumevanje umetnosti: biti mora vselej spodbujevalna, slavilna, obcudovalna, biti mora(kot Županciceva Duma, ki jo navaja Toživec) »hvalnica delu, […], lepoti, zemlji, slovenstvu, prirodi, družini« (10). Vlogo in smisel literature Toživec išce (in najde) na za slovensko literarno tradicijo najznacilnejši podlagi: v njenem razmerju do oblikovanja narodove identitete. Toživcevi argumenti se osredinijo okoli slovenskega naroda oziroma vloge in funkcije umetnosti/literature v njegovem oblikovanju, pri cemer avantgardisticne poezije ne obravnava tako, kot bi najverjetneje želela sama, torej neodvisno od družbenih sistemov in aplikacij, temvec jo postavi lepo v vrsto za (in jo s tem izenaci z) vsemi doslejšnjimi narodnospodbudnimi umetninami pravih velikanov literature: V. Vodnika, F. Prešerna, O. Župancica in še koga. Že prva Toživceva salva ubere kljucni, nacionalni ton in avantgardiste zoperstavi narodu kot takemu. Protislovje avantgardisticne umetnosti je v tem, da se ne briga za narodno telo, ki je za Kermaunerjevega Toživca po definiciji »lep[o], zdrav[o], umn[o], topl[o], privlacn[o], koristn[o] in zavedn[o]« (6). In ker je le prava umetnost tista, ki ga tako naslavlja, saj le taka lahko privede do oblikovanja »poživljajoce in razsvetljujoce kulture – prave domovine« (6), je avantgardisticna umetnost pravzaprav brez vrednosti. Literarni primer, ki ga Toživec navede, je Šalamunova pesem Utrudil sem se podobe svojega plemena, ki da ravno te ideale persiflira, razkraja in tepta v blato posmeha. Šalamuna, precej emfaticno poimenovanega »avantgardisticni divji lovec« (10), Toživec obtoži, da si privošci »svinjanje vsega plemenitega, […], predvsem pa napad na narod, na slovenstvo« (25), s cimer da hoce »zbrisati vse slovensko izrocilo in naše neumrljive ideale« (10), to pa naj bi pomenilo »popoln[o] destrukcij[o], razdejanje slovenstva in naše družbe« (17). Cilj domace avantgardisticne poezije je po Toživcevem mnenju kratko in malo unicenje naroda, za katerega si je pa vsaka poprejšnja literatura od Trubarja naprej krvavo prizadevala. Kar Toživca še posebej tare, je Šalamunova narodna brezvestnost in porogljiv nacin, s katerim to izkazuje, oziroma »cinicno huligansko napadanje vsega (od ustave ter politike SFRJ do slovenskega naroda)« (13). Šalamunu, z njim pa tudi vsej avantgardisticni poeziji, da ni nic sveto, saj gre za »strahovito relativiziranje, za odpravo vseh vrednot« (20) in celo boga, ki je še za Toživca (sicer ateista) vendarle »simbol za vse temeljno, lepo, pravo, za ideale, za vzore, za smisel« (24). Destrukcija narodnega ideala, ki je sicerdobro znan iz uvodnih lekcij o zgodovini slovenske kulture, naj bi bila tem bolj boleca, ker naj bi na njegovem mestu avantgardisticna poezija ne ponujala nicesar oziroma namesto tega propagira »mocvirno, mrhovinasto družbo« (8), »svet na glavi, […] svet v mocvirju«, svet, ki je »razpad sveta« (20), torej »nihilizem« (6, 20). Naj le omenimo, da je nihilizem ogrožal predvsem nacional(istic)ne vzgibe, saj je družbenemu idealu nasproti postavljal njegov manko, torej malo ali nic. Zato sta s tega stališca seveda razumljivi Toživcevi retoricni vprašanji: ali je »narodna budnost danes že sramota« (16) in »ali bi se Slovenci v svoji zgodovini lahko obdržali, ce bi imeli same takšne poete in pesmi« (13)? Avantgardisti torej za Kermaunerjevega Toživca niso nic drugega kot »protinarodni elementi brez morale, defetisti, obupanci« (6), v bistvu »notranji emigranti« (6), torej zagovorniki »najbolj skrajnega individualizma in privatizma« (26), ki utelešajo »svet lenuhov, bohemov, hippijev, razcapancev, ki živijo na racun delovnih ljudi« (8) in »bežijo v abstraktne svetove kozmopolitizma, nenarodnega custvovanja« (6). Zanje so znacilni »globoka navelicanost, utrujenost, obup« (13) ter »beg«, »nemoc posameznikov« in »infantilizem« (22). Zato lahko avantgardisticna poezija proizvaja le »bogokletne, umazane, razdiralne« (24) pesmi, »poulicne pesmice« (23), še vec: »poezij[o] stranišca in razkroja vseh clovecanskih vrednot« (9). Šalamunovo pesnikovanje je, kakršno je, ne zato, ker ga ustvarja kriticen, a verodostojen clovek. Šalamunse ne more dvigniti na od njega pricakovani nivo narodnega cašcenja zato, ker je sam tako rekoc cloveški izmecek, pokveka, nesposobna višjih oblik custvovanja. On in njemu podobni – edino drugo avantgardisticno delo, ki ga poleg Šalamunove poezije enako kriticno omeni Toživec, so Jovanovicevi Norci (prim. 19) – niso sposobni konstruktivne (narodne) akcije, ker taki elementi ne morejo ustvarjati, ampak se iz vsega lahko samo norcujejo in le »besede parodira[jo]« (17), to pa je »odpoved angažmaju, družbeni akciji, to je kapitulantsvo« (25). »Šalamun vsak boj, vsako akcijo, dejavnost pojmuje kot negativno, bedasto in smešno« (17). Zato je prizadevanje Kermaunerjevega Toživca jasno in natancno: »Takšno pisarijo je treba prepovedati« (24). Kermauner vloži veliko truda v oblikovanje tega teoreticnega izhodišca, zato obrambi ostane še manj energije in na napad ne odgovori. Še vec, protislovno se namrec zazdi, da sta – kljub navidezni razlicnosti stališc med neuklonljivim in ostrim Toživcem ter na drugi strani umetnostnega ideala stojecim Branivcem – na nasprotnih bregovih le na videz, sajje za oba kljucen idealisticni pristop, zato sta si nazorsko bližje, kot bi bilo mogoce sklepati. Obramba svoje argumente namrec utemelji na dveh predpostavkah. Prva predstavlja Branivcevo rokohitrstvo, ki Toživcevemu ultrapatriotskemu stališcu ne ugovarja naravnost, temvec mu skuša vzeti naboj in ga razvrednotiti na drugacen nacin. Branivec Toživcevo slepo podporo domoljubni umetnosti namrec denuncira in jo persiflira. Tu je logika argumenta obrnjena in zato razmeroma ucinkovita: ce je dušebrižniška domoljubna poezija najboljša, potem iz tega sledi, da mora biti tudi Jovan Vesel Koseski zaradi svojih zagnano patriotskih stvaritev boljši pesnik od Prešerna. In ker je samoumevno, da Koseski danes ne spada vec v kanon slovenske poezije, se s tem razvrednoti teža Toživcevega argumenta o »domovinski ljubezni« (15) v okviru narodnospodbudne poezije. Druga Branivceva predpostavka pa je nezadovoljstvo z dejanskostjo, ki da je posebna znacilnost poezije nasploh, kar Branivec dokazuje tudi s starejšo poezijo F. Prešerna (Soneti nesrece) ali O. Župancica (Pesem mladine, Ob uri brezupa), v katerih je nedvomno zacutiti »grozovit[o] obtožb[o] današnjega sveta in družbe« (11) ter tudi razkroj »cudežnega narodnega in humanisticnega programa« (12). In v to kriticnost naj bi bili posebej vpeti mladi ljudje, ki da jim nic ni svetega, predvsem si pa želijo »svobodnejšega, bolj igrivega, manj temacnega sveta« (11) in »se [jim] upira smrtna resnost vsega« (11). In ce so mladi, pa še pesniki po vrhu, »ima[jo] pravico, da stvari zaostri[jo]« (11). Nezadovoljstvo mladine s tedanjim stanjem družbe pa je mnenje, ki ga lahko predstavimo kot tretji paradoks. Tretji paradoks Omenjene obtožbe zvenijo tudi zelo usklajeno z osrednjim ideološkim temeljem casa, v katerem je Kermaunerjev dramolet nastal, saj je bil nihilizem v marksizmu zbirni pojem za vse reakcionarne, mešcanske, individualisticne, zahodnjaške in podobne odklone, ker je to »napredno družbeno ideologijo« zoperstavljal popolnoma drugacnim in pravzaprav prepovedanim pogledom na umetnost. Ker se Branivec loti obrambe avantgardisticne poezije z ideološkega stališca, imamo tu torej opraviti s tretjim paradoksom, osredotocenim na politicno uporabnost poezije nasploh v okviru marksisticne ideologije. Po Branivcevem mnenju je Šalamunova poezija namrec popolnoma »na liniji« s partijsko politiko, torej je ne le narodnospodbudno, ampak tudi politicno neoporecna. Šalamunova poezija naj bi bila»povsem v skladu s tistim pravilom ali zahtevo, ki ga je najvišje na zastavo vzdignil ravno marksizem: da je potrebna brezobzirna kritika vsega obstojecega« (11), ob tem pa da naj bi Šalamunu kot pesniku ne bilo žal za nic drugega kot le »za nekdanjo revolucionarnostjo množic« (11, sic!), je Branivec zatrjeval kljub temu, da se je ideološki horizont v državi spet stemnil šele kasneje, proti koncu leta 1972, zato Kermaunerjevo priporocilo svetovnonazorskim, politicnim »bogovom« za ideološko varstvo deluje, odkrito receno, anahronisticno. Ortodoksna marksisticna estetika se je namrec do tistega casa že tolikokrat blamirala, da bi jo bilo težko dojemati kot vrednostno dosledno, ideološko koncizno in teoreticno verodostojno. Po obdobju navdušenja nad proletarsko umetnostjo (glavni pomanjkljivosti, ki ju je po mnenju kasnejših, socrealisticnih kritikov gojil že RAPP, Rusko združenje proletarskih pisateljev, sta bila psihologizem in pa »trganje mask« v literaturi, saj naj bi bila oba blizu »dekadentizmu«, prim. Mozejko 20) je na prvem kongresu zveze sovjetskih pisateljev leta 1934z govori A. Ždanova, M. Gorkega in tudi N. Buharina politicni veter zavel v smer socialisticnega realizma, ki ga je posebej spodbujal seveda Stalin. Teoreticni podlagi socrealizma naj bi po Mozejku bili 11. teza o Feuerbachu in pa Leninova teorija zrcaljenja/odseva, kar naj bi literaturo pripeljalo do tega, da bi postala »objektivna slika zunanje resnicnosti« (prim. 34–5). Stalinovo obdobje je imelo vec obratov (in posledicno tudi žrtev), dokler se ni šele po Stalinovi smrti smelo in tudi zacelo kritizirati socrealizma ravno zaradi njegove politicne narave, brezidejnosti, brezkonfliktnosti, naivne ocitnosti sporocila in nenaravnosti, torej v bistvu nerealisticnosti. Kasnejšo kritiko je posebej jasno izoblikoval Lukács, ki je namesto »socialisticnega« predlagal besedno zvezo »kriticnega realizma«. Ta naj bi izhajal iz realizma 19. stoletja, obogaten pa je lahko bil z vsemi pomembnejšimi literarnimi novitetami sodobnega casa (prim. Lukács 139 in naprej). Ne glede na presenetljiv znacaj omembe marksizma ima v Kermaunerjevem argumentiranju ta ideologija posebej pomembno mesto, saj avtomaticno razkriva cetrti paradoks. Cetrti paradoks Kljub vsej svoji ortodoksni trdoti in ideološki zadrgnjenosti je marksizem v svojih mnogih razlicicah na piedestal postavljal še eno kategorijo, ki ji Kermauner, trdo izhajajoc iz realizma, prizna absolutni pomen pri vrednotenju literature in jo anahronisticno vzpostavi kot centralno kategorijo umetnosti: življenje, kar pa nakazuje cetrti paradoks. Prav iz marksizma oziroma njegovega estetskega temelja, kriticnega realizma, je mogoce izpeljati kljucni Toživcev pogoj: zahtevo po »življenju« v umetnosti. Od umetnosti in, posledicno, od pisateljev se je zahtevalo, da naj »predvsem prikazuje[jo] življenje« (Mozejko 16) ravno v najradikalnejši in do umetnosti najbolj neusmiljeni fazi marksizma – pod Stalinom. (Pravi) pisatelji bi naj bili – apokrifno – »inženirji cloveških duš« (prim. Mozejko 16; apokrifno zato, ker naj bi si bil Stalinto tehnicisticno, skoraj že modernisticno definicijo sposodil pri Juriju K. Oleši na sestanku na domu Maksima Gorkega). Po tej liniji je »življenje« vstopilo tudi v slovensko predvojno liberalno in povojno marksisticno estetiko. Njen povojni, marksisticni kulturni ideolog Boris Ziherl2se je namrec tudi zavzemal za vrednoto »žive stvarnosti« (14), vendar s to 2 Prav Ziherl naj bi imel posebno vlogo tudi v inkriminirani Šalamunovi Dumi 1964, kjer naj bi bil utelešen v verzu »o logiki vegeterjanci z dioptrijo minus petnajst« (prim. Repe 68), drugi verz »dežela Cimpermanov in njihovih mozolastih obcudovalk« pa naj bi ciljal na Matijo Macka, saj naj bi bil ta v mladosti tesar (prim. Kermauner, »Poker ni poker« 78). razliko od trdega ideološkega socrealizma, da je že poznal poststalinisticno Lukácsevo kritiko, predvsem pa ruske teoretike realizma iz sredine 19. stoletja (k objavam njihovih slovenskih prevodov, predvsem Nikolaja G. Cerniševskega in Visarjona G. Belinskega, je pisal spremne besede. Prim. »Visarion Grigorjevic Belinski, njegova doba in delo« ter »O realizmu v književnosti«). Je imel pa koncept »življenja,« kakor koli ga razumemo, posebno vlogo že v slovenski predvojni literarni kritiki, saj so v njegovem imenu stala in (predvsem) padala mnoga kljucna, mnogokrat nedolžna umetniška dela. Življenje je bilo namrec temeljni koncept, tako rekoc »vitrih« za eksegezo literature v pogosto unicujocih kritikah Josipa Vidmarja, vrhovnega arbitra elegantiarum slovenske umetnosti, ce ne celo civilizacije. Zato hkrati preseneca – ali pa tudi ne – da Kermaunerjev Toživec na nekem mestu naroca: »berite spise najvecjega živecega Slovenca […], Josipa Vidmarja, ki je o teh zadevah napisal nemalo pomembnih strani« (19–20). Tako priporocilo bi bilo prav mogoce razbirati tudi ironicno, vendar se Kermauner v nadaljevanju navezuje na znano Vidmarjevo stališce o umetnosti, s katerim je mocno obvladoval slovensko pred-, sploh pa povojno literarno produkcijo. Samo prava, idealna, absolutna umetnost naj bi po Vidmarjevo privedla do svojega cilja, s tem pa dodatno osmislila tudi tukaj omenjen prvi paradoks, in sicer odsev »pravega« življenja, ki pa se v literarnih delih kaže na nacin Živosti. Pri Vidmarju ne gre za nobena filozofska (moralna, eticna ali estetska) merila. Nasprotno: umetnost mora biti ocišcena vsega tovrstnega balasta, saj pridvignjeno clovekovo življenje »ne pozna ne potrebe, ne koristi, marvec je svobodno… In vse njegovo stvarstvo – umetnost – je nastaloiz ljubezni in radostne svobode« (Trije labodje 1). Toživec tako rekoc jemlje besede iz Vidmarjevih ust: »umetnost je napor, je visokoposlanstvo, ne pa cenena in enodnevna muha« (20). Šele taka umetnost, torej brez ideoloških primesi, je, ce se vrnemo k Vidmarju, »najdragocenejša med vsemi cloveškimi udejstvovanji« (prav tam). In zato predstavlja Toživcu »Šalamunovo pisarjenje […] golo norcevanje iz vsega velikega, pomembnega, svetega« (20), »parodira[nje] dozdajšnj[e] metafizik[e] in religij[e]« (21). Ce sem podpisani leta 1998 v knjigi Estetski in idejni vplivi na predvojno dramsko in gledališko kritiko Josipa Vidmarjamenil, da gre pri Vidmarjevem estetskem življenjskem vatlu predvsem za romanticni Goethejev vpliv, se zdaj kot precej bolj verodostojna domneva – kljub Vidmarjevemu prevodu J. P. Eckermannovih Pogovorov z Goethejem leta 1959 – kaže, da se je Vidmar »šolal« v casu svojega vojnega ujetništva v prvi svetovni vojni ravno pri že omenjenih ruskih kritikih. Kot skupni izvir realisticnega, utilitaristicnega pogleda na umetnost se je tako pri Ziherlu kot Vidmarju mogoce odlociti za rusko estetsko teorijo sredine 19. stoletja: pri Belinskem, ki je pridigal o prednosti družbe pred posameznikom in vplival na Cerniševskega, ta pa se je zavzemal za uporabnost literature, pri cemer je po njegovem mnenju življenje v privilegiranem položaju, saj da je umetnost le njegov bledi odsev. Tako je epicenter estetske teorije Cerniševskega v truizmu, da je »lepota […] življenje« (prim. Mozejko 57). S to malodane samoumevno predpostavko je Cerniševski kasneje vplival na celo vrsto teoretikov (na primer na Nikolaja A. Dobroljubova pa tudi na Vladimirja I. Uljanova - Lenina). Prav v ideji Cerniševskega, da je »pri kmetu v pojmu ‚življenja‘ obsežen vedno tudi pojem dela« (Cerniševski 11) je treba iskati Toživcevo sklicevanje na Vodnikovega Zadovoljnega Krajnca,Dramilo, Prešernovo Zdravljico in Župancicevo Dumo. To šele da so prave, ustrezne pesmi, saj – na primer Vodnikove – govorijo o nacelih »zdravega delovnega cloveka, ki neutrudno orje, šiva, proizvaja […], ima lepa oblacila, ne cape, njegovo lice je sveže, rdece, krasno, napeto« (8). Zato naj bi »abstraktne misli […] ne spada[le] v podrocje življenja«(Cerniševski 17). V marksizmu (in Vidmarju) je treba iskati tudi izvor Kermaunerjeve trditve, da je »reproduciranje življenja […] splošno znacilen znak umetnosti in tvori njeno bistvo« (Cerniševski 117). Literarna zgodovina neoavantgardisticne poezije narodotvorno še ni preizkusila oziroma dokazala. Ker je povojno obdobje bit slovenskega naroda enacilo z revolucijo, so avantgardisticna gibanja, ki jim ni bilo do družbenega vpliva, delovala nujno protidržavno ali celo protinarodno, Kermaunerjev namen pa je bil predstaviti razloge za in doseci njeno rehabilitacijo, poskrbeti za to, da jo namesto na umetnostnem Olimpu varno zasidra v kanon nacionalne literature in ji s tem omogoci brezprizivno vrednost in mesto v slovenskem panteonu. To stališce pa razpre še zadnji, peti paradoks. Peti paradoks Pregled vsebinskih paradoksov nas tako pripelje še pred zadnjega, formalnega. Tudi glede razumevanja forme se sodna protagonista ne razlikujeta toliko, kolikor bi bilo mogoce pricakovati in sklepati na prvi pogled. Medtem ko je za Toživca prava umetnost lahko le tista, ki tradicionalno predstavlja idealni spoj vsebine in oblike, saj je vec kot jasno, da si mora takšna umetnost, ce naj bo kvalitetna in tehtna (prim. 19), prizadevati, da je »v lepi posodi spravljena žlahtna vsebina« (19), Branivca nova avantgardisticna forma ne tangira prevec, saj naj bi bila avantgardisticna oblika le sodobni izraz vecnih clovekovih vprašanj, le odraz njene (kriticne) življenjske vsebine. Sodobna umetnost odgovarja na probleme današnjega sveta, in ker je kriticna, se pravi vrednostna in odzivna, ne more biti lepa, ker je vse kritike vreden tudi današnji svet. Po Branivcevem mnenju to nikakor ne pomeni nizke vrednosti avantgardisticne umetnosti, še manj pa klice po njeni odstranitvi. In ce se Branivec požvižga na formo, ni zanjo vseeno Kermaunerju, saj si po njegovem mnenju avantgardisticna poezija zasluži edino (vrednostno nižjo) dramsko obravnavo. Kermauner zapiše, da ce bi bila avantgardisticna poezija namrec družbeno že kanonizirana, torej sprejeta med za identiteto slovenskega naroda kljucna dela oziroma »vsesplošno priznana kot nekaj, kar je temeljnega pomena za usodo slovenskega naroda« (5), tedaj bi si zaslužila drugacno literarno obliko: morda celo ep! Ceprav bi to Kermaunerjevo trditev lahko razumeli ironicno, je preprosto tudi res, da avantgardisticna poezija še ni vrednostno kalibrirana in še nima svojega statusa v kanonu slovenske (narodotvorne) literature. In kot taki naj bi ji, po Kermaunerjevem mnenju, najbolj ustrezala dramska oblika. Dramski tekst, ali celo še njegova dramaticno priostrena oblika (sodni proces), naj bi najbolje služil za prikaz »težav[…] in muk[…], pa tudi del[a] in zabav[e]« (5) slovenske avantgardisticne poezije, ker je najbolj odprt, predvsem pa naj ne bi prejudiciral vrednostnega zakljucka, medtem ko ga druge literarne podvrste pac. Po svojih lastnih besedah si je Kermauner izbral obliko sodnega procesa,3ker da se ta »našemu predmetu najbolj prilega« (5), saj da ne ep ne lirska pesem ne literarno zgodovinopisje – vsak zaradi svojih razlogov – izbranemu predmetu ne ustrezajo. Današnji status avantgardisticne poezije je »mnogo prevec živ, negotov, vznemirjujoc« (26), da bi se z njim ubadala katera koli druga forma kot pa neposreden klasicni (sodni) spopad. Vendar tudi to stališce izzveni v paradoks, saj v dramoletu pride samo doekspozicije nasprotujocih si mnenj, kulminacije v odlocitvi o prav ali narobe pa Kermauner ne ponudi. Odlocanje sâmo prevali na gledalca. Poleg obeh osrednjih protagonistov vpelje Kermauner namrec še dve dramski osebi: Deklamatorja, ki kot »sodni sluga« prebira posamezne dokazne pesmi, in pa Komentatorja – bi lahko v njem ugledali kar Kermaunerja samega? – ki pocne prav to, kar izpricuje njegovo ime: poleg uvodnega in sklepnega komentarja obcasno usmerja tudi dogajanje samo, predvsem pa komunicira s še eno, prikrito dramsko osebo, in sicer s publiko (ujeto v funkcije soseda, dobrega rokodelca, umnega ucitelja, pametnega politika in modrega kulturnika, prim. 5), ki ji dodeli za sodno dvorano obicajno vlogo porote. Obcinstvo, kot po navadi v takšnih primerih, zaradi narave samega predmeta obravnave nima lahkega dela, kar ugotavlja tudi Kermauner: »neprizadetemu poslušavcu se je težko pri prici odlociti« (26). Vendar gre avtor še dlje: avantgardisticne poezije po Komentatorjevem mnenju ni lahko razumeti, še težje pa je o njej govoriti: »avantgardisticno pesništvo je hudicevo zamotana, nejasna, dvo- ali trorezna zadeva« (5).Poleg tega tudi »ni prav nic taka, da bi se jo dalo ljubiti: ni niti lepa niti modra« (6). Skratka, zamotana in neprivlacna je, zato je publika že v izhodišcu hendikepirana. In celo v takem položaju ji Komentator, kot kakšen konservativni sodni sluga, ne pusti veliko prostora. Prepreci ji celo, da bi se na koncu o avantgardisticni poeziji izrekla, s cimer avantgardisticnega pesnika pusti v nedolocnem, neodlocenem položaju. Kot klimaks svojega dramoleta Kermauner ponudi naslednji neverodostojni predlog: »Debata se […] seveda še 3 Dramska predstavitevsodnega procesa je posebna gledališka zvrst že od antike, ce si predocimo le najbolj vpadljive: od Oresteje in Aristofanovih Vitezov do Shakespearjevih Beneškega trgovca in Milo za drago, Büchnerjeve Dantonove smrti, Shawove Svete Ivane, Millerjevega Lova na carovnice ter von Schirachovega Terorja. nadaljuje in zmerom bolj strastna je, vendar je je za naš današnji vecer dovolj. Zato jo prekinimo. […] Kdaj se bo razprava nadaljevala, bo objavljeno v dnevnem casopisju. Obcinstvo naj se mirno razide« (26). Epilog V nasprotju z znacajem dramske strukture Kermauner sodbe torej ne oblikuje. Prepusti jo obcinstvu in mu jo pred nosom izmakne. Razpravo prekine z za dramski spopad popolnoma nelogicnim predlogom, da »za zdaj naj bo polemika med obema stališcema, med napadom in obrambo, zacasno zakljucena; rekli bi, da je zacasno neodlocena« (26). Kermaunerjev Komentator torej razpravo prekine pravzaprav na vrhuncu in publiki v vlogi porote odvzame celo možnost odlocanja. Toda problem je še drugje: najbolj avtodestruktivna Kermaunerjeva poteza v dramoletu se namrec zazdi dejstvo, da sodba sploh ni bila mogoca, saj sta Toživec in Branivec govorila tako rekoc isti jezik: jezik idealisticnih, domoljubnih, politicnih, narodnospodbudnih, umetnostnorealisticnih vrednot in v njem razpravljala o avantgardisticni poeziji. Ne glede na svoji po definiciji nasprotujoci si funkciji sta Kermaunerjeva protagonista vrednostno izenacena, zato bi sodba – v nobeni obliki: ne estetski, ne družbeni, ne politicni – ne bila smiselna. Ce pa bi do nje vseeno prišlo, bi to bilo vsekakor na škodo avantgardisticne poezije. Mnenje o njej Kermauner prepusti prihodnosti: »o argumentacijah in seveda o avantgardisticni poeziji […] [naj se] dokoncno izrecemo šele kasneje« (26), kot takrat, ko »se bo mošt prevrel v vino […], pa bomo videli, kako in kaj« (5). A tudi to ne bo dovoljeno istemu (gledališkemu) gremiju, pred katerim se je pesnik znašel zdaj, torej sodišcu (in poroti). Trenutna razvnetost strasti po Kermaunerjevem mnenju ni koristna, obcinstvo pa mora ostati brez odgovora na vprašanje o »krivdi« avantgardisticnega pesnika. Še vec: prihodnja sodba ne bo oblikovana pred ocmi javnosti, katere utelešenje naj bi sodna dvorana bila, temvec bo dovoljena le »literarnemu zgodovinopisju«, ki »bo smelo nastopiti svojo službo šele tisti hip, ko bo razprava [ki jo avtor, nota bene, sam prekine, op. pis.] koncana, ko se bo razcistila neposredno javna in družbena, torej celo zunajumetnostna vloga te poezije« (26). Skladno s Heglovo sovo se bo smela sodba nad avantgardisticno poezijo izreci le ex post. V to smerkaže tudi Kermaunerjevo napotilo publiki, naj se mirno razide. Tu pa se obelodani »oce vseh paradoksov«, in sicer spoznanje, da se Kermauner kljub prevzemu dramske oblike argumenta možnosti gledališca ali sodišca odrece, odrece se celo temu, da bi »zanimanje obcinstva še obstajalo« (26). Na podlagi ugotovljenih paradoksov in skrajno anemicnega zakljucka publiki/poroti ostaja vec vprašanj kot odgovorov. Predvsem ni jasno, kakšno je bilo Kermaunerjevo stališce: v igri precej vec prostora nameni razpravi o obcih vrednotah umetnosti/ poezije kot znacilnostim njene avantgardisticne razlicice. Cutiti je napetost med pricakovanima položajema obeh protagonistov, Toživcem, ki je ideološko zakrknjen »zastopnik družbe, njenega reda, perspektiv in cvrstine« (8), in Branivcem, ki naj bi bil umetniško sprošcen zagovornik ustvarjalne svobode, vendar to v svojem bistvu ni. Kermaunerjev tekst je vec kot ocitno slabo uspel poskus socasne, ne prevec enostranske ekskulpacije neoavantgardisticne poezije na primeru Tomaža Šalamuna, sodba pa neizrazita, ohlapna in – v nasprotju z uvodnim prepricanjem o edini možni obliki (dramski) predstavitve te avantgardisticne enigme – popolnoma prepušcena megleni prihodnosti in (nestrastni) literarni zgodovini. Zakaj le se je Kermauner odlocil za tako antiklimakticen zakljucek? Je sodil, da je avantgardisticna poezija v zadnjih osmih letih (torej od leta 1964) že sama uspela poskrbeti zase, se je torej že umetniško uveljavila in da zato ne potrebuje posebne obrambe? Se je Kermauner sam v sebi boril z obema argumentoma? Je bil narodotvorni argument s svojimi kanonskimi zgledi celo za Kermaunerja premocan, da bi se mu lahko kar tako odrekel, umetnostno avtoreferencialen pa premalo prepricljiv, da bi se odlocil zanj? Je pa za umetnost nasploh in za avantgardisticno poezijo posebej spodbudno že to, da je Kermauner pustil vrata sodne dvorane priprta in dovolil možnost nadaljevanja obravnave »seveda z novo argumentacijo in novimi primeri, morda tudi primeri drugih avantgardisticnih avtorjev« (26), ceprav se zdi, da to ni vec potrebno. Kermauner se k ponovnemu sojenju ni vrnil zaradi v sodobni kazenskosodni praksi pogostega zastaranja primera, temvec najbrž zato, ker je Šalamunov obsežni opus spregovoril sam zase in ni bilo vec nikogar, pred komer bi ga bilo treba še braniti. Odpiranje odprtih vrat pa nima posebnega smisla … Literatura Berger, Aleš. »Taras Kermauner: Crtomirke.« Ogledi in pogledi, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 1984, str. 115–6. Cerniševski, Nikolaj G. Estetski odnosi med umetnostjo in stvarnostjo. Cankarjeva založba, 1952. Kermauner, Taras. »Avantgardisticni pesnik pred sodišcem.« Scena, 1972. —. »Poker ni poker, Poker je svet.« Literatura, letn. 8, št. 65–66, 1996, str. 77–82. —. Kermauner, Taras: Crtomirke. Gledališce Glej, premiera: 26. 10. 1973, Poljane. repertoar.sigledal.org/predstava/7789. Dostop 5. sept. 2022. Lukács, György. O današnjem pomenu kriticnega realizma. Cankarjeva založba, 1961. Lukan, Blaž, ur. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021. Mozejko, Edward. Realizm socjalistyczny: teoria, rozwoj, upadek. Krakow, Universitas, 2001. Repe, Božo. Obracun s Perspektivami. Znanstveno in publicisticno središce, 1990. Šalamun, Tomaž. »Duma 1964.« Razgledi, letn. 13, št. 9, maj 1964, str. 178. —. »Pesmi Tomaža Šalamuna.« Perspektive, letn. 4, št. 31, 1963/64, str. 51. —. »Utrudil sem se podobe svojega plemena.« Poker, samozaložba, str. 9. Vidmar, Josip. Trije labodje, 1922. Ziherl, Boris. »Ob Lukácsevi razpravi O današnjem pomenu kriticnega realizma.« György Lukács, O današnjem pomenu kriticnega realizma, Cankarjeva založba, 1961, str. 5–27. —. »O realizmu v književnosti.« Boris Ziherl, Clanki in razprave, Cankarjeva založba, 1948, str. 306–12. —. »Visarion Grigorjevic Belinski, njegova doba in delo.« Visarion G. Belinski, Clanki in eseji o književnosti, Cankarjeva založba, 1950, str. III–XXXVIII. UDK 821.163.6.09-2Kermauner T. DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/216-230 Among the works of Taras Kermauner, probably the biggest expert on Slovenian drama and its first theoretician, one can also find a single dramatic experiment: a courtroom debate on the value of avant-garde poetry, based on the case of the accusation against the poet Tomaž Šalamun. While Kermauner develops the genre of judicial disputation in a theatrically fitting and interesting way, he undermines the disputation with an anticlimactic, anti-dramatic conclusion that postpones the decision on the matter to another space-time. A closer examination of the text reveals several conceptual inconsistencies that can be better understood as paradoxes. Thus, the five points that might be defined as paradoxical could be traced in the text itself concerning substantive categories such as the essence of art, the meaning of a nation for art, art and Marxism, and life as the supreme aesthetic category, while the last paradox is a more formal one, since the courtroom debate, with its conclusion, does not reach any point whatsoever. Regardless of the sufficiently clear and pointed presentation of the positions of the two protagonists, the Prosecutor and the Defender, Kermauner decides, rather than escalating the conflict to a (theatrical) climax, to dilute the disputation based on the inclusion of the audience and the conclusion that the latter, in its role as jury, cannot decide for either side. The (dis)solution of the dilemma of the (national, artistic) quality of avant-garde poetry is thus left – despite the fireworks of Kermauner’s theatrical courtroom debate – to the future and literary theory. Keywords: Taras Kermauner, Tomaž Šalamun, courtroom drama, avant-garde poetry, values, socialist realism, critical realism Krištof Jacek Kozak studied philosophy and comparative literature at the University of Ljubljana and received his PhD in comparative literature from the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, in 2003. He is employed at the Department of Slovene Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Primorska. He has published two monographs (the second one appeared in Serbian, Slovak and English translations) and several scholarly and professional articles. He has also worked as a theatre critic, translator and dramaturg. He has been a guest lecturer at various foreign universities. kjkozak@fhs.upr.si Disputation on the Five Paradoxes of “Toilet Poetry” with a Prologue and an Epilogue Krištof Jacek Kozak Department of Slovene Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Primorska Prologue Taras Kermauner wrote his only original dramatic textin 1972.1 The short play entitled Avantgardisticni pesnik pred sodišcem (The Avant-Garde Poet in Court), in which he uses the classical theatrical procedure of a trial in court and stages a verbal confrontation on stage, the theme of which is, of course, an attack on and – as is to be expected – the defence of the poetry of the neo-avant-garde poet Tomaž Šalamun. Unlike other important European dissidents – for example, Václav Havel, Adam Michnik, Andrej D. Sinjavski and Julij M. Daniel – Šalamun did not face a trial. Thus Kermauner’s literary experiment is a work of fiction. However, eight years earlier, in 1964, when Šalamun attempted to publish his poem “Duma 1964”in an issue of the journal Perspektive, the authorities imprisoned him for a few days after confiscating the magazine. Based on the 1960s’ “leaden” decade, the ideological positions of the drama’s central characters appear to be very clear: to think freely, young artists strive to expand the narrow ideological views that oppress them and resist the pressure of the regime. Kermauner’s position on this matter in 1972 would appear obvious, both regarding the values represented by his generation and based on his personal ties, since many artists shared his views and were his friends, or at least acquaintances. Thus, given Šalamun’s fate, a vigorous political defence of youthful rebellion against political reality was expected. However, Kermauner’s dramatic courtroom debate, which is much more cerebral than emotional and – in a judicial manner – theoretically dense and wordy, is, above all, not political. At the time, one would have expected that the 1 As Blaž Lukan points out in footnote 2 of his introductory study in the publication Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes), Kermauner wrote his other play, Crtomirke, immediately following the first one, i.e., the very next year. This second text, however, was not entirely original, as it was assembled from excerpts from texts by Mira Puc-Mihelic, Vitomil Zupan, Igor Torkar, Ivan Mrak, Dominik Smole, Primož Kozak, Andrej Hieng and Dušan Jovanovic (cf. www.sigledal.org). Aleš Berger wrote a critique of its production in the experimental theatre Glej. prosecutor’s main weapon for accusing Šalamun of inappropriate class, social or political views would have been loaded primarily with sociopolitical bullets. However, political accusations no longer seemed relevant to Kermauner. Perhaps this was because merely a month after the confiscation of the journal Perspektive, the journal’s publishing house DZS published Šalamun’s entire confiscated poem in the journal Naší razgledi as “evidence” to justify their decision to cancel the journal Perspektive, as Kermauner reports (cf. 10;the page numbers with no reference cited here and henceforth refer to Kermauner’s dramatic text). Perhaps this was also because Kermauner was writing in 1972, which was the time of economic liberalisation and political “thawing” during the presidency of Stane Kavcic. At this time, it appeared that the people had finally “come of age” and that the Communist Party was planning to slowly step down from power to usher in a better economic reality. However, since the text was bereft of any political discussion, one would have at least expected Kermauner to defend the aesthetic approach of neo-avant-garde literature and make this the value paradigm of the play, but even this is largely absent. The central argument of Kermauner’s text does not focus on aesthetic values at all, but rather – an even more surprising decision in the case of neo-avant-garde poetry – on the functional values of poetry. While Šalamun’s poetry is the culprit and bone of contention for the judgement of values and serves as a lightning rod for the two protagonists, the Prosecutor and the Defender, the central object of the accusation is not only Šalamun’s poetry but rather the whole of neo-avant-garde poetry and its function in the context of national literature. The starting points of the two protagonists – the Prosecutor attacks with the points of view articulated by Ivan Vidmar, while the Defender argues from a Marxist point of view – raise several questions. The problem is that Kermauner does not give any clear answers in a theatrically distinct way – we are left without a definitive ideological resolution, which makes the ambiguity even more complex. As a result, his courtroom debate appears not as a dramatically effective but as a paradoxical text. And there are five paradoxes that we were able to discern in his playlet. The First Paradox The first paradox boils down to a key assumption about art, namely the question of the essence and function of literature. Although Šalamun’s “Duma 1964”was confiscated primarily for political reasons (the authorities judged the poem to be socially inappropriate), Kermauner does not question the functionalist understanding of art but rather formulates his interpretation of art precisely based on its social role. According to the Prosecutor’s theory – which, tellingly, the Defender never actually 219 contradicts – true art, true poetry, “professes faith in humanity” (19) and “ennobles us, elevates us and makes us more and more human” (6). Therefore, in Ivan Cankar’s terms, art is that human activity that makes a man a Man. Its deontological aim is to make a man a better (social) being and raise them to a higher moral and ethical level. This task of art, however, can only come to fruition when it “consolidates [man’s] meaning of life and the meaning of life as such” (19). This definition means that the essence of art is primarily didactic. The natural corollary ofthis assumption is that the modernist, art for art’s sake quality or self-sufficiency of art is relegated to the background. At the same time, its functional properties influence the transformation of each individual into an adequately adapted and ideally functioning cog in the mechanism of society. And since this is so, art is judged by its social results. On this basis, Kermauner subjects avant-garde poetry to critique primarily from an applied point ofview, starting precisely from a materialist understanding of art, exactly as, for example, articulated by the Marxist aesthetician György Lukács: Art is not merely a Kantian agnostic adventure, but a medically useful specificity that helps to care for – and therefore enhances – “social, historical and personal health” (14). Kermauner adds a unique twist to this point of view by using the example of Valentin Vodnik’s 1781 poem “Zadovoljni Kranjec” (“The Satisfied Carniolan”). Namely, Vodnik’s hero is“obedient, he is happy if he can fulfil the command – the order – of his homeland, to go to battle [...], to learn diligently, conscientiously” (8). The conclusion is self-evident: only a diligent Carniolan is a good Carniolan, and only a good Carniolan will survive! Only a socially exemplary person is a proper individual. Therefore, a true man is not one who (only) engages with literature but uses literature for pedagogical purposes. All of the above reminds us of the giants of Slovenian literature, whom literary history has raised to the pedestal of “the fathers of the nation”, as Kermauner himself confirms: true, real poets cannot be anything other than patriots. This is the direction that Kermauner indicates with the Prosecutor’s question: “Should we give into the hands of our youth the poem which we are about to hear (Šalamun’s poem “Zatonil je cas usranih poetov”(“The Time of Shitty Poets Has Set”)?” (cf. “Pesmi Tomaža Šalamuna”). Are we to teach them that this is art?” (24). This also confirms his observation that “it was the poets themselves who, with their fighting spirit, encouraged the popular masses to work and build a better life” and “gave them self-confidence” (17). His emphasis here is crucial: art is not merely a leisure activity of conceited artists but an existentially important medicine. The struggle to attain it is vital for the community and the individual. Therefore, art’s task is not to be artistically unrestrained, creatively original and thought-provoking but – for the good of the individual and, by extension, the nation 220 – to be restrictive, disciplining and sedative. Therefore, the Prosecutor need not fear for the survival of the people (the nation) since it will always know – if properly conditioned and educated – how to cope with such nihilistic poets since “our [...] people [...] will spit them out” (6). This position automatically opens up the next paradox: the telos of national literature. The Second Paradox In addition to the didactic notion of poetry, two other views of art overlap in Kermauner’s courtroom argumentation: the political view, although Kermauner mentions it only once, and even then (again, paradoxically) he puts it in the mouth of the Defender, and the national view, which forms the centralaxis of the Prosecutor’s attack: allegedly, that true poetry should contain “the programme of the whole nation” (9). Both views share a teleological understanding of art: art should always be stimulating, celebratory and admirative. It must be (like Župancic’s “Duma”, which the Prosecutor quotes) “an odeto work, [...], to beauty, to earth, to Slovenia, to nature, to the family” (10). The Prosecutor searches for (and finds) the role and meaning of literature on the basis that is most typical of the Slovenian literary tradition: in its relationship to the formation of our national identity. The Prosecutor’s arguments focus on the Slovenian nation, or rather, the role and function of art/literature in its formation, in which he does not treat avant-garde poetry as it would probably consider it most fitting, i.e., independently of any social systems and applications. Instead, he neatly puts it into a line with (and thus on par with) all previous nation-building works of art provided by the true giants of literature: Valentin Vodnik, Ferance Prešeren, Oton Župancic and others. In his first barrage, the Prosecutor takes a crucial, nationalist tone juxtaposing the avant-gardists with the nation. He sees the contradiction of avant-garde art in that it does not care about the nation, which for Kermauner’s Prosecutor, is by definition “beautiful, healthy, intelligent, warm, attractive, useful and conscious” (6). Moreover, since only true art addresses it as such, since only such art can lead to the creation of “invigorating and enlightening culture – a true homeland” (6), avant-garde art is worthless. The literaryexample quoted by the Prosecutor is Šalamun’s poem “Utrudil sem se podobe svojega plemena”(“I Got Tired of the Image of My Tribe”), which is allegedly a persiflage that deconstructs and tramples these very ideals into the mire of ridicule. The Prosecutordubbs Šalamun, rather emphatically, to be “an avant-gardist poacher” (10) and accuses him of indulging in “sullying everything that is noble, [...] and above all an attack on the nation, on Slovenity” (25), whereby he desires to “erase all Slovenian tradition and our undying ideals” (10), which is supposed to mean “a complete destruction and desolation of Slovenity and of our society” (17). The aim of Slovenian avant-garde poetry, in the Prosecutor’s view, is no less than the utter destruction of our nation, which, however, has been the sacred aim of all previous literature since Primož Trubar. What particularlytroubles the Prosecutor is Šalamun’s national unawareness and the scorn with which he demonstrates it, or rather, his “cynical hooligan attack on everything (from the constitution and politics of the SFRY to the Slovenian nation)” (13). Nothing appears to be sacred toŠalamun, and with him to all avant-garde poetry, for it represents “terrible relativisation, an abolition of any and all values” (20), and even of God himself, who, to the Prosecutor (despite being an atheist), still represents “a symbol forall things fundamental, beautiful, just, for ideals, for examples, for meaning” (24). This destruction of the national ideal, well known from the introductory lessons on the history of Slovenian culture, is supposed all the more painful because avant-garde poetry offers nothing in its place, orrather, propagates a “lowlife, vulturelike society” (8), “a world upside down, [...] a world in a swamp”, a world that means “the disintegration of the world” (20), i.e., “nihilism” (6, 20). Let us mention that, above all, nihilism threatened national(ist) impulses since it contrasted the social ideal merely with its lack, i.e., little or nothing. From this point of view, it is thus not hard to understand the Prosecutor’s two rhetorical questions: Is “national awareness today already a disgrace?” (16) and “Could Slovenians have survived their history if they had only such poets and poems?” (13). For Kermauner’s Prosecutor, the avant-gardists are, therefore, nothing more than “anti-national elements without morals, defeatists, desperate people” (6), essentially “internal emigrants” (6), i.e., advocates of “most extreme individualism and privatism” (26), who embody “the world of sloths, bohemians, hippies, hobos who live at the expense of working people” (8) and “escape into the abstract worlds of cosmopolitanism and non-national sentimentality” (6). They are characterised by “deep ennui, weariness, despair” (13) and by “escapism”, “individual impotence” and “infantilism” (22). This is why avant-garde poetry can only produce “blasphemous, dirty, divisive” (24) poems, “street songs” (23) and, even more, “poetry of the toilet and of the dissolution of all human values” (9). Šalamun’s poetry is what it is not because it is created by a critical but by an authentic man. Šalamun cannot rise to the level of national worship expected of him because he himself is human excrement, so to speak, a freak incapable of higher forms of sensibility. He and his kind – the only other avant-garde work, apart from Šalamun’s poetry, mentioned by the Prosecutor in the same critical vein is Dušan Jovanovic’s play Norci (The Madmen)(19) – are incapable of constructive (national) action, since such entities are incapable of creation, they can merely make fun of everything and “parody words” (17), which equals “refusing to engage, all social action, it means capitulation” (25). “Šalamun conceives of every struggle, every action, every activity as negative, stupid and ridiculous” (17). Thus, the aim of Kermauner’s Prosecutor is clear and precise: “Such scribbling must be banned” (24). Kermauner puts much effort into developing this theoretical starting point, which means that the defence has no energy left and does not give any answer to the attack. Moreover, it seems contradictory that – despite the apparent disparity of views between the unrelenting and sharp Prosecutor and the Defender, who supposedly stands on the other side of the artistic ideal – they only appear to stand on opposite shores since the idealistic approach is crucial for both of them, which makes them ideologically more akin than one might think. The defence bases its arguments on two assumptions. The first one is the Defender’s sleight of hand, as he does not object to the Prosecutor’s ultra-patriotic position outright but instead attempts to disarm and devalue it differently. The Defender denounces and mocks the Prosecutor’s blind faith into patriotic art. Here, the logic of the argument is reversed and, therefore, quite effective: if pious, patriotic poetry is the best there is, then it would follow that also Jovan Vesel Koseski, with his zealous patriotic creations, must be a better poet than France Prešeren. Moreover, since it is evident that Koseski no longer belongs to the canon of Slovenian poetry, this devalues the weight of the Prosecutor’s argument about “patriotic love” (15) in the context of nation-building poetry. The Defender’s second assumption is that dissatisfaction with reality is a special characteristic typical of poetry in general, as he tries to prove with the example of early poems by France Prešeren, “Soneti nesrece” (“Sonnets of Misfortune”), and Oton Župancic, “Pesem mladine” (“Poem of Youth”), “Ob uri brezupa” (“At the Hour of Hopelessness”), in which one can undoubtedly sense the “horrible complaint against today’s world and society” (11), as well as the disintegration of the “wonderful national and humanist programme” (12). Such criticism is allegedly particularly typical of young people, who think that nothing is sacred and, above all, they want “a freer, more playful world with less darkness” (11) and “refuse the deadly seriousness of everything” (11). If they are not just young but also poets, “they have the right to exacerbate [things]” (11). This youthful dissatisfaction with the state of society at the time is an opinion that we can present as a third paradox. The Third Paradox The accusations above appear to follow the central ideological foundation of the time when Kermauner wrote his playlet. For Marxism, nihilism was the umbrella term for all reactionary, bourgeois, individualist, Western and other deviations, as it pitted this “progressive social ideology” against completely different and, indeed, forbidden views of art. Since the Defender embarks to defend avant-garde poetry from an ideological point of view, we are dealing with a third paradox, focused on the political use of poetry within the framework of Marxist ideology. According to the Defender, Šalamun’s poetry is completely “in line” with party politics, i.e., it is beyond reproach not only regarding national awareness but alsopolitical integrity. The Defender asserts that Šalamun’s poetry is “perfectly in accordance with the rule or rather demand that Marxism itself raised as its flagship proposition: that a ruthless critique of everything that exists is necessary” (11),while Šalamun as a poet is supposed to have no regrets about anything other than “the former revolutionary spirit of the masses” (11, sic!), even though the ideological horizon in the country darkened again only later, towards the end of 1972, which makes Kermauner’s invocation to the political “gods” for ideological protection appear, to be frank, quite anachronistic. Indeed, by that time, orthodox Marxist aesthetics had already been proven wrong so often that it would be difficult to perceive it as value-consistent, ideologically concise and theoretically credible. After a period of enthusiastic support for proletarian art (according to later socialist-realist critics, its main weaknesses, which were nurtured already by RAPP, the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers, were psychologism and its “unmasking” in literature since they were both close to “decadentism”, cf. Mozejko 20), with speeches by A. Zhdanov, M. Gorky and also N. Bukharin at the First Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers in 1934, the political winds changed towards the direction of socialist realism, which was, of course especially encouraged by Stalin. The theoretical foundations of socialist realism, according to Mozejko, were Marx’s Thesis Eleven on Feuerbach and Lenin’s theory of mirroring/reflection, which was to lead literature to become “an objective picture of external reality” (cf. 34–35). The Stalinist era saw several twists and turns (and, consequently, victims). It was only after Stalin’s death that criticism of socialist realism was allowed and indeed became possible precisely due to its political nature, its idealessness, lack of any conflict, its naive and obvious message, and, essentially, its unnaturalness, i.e., its essentially unrealistic character. The latter criticism was made particularly clear by Lukács, who proposed the phrase “critical realism” to replace socialist realism. This term was to be based on 19th-century realism but could be enriched by all majorliterary innovations of the modern age (cf. Lukács 139 ff.). Regardless of the surprising reference to Marxism, this ideology is significant in Kermauner’s argument since it automatically reveals the fourth paradox. The Fourth Paradox For all its orthodox stiffness and ideological rigidity, Marxism, across its many versions, has placed another category on a pedestal, to which Kermauner, firmly rooted in realism, attributes absolute importance forevaluating literature and anachronistically establishes as the central category of art: life, which brings us to the fourth paradox. From Marxism – or rather its aesthetic foundation, critical realism – we can derive the Prosecutor’s key condition: the demand for “life” in art. Art and, consequently, writers were required to “depict life above all” (Mozejko 16) precisely in the most radical phase of Marxism, which was utterly ruthless with art – under Stalin’s rule. (True) writers were – apocryphally – supposed to be “engineers of human souls” (cf. Mozejko 16; apocryphally because Stalin is said to have taken this technicist, almost modernist definition from Yury K. Olesha at a meeting in Maxim Gorky’s home). Along this line, “life” also entered Slovenian pre-war liberal and post-war Marxist aesthetics. The post-war Marxist cultural ideologist Boris Ziherl2 also advocated the value of “living reality” (14). However, unlike the hardline ideological socialist realism, he was already familiar with Lukács’s post-Stalinist critique and, above all, with the Russian theoreticians of realism from the mid-19th century (he wrote several introductory texts to the publications of their translations into Slovenian, particularly for works by Nikolay G. Chernyshevsky and Vissarion G. Belinsky. Cf. “Visarion Grigorjevic Belinski, njegova doba in delo” and “O realizmu v književnosti”). However, the concept of “life”, whatever we understand by that, had already played a special role in Slovenian pre-war literary criticism. Many key works of art had been praised and (much more often) rejected in its name, despite being completely harmless in most cases. In the often devastating critiques written by Josip Vidmar, the supreme arbiter elegantiarum of Slovenian art, if not culture in general, life appeared as a fundamental concept, a kind of “master key”, so to speak, for the exegesis of literature. Thusit can be both surprising – or not – that Kermauner’s Prosecutor at some point instructs: “Read the scriptures of the greatest living Slovenian [...], Josip Vidmar, who has written so many important pages on these matters” (19–20). Such a recommendation could also be perceived as ironic. Kermauner, however, refers to Vidmar’s well-known stance on art, with which he held Slovenian pre- and especially post-war literary production in an iron grip. According to Vidmar, only true, ideal, absolute art can reach its goal and thus further substantiate the above-mentioned first paradox, namely the reflection of “true” life, which in literary works manifests itself in the form of Liveliness. Vidmar was not concerned with any philosophical (moral, ethical or aesthetic) criteria. On the contrary: art should be cleansed of all such ballast since the sophisticated life of man “knows neither necessity nor profit. Instead, it is free ... And all his creation – art – is born of love and joyful freedom” (Trije labodje 1). The Prosecutor takes the following words out of Vidmar’s mouth, so 2 It was Ziherl who is said to have played a special role in the incrimination of Šalamun’s“Duma 1964” as well, as embodied in the verse “on the logic of myopic vegetarians minus fifteen” (cf. Repe 68), while the second verse, “the land of the Cimpermanns and their pimpled admirers”, is said to target Matija Macek, who used to be a carpenter in his youth (cf. Kermauner, “Poker ni poker”, 78). to speak: “Art isan effort, it is a high mission, not a cheap and one-day fad” (20). To quote Josip Vidmar again, only art with no ideological additives is “that most precious of all human pursuits” (1). And this is why, to the Prosecutor, “Šalamun’s writing [...] represents a bare mockery of all that is great, important, sacred” (20), “a parody of previous metaphysics and religion” (21). In my 1998 book Estetski in idejni vplivi na predvojno dramsko in gledališko kritiko Josipa Vidmarja (Aesthetic and Ideological Influences on Josip Vidmar’s Prewar Drama and Theatre Criticism),I had assumed that Vidmar’s measure of aesthetic life was primarily influenced by Goethe’s romanticism. Now it seems it would be much more plausible to assume – despite Vidmar’s 1959 translation of J. P. Eckermann’s Conversations with Goethe – that during his time as a prisoner of war in World War I, Vidmar was instead a “student” of the aforementioned Russian critics. The common source of the realist, utilitarian view of art both forZiherl and Vidmar can be traced back to Russian aesthetic theory of the mid-19thcentury: to Belinsky, who preached the primacy of society over the individual and influenced Chernyshevsky, who in turn advocated a utilitarian theory of literature, whereby, according to him, life is in a privileged position, since art is only its pale reflection. Thus, the epicentre of Chernyshevsky’s aesthetic theory lies in the truism that “beauty [...] is life” (cf. Mozejko 57). This almost self-evident assumption by Chernyshevsky later influenced a range of theorists (for example, Nikolai A. Dobrolyubov and Vladimir I. Uljanov). It is in Chernyshevsky’s idea that “for the peasant, the notion of ‘life’ always encompasses also the notion of work” (11) that we have to look for the Prosecutor’s references to Vodnik’s “The Satisfied Carniolan”and“Dramilo”(“Reveille”), Prešeren’s “Zdravljica” (“A Toast”) and Župancic’s “Duma”. These are examples of true, relevant poems since they – for example, Vodnik’s poems – speak of the principles of “the healthy working man, who ploughs, sews, produces tirelessly [...], who wears nice clothes, not just rags, his cheek is fresh, red, gorgeous, toned” (8). Thus, “abstract thoughts [...] should not belong to the sphere of life” (Chernyshevsky 17). The origin of Kermauner’s claim that “the reproduction of life [...] is a characteristic feature of art in general and constitutes its essence” (Chernyshevsky 117) can thus also be traced back to Marxism (and Josip Vidmar). Literary history has not yet tested or proven neo-avant-gardist poetry regarding nation-building. Since the post-war period equated the very essence of the Slovenian nation with revolution, avant-garde movements that did not care about social influence necessarily appeared to be anti-state or even anti-national, while Kermauner aimed to present the reasons for its recognition and achieve its rehabilitation, to ensure that instead of aspiring towards an artistic Olympus, it was safely anchored in the canon of national literature, thus giving it value and place in the Slovenian pantheon. This position, however, opens up the fifth – and final –, paradox. The Fifth Paradox Our review of the substantive paradoxes finally brings us to the fifth, formal one. Even in termsof their understanding of form, the two courtroom protagonists do not differ as much as one might expect and conclude at first sight. The Prosecutor considers true art to be only that which traditionally represents an ideal fusion of content and form since it is clear that such art, if it is to be of quality and relevance (cf. 19), must strive to “contain noble content in a beautiful vessel” (19). The Defender, on the other hand, is not so much concerned with the new avant-garde form since the avant-garde form is supposed to be only a contemporary expression of eternal human questions, a reflection of its (critical) content of life. Contemporary art reacts to the problems of today’s world, and precisely due to it being so critical, that is to say, value-oriented and responsive, it cannot be beautiful since the world today is legitimately subject to such criticism. In the Defender’s view, this does not imply that avant-garde art is of any lower value, and even less that this calls for its cancellation. But while the Defender does not care about form, this is far from being the case for Kermauner since, in his opinion, avant-garde poetry deserves only (lower-value) dramatic treatment. Kermauner thus claims that if avant-garde poetry were already part of the social canon, i.e., accepted among the works that are crucial to the identity of the Slovenian nation, or “universally recognised as having fundamental importance for the destiny of the Slovenian nation” (5), then it would also deserve a different literary form: perhaps even an epic! Although Kermauner’s statement could be seen as ironic, it is also true that avant-garde poetry has not yet been properly assessed in terms of value and does not yet hold a position in the canon of Slovenian (nation-building) literature. And as such, in Kermauner’s opinion, the dramatic form suits it best. The dramatic text, or even its most sophisticated form (a trial in court), is supposed to be best suited for the presentation of the “problems [...] and tribulations [...], as well as the work and entertainment” (5) of Slovenian avant-garde poetry, since it is the most open of forms, and above all, it supposedly does not prejudge the evaluation, whereas other literary sub-genres do. In his own words, Kermauner chose the form of a court trial3 because it “fits our subject best” (5). None of the genres – whether epic, lyric or literary historiography – are suitable forthe chosen subject, each for their own distinct reasons. The status of avant-garde poetry today is “far too alive, uncertain, thrilling”(26) to be dealt with by any form other than a direct classical (courtroom) confrontation. But even this position results in a paradox since the playlet presents merely an exposition of conflicting 3 The dramatic presentation of a trial has been a specific theatre genre ever since antiquity. To name but a few of the most striking examples of the genre: from Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Aristophanes’ The Knights to Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure, Büchner’s Danton’s Death, Shaw’s Saint Joan, Miller’s The Crucible, and von Schirach’s Terror. opinions. At the same time, it does not culminate in a conclusive decision about who is right. The decision itself is thus passed over to the spectator. Besides the two central protagonists, Kermauner introduces two other characters: the Declaimer, who reads out the individual poems as evidence presented by a “bailiff”, and the Commentator – could this character represent Kermauner himself? – who does just what his name implies: in addition to the opening and closing commentary, he occasionally directs the action itself, and above all, he interacts with another, tacit character, namely the audience itself (to which he attributes the functions of a neighbour, a good craftsman, an educated teacher, a smart politician and a wise cultural worker, cf. 5), to whom he assigns the usual role of the jury in court. As usual, in such cases, the audience has their work cut out due to the nature of the subject of the hearing. As Kermauner himself notes: “It is difficult for an uninvolved listener to immediately reach a decision” (26). But the author goes even one step further: according to the Commentator, avant-garde poetry is far from easy to understand and even more difficult to discuss: “Avant-garde poetry is a devilishly complicated, obscure, two- or three-layered affair” (5). Moreover, it is also “not a thing to be loved: it is neither beautiful nor wise” (6). In short, it is complicated and unattractive, hindering the audience from the start. And even in this situation, the Commentator, just like some conservative court bailiff, leaves them little manoeuvring space. He even prevents them from deciding about avant-garde poetry at the end, leaving the avant-garde poet in an indeterminate, undecided limbo. As the climax of his playlet, Kermauner proposes the following implausible suggestion: “The debate [...] goes on, of course, and it is even becoming more and more passionate, but let this be enough for this evening. So let us put a stop to it. [...] The debate will resume later, which will be announced in the daily newspaper. The audience is asked to disperse peacefully” (26). Epilogue Contrary to the form of the dramatic structure, Kermauner does not reach a final verdict. Instead, he leaves it to the audience and snatches it away from under their noses. He interrupts the debate with his suggestion that “for now, the polemic between the two opinions, between attack and defence, should be temporarily suspended; we could say it is undecided for the moment” (26), which makes absolutely no sense in the context of a dramatic conflict. Kermauner’s Commentator thus interrupts the debate at its very climax and deprives the audience in the role of the jury, even the possibility of reaching a decision. There is another problem here, however: Kermauner’s most self-destructive move in the playlet appears to be the fact that a final verdict was never possible at all since the Prosecutor and the Defender basically speak the same language: the language of 228 idealistic, patriotic, political, nation-building, realist-art values – the premise from which they discuss avant-garde poetry. Regardless of their, by definition, opposing functions, Kermauner’s two protagonists are presented as holding the same set of values, which would make a verdict – in any form, be it aesthetic, social, or political – meaningless. And if they were to reach one, it would undoubtedly be to the detriment of avant-garde poetry. Kermauner leaves the decision to the uncertain future: the arguments and, of course, the fate of avant-garde poetry [...] [should] only be definitively decided later” (26), and only when “must ferments into wine [...] we will see the long and the short of it” (5). But even this will not be allowed to the same (theatrical) assembly before which the poet now finds himself, i.e., the court (and the jury). The momentarily inflamed passions are, in Kermauner’s opinion, not very useful, and the audience is left with no answer to the question about the avant-garde poet’s “guilt”. Moreover, the future verdict will not be reached in public space, embodied by the courtroom. Instead, it will be accessible exclusively to “literary historiography”, which “will only be allowed to do its duty at the moment when the debate [author’s note: which, nota bene, was interrupted by the author himself] will be settled, once the immediate public and social, i.e., even non-artistic role of such poetry is clear. In accordance with Hegel’s owl Minerva, it will only be allowed to pass judgment on avant-garde poetry ex-post. Kermauner’s instruction to the audience to disperse peacefully also points in this direction. Here, however, the “mother of all paradoxes” is revealed, namely the realisation that, despite adopting the dramatic form of argument, Kermauner renounces the possibility of theatre or the court. He even renounces the possibility that “the audience might still be interested” (26). Based on the paradoxes identified and the extremely anaemic conclusion, the audience/jury is left with more questions than answers. Firstof all, it is not clear what Kermauner’s position was: in the play, he devotes much more space to discussing the general values of art/poetry than the characteristics of its avant-garde version. There isa sense of tension between the expected positions of the two protagonists, the Prosecutor, who is an ideologically rigid “representative of society, its order, perspectives, and firmness” (8), and the Defender, who is supposed to be an artistically relaxed advocate of creative freedom, but essentially is not. Kermauner’s text is a poor attempt at a simultaneous, not-too-one-sided exculpation of neo-avant-garde poetry in the case of Tomaž Šalamun. The verdict is unremarkable, vague and – contrary to the initial belief about the only possible form of (dramatic) presentation of this avant-garde enigma – left to the uncertain future and (dispassionate) literary history. Why did Kermauner choose such an anticlimactic conclusion? Was he of the opinion that in the eight years (i.e., since 1964), avant­garde poetry had already established itself artistically and therefore did not need any special defence? Did Kermauner himself struggle with both arguments? Was the nation-building argument with its canonical examples too strong even for Kermauner to give it up, and the self-referential artistic argument too unconvincing for him to rely on it? However, it is encouraging for art in general and avant-garde poetry in particular that Kermauner left the courtroom door slightly ajar and allowed for the possibility of continuing the hearing “with new arguments and new examples, perhaps even examples of other avant-garde authors” (26), even though this would appear to be no longer necessary. Kermauner failed to embark on a retrial, probably not because in contemporary criminal justice practice, cases frequently fall under the statute of limitation, but rather because Šalamun’s vast opus had spoken for itself and there was nobody left to defend it against. And there is no point in fixing something that is not broken. Literature Berger, Aleš. “Taras Kermauner: Crtomirke.”. Aleš Berger, Ogledi in pogledi, Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 1984, pp. 115–16. Cerniševski, Nikolaj G. Estetski odnosi med umetnostjo in stvarnostjo. Cankarjeva založba, 1952. Kermauner, Taras. “Avantgardisticni pesnik pred sodišcem.” Scena, 1972. —. “Poker ni poker, Poker je svet.” Literatura, vol. 8, no. 65–66, 1996, pp. 77–82. —. Kermauner, Taras: Crtomirke. Gledališce Glej, premičre: 26. 10. 1973, Poljane. https://repertoar.sigledal.org/predstava/7789. Accessed 5 September 2022. Lukács, György. O današnjem pomenu kriticnega realizma. Cankarjeva založba, 1961. Lukan, Blaž, editor. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega številadramskih kompleksov. Slovenski gledališki inštitut; Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, 2021. Mozejko, Edward. Realizm socjalistyczny: teoria, rozwoj, upadek. Krakow, Universitas, 2001. Repe, Božo. Obracun s Perspektivami. Znanstveno in publicisticno središce, 1990. Šalamun, Tomaž. “Duma 1964.” Razgledi, vol. 13, no. 9, May 1964, p. 178. —. “Pesmi Tomaža Šalamuna.” Perspektive, vol. 4, no. 31, 1963/64, p. 51. —. “Utrudil sem se podobe svojega plemena.” Poker, samozaložba, p. 9. Vidmar, Josip. Trije labodje, 1922. Ziherl, Boris. “Ob Lukácsevi razpravi O današnjem pomenu kriticnega realizma.” György Lukács, O današnjem pomenu kriticnega realizma, Cankarjeva založba, 1961, pp. 5–27. —. “O realizmu v književnosti.” Boris Ziherl, Clankiin razprave, Cankarjeva založba, 1948, pp. 306–312. —. “Visarion Grigorjevic Belinski, njegova doba in delo.” Visarion G. Belinski, Clankiin eseji o književnosti, Cankarjeva založba, 1950, pp. III–XXXVIII. UDK 78.071.1Božic D.:792 UDK 792:78.071.1Božic D. DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/232-250 Med slovenskimi skladateljskimi modernisti je glasbenemu gledališcu najvec pozornosti namenil Darijan Božic. Obravnavana so njegova glasbenogledališka dela, pri cemer je že iz žanrskih podnaslovov posameznih del razvidno, da je skladatelj ves cas iskal novo formo za glasbenogledališko delo. Zdi se, da jo je našel v nekakšnem napol »radijskem« mediju – nosilno težo ima po navadi govorjena beseda, ki jo v obliki zvocne opreme spremljajo redke instrumentalne zvocne intervencije. Te skozi cas izgubljajo modernisticno ostrino (harmonski grozdi) in se s sopostavljanjem raznolikega približujejo postmodernizmu. Tako se za Božiceva dela kot znacilna izkaže dvojna neuravnoteženost – beseda mocno prevla­da nad glasbo, hkrati pa se zdi nenavadna skladateljeva želja, da avantgardne gledališke postopke skuša uresniciti v institucionalnem opernem gledališcu. Kljucne besede: Darijan Božic (1933–2018), slovenska opera, glasba 20. stoletja, glasbeno gledališce, modernizem, instrumentalno gledališce, scenske kompozicije Gregor Pompe je študiral na Filozofski fakulteti v Ljubljani primerjalno književnost, nemški jezik in muzikologijo. Zaposlen je na Oddelku za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljublja­ni, kjer je obranil doktorsko nalogo in trenutno deluje kot redni profesor. Predaval je tudi na Pedagoški fakulteti Univerze v Mariboru in na Oddelku za muzikologijo Univerze Karla Fran-za v avstrijskem Gradcu. Raziskuje sodobno glasbo in glasbeno gledališce. Objavil je že vec clankov in samostojnih monografskih publikacij. Deluje tudi kot glasbeni kritik in skladatelj. gregor.pompe@ff.uni-lj.si Glasbenogledališki opus Darijana Božica v kontekstu slovenske glasbenogledališke scene – izmik v literarno-dramsko v opreki z željo po institucionalnem Gregor Pompe Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Opera in modernizem Kljub mnogim prevratom in velikim naslovom o prvi in nato tudi drugi smrti opere (prim. Žižek in Dolar) opera v prvem cetrtletju 21. stoletja vendarle uspešno in polno živi, o cemer pricajo številne nove inscenacije oper, posnetki na plošcah in videopos­netki termožnosti medmrežnega pretakanja. Opera ni umrla,ima pa drug resen prob­lem – kot institucija »operno gledališce vsakodnevne praksepostaja z vsakim letom bolj muzej«, in kot dodaja muzikolog Heinrich Strobel (1898–1970), »morda je opera zares mrtva« (130). Vzrokov, zakaj opera nima prave potrebe po svojem repertoarnem posodabljanju, je vec – (1) potrebo po »novem« intendanti že zagotavljajo s pomocjo obujanja starejših, pozabljenih del iz 18. in 19. stoletja, (2) historicna izvajalna praksa mece pogosto pov­sem novo luc na barocno opero, poseben okus po sodobnem pa daje tudi (3) gledališce režije (Regietheater), ki je zmožno staro vsebino »preobleci« v sodobno predstavo tako na vsebinski kot tudi dramaturško-gledališki ravni. Podobno raznolike možnosti se po­nujajo tudi ob vprašanju, kdaj je sodobna opera kot institucija prekinila svojo povezavos sodobno operno ustvarjalnostjo. Železni repertoar se je pricel vzpostavljati v prvi po­lovici 19. stoletja, predvsem s ponovitvami izredno uspešnih Rossinijevih oper, medtem ko se konec repertoarne opere enaci z (1) zadnjo, celo nedokoncano Puccinijevo opero Turandot iz leta 1924 in nato z (2) dokoncnim prestopom Arnolda Schönberga (1874– 1951) in njegovih ucencev v modernizem, kot možna prekretnica pa se ponuja tudi (3) t. i. »tocka nic« (prim. Brockmann) po drugi svetovni vojni, svoje pa so k takšnim odlo-citvam gotovo dodale tudi (4) ekonomske zahteve po stalnem dobicku, za katerega se zdi, da ga je lažje kovati s starimi »uspešnicami« kot s »tveganimi« krstnimi izvedbami. Med omenjenimi možnostmi se zdi gotovo najpomembnejša tista, povezana s »tocko nic« – nova povojna generacija ni želela imeti nobenega opravka s humusom, iz kate­rega sta lahko zrasli nacisticna in fašisticna diktatura, in opera kot umetniška forma in institucija je prav v tem casu doživela svoj vrhunec zlizanosti z vladajoco ideologijo. Prav v tem kontekstu odmikanja od predvojnih zgledov je potrebno razumeti zna­menito misel enega izmed vodilnih povojnih glasbenih modernistov Pierra Bouleza (1925–2016), ceš da so nove nemške operne hiše vsekakor videti zelo moderne – od zunaj; toda v notranjo­sti so ostale izjemno staromodne. Skoraj nemogoce je ustvariti sodobno operno delo v gledališcu, v katerem se izvajajo predvsem repertoarna dela. Resje nepredstavljivo. Najdražja rešitev bi bila razstrelitev opernih hiš. Toda ali se vam ne zdi, da bi bila to tudi najbolj elegantna rešitev? (Schmidt in Hohmeyer 170) Boulezova radikalna misel je postala emblem za mlado generacijo, ki se je zapisala fetišizmu novega in je verjela v ocišcevalno moc »tocke nic«, preostali, konservativni, še v preteklost zazrti skladatelji pa so avtomaticno postali na rob izrinjeni osamelci. Na najbolj odprta vrata so naleteli prav v operah, kjer so svojo milejšo pot »renova­cije« tlakovali z operami, ki sose spopadale z anticnimi sižeji, nato s formo literarne opere, ki je prek mocne literarne vrednosti lahko maskirala kompozicijsko konserva­tivnost, in na koncu še s komicnimi operami, za katere v 19. stoletju, stoletju reper­toarne opere, ni bilo veliko prostora. Nekoliko so se stvari spremenile v šestdesetih letih, ko so nekateri modernisti spoznali, da je mogoce staro formo prenoviti z mocno družbeno angažiranostjo, kar je mogoce spoznati v operah Hansa Wernerja Henza (1926–2012), ki je v svojem levicarskem zanosu nekaj let živel celo na Kubi, in v de­lih aktivnega clana italijanske komunisticne partije Luigija Nona (1924–1990), sicer Schönbergovega zeta. Morda so prav Nono, Henze in Luciano Berio (1925–2003), ki je možnosti renovacije bolj kot v dramaturškem in inscenacijskem iskal v novih uporabah glasu, preostalim modernistom pokazali, da je mogoce v sodobnem jeziku, materialu in formah ustvar­jati tudi v operi, le da nihce vec ni govoril o operi. Toda podobno kot že nekajkrat poprej v zgodovini opere je zanikanje opere paradoksalno rodilo njene številne nove forme – modernisti zdaj ne pišejo oper, temvec glasbenogledališka dela, za katera upo­rabljajo številna nova žanrska imena. Muzikologija še ni uspela najti enotnega krovne­ga imena za vsa takšna prizadevanja, toda kot najprimernejši se ponuja izrazito širok termin glasbeno gledališce. Slednji izhaja iz tradicije stvaritev tandema Weill/Brecht (Salzmann in Desi 13), v katerih ni prišlo do spojitve posameznih gledaliških elemen­tov, temvec so ti namenoma ostali razloceni. Toda pojem glasbeno gledališce je seveda mogoce uporabljati v njegovem najširšem ali tudi bistveno ožjem pomenu – v širokem pomenu je z njim mogoce zajeti prav vsa glasbenogledališka dela vseh obdobij in stil­nih usmeritev, v bolj ekskluzivni rabi pa oznacuje specificna sodobna prizadevanja. Prav zaradi te begajoce dvojnosti širšega in ožjega pomena se zdi zanimiv predlog Hermanna Danuserja, ki govori o scenskih kompozicijah (350), seveda v navezavi z glasbenogledališkim delom velikega modernista Mauricia Kagla (1931–2008), ki je tako žanrsko oznacil svoje najvecje delo Državno gledališce (Staatstheater, 1970), ki se ga je kasneje sicer prejela oznaka antiopera – v svojem delu je Kagel miniral prav vse konvencije opere kot institucije in opere kot glasbenogledališke forme, s cimer je dosegel vrhunec modernisticnega negativnega odnosa do opere, a hkrati tudi že jasen obrat k iskanjunovih oblik in zvrsti, ki bodo, ustrezno sodobnemu casu, izrabljale glasbenogledališki medij. Nove oblike in žanri glasbenega gledališca Prve zametke novih oblik glasbenega gledališca je bilo mogoce razpoznati v tistih glasbenih delih, v katerih so nenadoma postali izredno zanimivi scenski elementi. To še posebej velja za številna dela Johna Cagea (1912–1992). V Cageevi kompoziciji Living Room Music (Glasba dnevne sobe, 1940) tako tolkalci igrajo na predmete, ki jih po navadi najdemo v dnevni sobi, odrska uresnicitev pa po navadi prinaša tudi scenografske elemente, ki ponazarjajo dnevno sobo (kavc, komoda, klubska mizica ipd.) V skladbi Water Walk (Vodni sprehod, 1959) izvajalec sproža najrazlicnejša zvo-cila, ki uporabljajo vodo ali pa so postavljena v vodo, zato se na odru znajdejo pre­cej vsakdanji, neglasbeni elementi (kuhalnik za caj, kopalna kad, mešalnik, cvetlicni loncek, parni lonec, razlicne posode), gledalceva pozornost pa tako ne more veljati samo nenavadnim zvocnostim, temvec mestoma tudi precej absurdnemu premikanju izvajalca med razlicnimi predmeti in vsakdanjimi akcijami, posebno pomenljiva pa je v tem pogledu tudi skladba 4‘33‘‘ (1952), v kateri je prek navidezne tišine skladatelj osvobodil prav tiste najbolj zapostavljene zvoke, ki smo jih po navadi v koncertni situ-aciji popolnoma odmislili. Toda Michael Nyman nas opozarja,da se je v skladbi najbrž pozornost poslušalcev »preusmerila s poslušanja necesa, cesar v resnici ni bilo, na gledanje necesa, kar je bilo« (72). Cage je preprican, da glasba ni samo tisto, kar sli­šimo, temvec tudi vse tisto, kar vidimo – gre za celovito izkušnjo dejanja, zato je zanj vsaka »ustrezna akcija gledališka« (Cage, Kirby in Schechner 54). To izhodišcno Cage-evo idejo je kasneje še radikaliziral Dieter Schnebel (1930–2018) s svojim konceptom vidne glasbe, katerega tipicen primer predstavlja skladba Nostalgija (1962), napisana zgolj za solo dirigenta, ki ekspresivno krili po zraku, na odru pa sicer ni glasbenikov, torej ostajamo brez avralnih dražljajev. Cage je svojo idejo o gledališcu, ki da je vse naokoli nas, realiziral tudi v hepeningu, ki ga je leta1960 pripravil na kolidžu Black Mountain – raznolike aktivnosti je s pomocjo nakljucja casovno povezal v enotno umetniško dejanje, ki ga danes lahko razumemo kot predhodnika performansa (nastopajoci so predstavi posodili svoje realno telo) in vecmedijske umetnosti (poleg Cagea in pianista Davida Tudorja so pri predstavi sode­ lovali še plesalec Merce Cunningham in slikar Robert Rauschenberg itn.) Podoben korak v mešanje umetnosti, le da manj razprt, je znacilen tudi za instrumen­talno gledališce, katerega mojster je bil predvsem Mauricio Kagel. Gre za instrumen­talne skladbe, v katerih glasbeniki poleg igranja na svoje inštrumente opravljajo tudi dodatne naloge gledališke narave. Pricel se je proces postopne apropriacije znacilnos-ti posameznih umetnosti, o cemer prica znameniti clanek Marianne Kesting z dovolj zgovornim naslovom »Muzikalizacija gledališca. Teatralizacija glasbe«. Kot muzika­lizacijo gledališca lahko razumemo že Cageev tip hepeninga, saj je skladatelj neglas­bene akcije uredil po logiki natancno dolocnega casovnega sosledja, kar je tipicno glasbena operacija. Še jasneje pa nam o takšnih povezavah prica termin komponirano gledališce (Rebstock in Roesner), pri katerem gre za obravnavanje glasu, gest, odr­skega gibanja, svetlobe, zvoka, vizualnih podob, scenografskih in drugih elementov gledališke produkcije s pomocjo kompozicijskih tehnik oz. glasbenega mišljenja. Sodobno glasbeno gledališce, v katerega se zlivajo scenske kompozicije, instrumen­talno gledališce, hepening, performans, vecmedijski projekti, komponirano, totalno in eksperimentalno gledališce, se napaja pri gledaliških novostih, ki so jih v svoje predstave/projekte v 20. stoletju uvedli Gordon Craig, Vsevolod Mejerhold, Antonin Artaud, László Moholy-Nagy in gledališce absurda, od svoje predhodnice opere pa se ne razlikuje zgolj v širini svoje žanrske pahljace in z njo povezane terminološke nedorecenosti, temvec predvsem v kopici dramaturških premikov. Tako sodobnega glasbenega gledališca ni vec mogoce razumeti v funkciji reprezentacije literature. Po-gosto ostajamobrez jasnega sižeja, linearna diskurzivnost je prekinjena v prid frag-mentu, jezik redkeje opravlja diskurzivno funkcijo, tudi sama gledališka dejanja pa niso nujno narativna. Akcija na sceni se zdi predvsem metafora in ne vec simulacija realnosti, glas, okoli katerega se je vrtela opera vec kot trehstoletij, naenkrat ni vec nujen predpogoj. V središce se pomakne fizicnost izvajalca/akterja, ki ni vec pravi gledališki subjekt. Glasbeni elementi niso vec v ospredju, ampak so enakopravni gle­dališkim elementom, pogosto je združevanje razlicnih umetnosti, pri cemer nimamo vec opravka z Wagnerjevo logiko celostne umetnine, pri kateri so se umetnosti zdru­ževale v enoten amalgam. Darijan Božic v kontekstu slovenskega glasbenega modernizma Kljub tem premikom v svetovni produkciji glasbenega gledališca, ki so zaznamova­li drugo polovico 20. stoletja, je potrebno glasbenogledališki opus Darijana Božica (1933–2018), ki predstavlja središce naše razprave, najprej motriti znotraj kontek­sta slovenske glasbene kulture. Tudi tu pomembno prekretnico pomeni konec druge svetovne vojne, ki bi ga ponovno lahko razumeli kot »tocko nic«, le da ne gre toliko za distanciranje odrežima, ki je povzrocil vojno kataklizmo, kot za vzpostavitev novega politicnega sistema in z njim nove ideologije, ki je po sovjetskih zgledih sprva poizku­šala nadzorovati vse družbenepodsisteme, tudi umetnost. Toda v tem pogledu nova politika vsaj v glasbi kot znacilno abstraktni, torej v ideološkem pogledu precej ambi­valentni umetnosti – po eni strani je težko diskurzivna, po drugi strani pa je prav zato nanjo mogoce prilepiti prakticno karkoli – ni bila prevec dosledna (prim. Pompe, »Slo­venian«). Tako je postal takoj po letu 1945 vodilna glasbeniška oseba Lucijan Marija Škerjanc (1900–1973), ki se je le malo pred tem v Ljubljani udinjal italijanski oblasti z njej posveceno Tretjo simfonijo, hkrati pa je njegov glasbeni slog temeljil globoko v emocionalni obarvanosti salona 19. stoletja, torej bi ga lahko imeli za buržoaznega par excellence, podobno sliko pa kaže tudi operno življenje takoj po vojni, saj se zdi, da je bila v repertoarnem pogledu jasno nadzirana predvsemprva sezona, nato pa je operno kolesje teklo enak tek kot pred vojno ali na evropskem zahodu, le da je politika opero, s katero ocitno ni vedela, kaj poceti v ideološkem pogledu, postopoma financno ošibila in s tem tudi dokoncno zamajala njen družbeni status (Pompe, »Na obrobju« 75), posledice cesar so ocitne še danes. Darijan Božic pripada generaciji, ki je že ušla najmocnejšim agitpropovskim parolam. Na Akademiji za glasbo se je zatekel k skupini skladateljev, ki si je želela sprva izbo­riti prostorza lastne izvedbe, nato pa tudi prestopiti estetske horizonte akademijskih profesorjev, ki so po škerjancevski logiki, ta pa ocitno ni bila v opreki z doktrino socia­listicnega realizma, ležali globoko v 19. stoletju. Podobna hotenja so mlade skladatelje, ki so se priceli zasebno združevati že leta 1961, povezala v skupino Pro musica viva, vkateri je poleg Iva Petrica, Alojza Srebotnjaka, Jakoba Ježa, Kruna Cipcija, Igorja Štuheca, Milana Stibilja in Lojzeta Lebica deloval tudi Darijan Božic (prim. Barbo, Pro musica). Božicevo kriticno držo do prevladujocih vzorcev institucij je v njegovem zgodnjem opu­su v drugi polovici petdesetih let mogoce ugledati v zgledovanju pri jazzu, ki pri ob-lastnikih sprva ni bil prevec v casteh. Toda takoj na zacetku petdesetih se je premaknil proti objektivnosti nove stvarnosti, kmalu zatem pa pridejo odlocilni impulzi, ki so jih slovenski skladatelji prinesli z obiska festivala sodobne glasbe Varšavska jesen. Tam so se spoznali z drugim valom povojnega modernizma, ki je zvkljucevanjem nadzorovane­ga nakljucja že presegal radikalnosti prve, serialne faze. Tudi Božiceva pisava se kmalu spremeni, znacilno zanjo pa postane crpanje iz treh navidezno precej razlicnih napa­jališc: še vedno ga mocno privlaci (1) jazzovski idiom, ki mu doda tudi (2) lastno har­monsko teorijo, t. i. vertikalne strukture (Božic, »Vertikalne«), ki marsikaj dolgujejo novi stvarnosti Paula Hindemitha in njegovemu ucbeniku Unterweisung im Tonsatz (1937), k temu pa prikljuci še (3) logiko kolažnega sopostavljanja. Matjaž Barbo govori v zvezi s temi tremi elementi kot o »vecslojni zvocni lepljenki slojevito povezanih raznorodnih prvin. Njegov kompozicijski jezik tako morda najbolje oznacuje izraz collage sonore, ki ga sam pogosto uporablja v naslovih svojih skladb« (Barbo, »Božic«). Nove forme in žanri glasbenega gledališca pri Božicu Prav za tehniko kolaža se zdi, da predstavlja Božicu izhodišce za glasbenogledališko delo, ki ga je sicer mikalo, še preden se je zavezal modernizmu. Tako je v letih 1958 in 1960ustvaril dve klasicni operni deli, ki sicer vse do danes nista doživeli svojih izvedb. Najprej je napisal opero La Boheme 57 (prvotni naslov je bil Ljubezen na Mon-tmartru), ki jo je zasnoval po noveli Quand on aime Rolanda Dorgčlesa (1885–1973). Opera je domišljena še tonalno, razpoznati je jasne glasbene motive, ki se ponavljajo, nekateri segmenti glasbenega toka se osamosvojijo še tudi v jasne pevske tocke, pov­sem razvidna pa je tudi skladateljeva motivacija za izbiro sižeja, saj imamo opravka z nekoliko posodobljeno verzijo ljubezenskih intrig v umetniškem okolju, kakršne so zaznamovale znamenito Puccinijevo opero La Bohčme. Francoska literatura je Božica navdihnila tudi za drugo opero, enodejanko Spoštovanja vredna vlacuga, ki je nasta-la po istoimenski drami Jean-Paula Sartra (1905–1980). Snovno se je skladatelj pre­maknil iz melanholicnih ljubezenskih spletk k izraziti družbeni kriticnosti, saj drama odpira vprašanja rasizma, odnosa med moškim in žensko ter relevantnosti poštenja, saj se na koncu prostitutka izkaže za vrednejšo osebo od uglednih mešcanov. Ceprav gre v formalnem pogledu še vedno za opero, pa je jasen premik zaznati v glasbenem stavku – kot nekakšen predokus kasnejšega kolaža namrec Božic sopostavlja cool jazz s serialno tehniko. Glavne osebe (Lizzie, Fred in Crnec) so oznacene vsaka s svojim vodilnim motivom, pri cemer nosi motiv Crnca znacilne jazzovske poteze, motiv Freda je oblikovan kot dvanajsttonska vrsta, skladatelj pa uporabljatudi ritmicno vrsto, kar kaže na željo po premiku iz dodekafonije proti serialnosti, ceprav slednja ni uresni-cena s popolnim zaupanjem strukturalni avtomatiki, kot je bilo to v petdesetih letih znacilno za vodilne evropske serialiste. Zdi se, da Božic piše svojo Zeitoper, kakršne so nastajale v dvajsetih in tridesetih letih 20. stoletja v casu nove stvarnosti – v operi skuša obravnavati sedanjost, zato vanjo vkljucuje tudi zvoke sedanjosti, za kar skrbijo jazzovski obrazci pa tudi plesna glasba, predvajana z radia. Že v teh zgodnjih opernih delih Božica zanima sopostavljanje, mešanje, kolažiranje, zato ne cudi, da je šel njegov nadaljnji razvoj prav v to smer. Kot nekakšno vajo za vecja glasbenogledališka dela lahko razumemo dve v žanrskem pogledu izmikajoci se deli. V komorni skladbi Collage sonore (1966) smo prica druženju zvocnega in gle­dališkega, pri cemer imata v slednjem pomenu osrednjo vlogo recitatorja, ki bereta iz pesniške zbirke Somrak Svetlane Makarovic, v glasbenem pogledu pa stoji Božic razpet med jazzovske impulze, dvanajsttonsko tehniko in nekaj manjših aleatoric­nih izmikov. Še dodaten nov element doda skladatelj v skladbo Trije dnevi Ane Frank (1963), ki poleg recitatorja in komorne zasedbe vkljucuje tudi magnetofonski trak in dva generatorja elektronskega zvoka. Zdi se, da je v središcu skladateljevega zani­manja besedilo, ki ga skuša ozvocevati, in da imamo tako opravka skoraj z nekakšno glasbeno opremo radijske oddaje. Vse to kaže, da je Božic iskal in grebel predvsem na presecišculiterarnega, gledališke­ga in glasbenega, spodbude za svoje delo pa je iskal tudi izven glasbe, še najbolj v gle­dališcu, kar kažejo njegova pogosta sodelovanja z gledališkimi režiserji, za katere je ustvaril scensko glasbo. V tem pogledu je bilo gotovo prelomno Božicevo sodelovanje z režiserjem Miletom Korunom pri znameniti predstavi Oresteja v ljubljanski Drami leta 1968, o kateri imamo na sreco dovolj dokumentarnega gradiva in tudi ohranjen notni zapis (prim. Oresteja). Božiceva partitura za to scensko delo vsebuje vokalne parte in parte za nekaj prirocnih glasbil (impozantno je moralo biti predvsem ne­prekinjeno ritmicno utripanje z zvoki kamnov), celota pa je pogosto ujeta v znacilne enostavne aleatoricne obrazce, ponavljanje drobnih materialnih drobcev, ki so tokrat urejeni arhaicno modalno, da bi sugerirali nekakšen zgodovinsko oddaljen, torej an-ticni prostor, in simulacije »realne« glasbe (javkanje, cviljenje, škrebljanje peska na pokopališcu). Prav v sodelovanju s Korunom je Božic najbrž spoznal, da se mora reži­ser »v standardnem opernem repertoarju podrejati partituri in prilagoditi dirigentu kot prvemu interpretu partiture. […] V sodobnem gledališcu […] pa se primarnost vodenja vaje med dirigentom in režiserjem izmenjuje« (Ažman 3). Po lastnih besedah se je prelevil v pristaša Korunovega neliterarnega gledališca, kar ni že dolgo nobena posebnost, ne v likovni umetnosti, kot tudi ne v sodobni glasbi. […] Nisem želel ustvariti operne partiture, ki bi že sama po sebi zvenela, ampak scenarij (kot pri filmu), po katerem bi ustvarjalci predstave ustvarili dokoncno podobo dela. Glasba ne sme posiljevati odrskega dogajanja, ga omeje­vati, ampak mora nuditi ustvarjalcem cim širše možnosti. Opera ni zame glasba, ampak gledališce v polnem pomenu besede. (Niko Goršic: »Zdaj in nikoli vec?«; nav. po Strgar35) Še pred sodelovanjem s Korunom je Božic ustvaril glasbenogledališko delo Polineikes (1966), ki ga je žanrsko poimenoval collage du drame, muzikolog Andrej Rijavec pa opozarja, da stoji delo, ukrojeno po drami Antigona Dominika Smoleta, »med radijsko dramo in koncertno melodramo« (Rijavec 120). Glasba v delu predvsem podpira be-sedilo in skoraj ne moremo govoriti o njeni avtonomnosti, pa ceprav uporablja sklada­telj poenoteno logiko dvanajsttonskih vrst, razdeljenih v manjše enote, ki se obnašajo kot submotivi in nimajo svoje strukturalne vloge. Glasba se zdi kot nekakšno ozadje branemu tekstu, ki stopa v ospredje in je nosilec dramaticnega in vsebinskega, glasba pa je umaknjena v atmosfericno. Naslednje delo, Jago (1968), za osem izvajalcev in magnetofonski trak, zasnovano po Shakespearovi drami Othello in romanu Gottes zweite Garnitur Willija Heinricha (1920–2005), je skladatelj poimenoval kot happening, pri cemer je v partituri sam zacrtal, kam meri s to žanrsko oznako: Happening naj seizvaja kot ritual ali kot otroška igra, to je predstava, pri kateri je zapo­redje besed, gibov in premikov v naprej doloceno in znano in dovoljuje le nekaj variacije predpisane sheme. Vendar mora biti intenzivnost igre maksimalna tako kot pri ritualu, oziroma pri otroških igrah, kjer igralci (sveceniki oziroma otroci) in gledalci (verniki oziroma otroci) sodelujejo s polno zavzetostjo. (Božic, Jago) V delu, ki ponovno obravnava vprašanja rasizma, imamo opravka s tremi dogajalnimi ravnmi: (1) misli, želje in hotenja glavnih oseb se izražajo z govorjeno besedo (Desde­mona in Othello, Jago kot naslovni junak sploh ne nastopa, karse zdi jasen vpliv An­tigone Dominika Smoleta), (2) zvok, ki se izvaja v živo ali je posnet na magnetofonski trak, medtem ko (3) po trije igralci in igralke s premikanjem stolov ustvarjajo scensko ozadje in tako dopolnjujejo dogajanje. Oznako happening moramo v zvezi z Jagom razumeti kot skladateljevo željo po vecmedijskosti, saj notira tako tekst kot tudi živi zvok, posneti zvok, zvocno kuliso in kombinacije luc-gib-premik, kar pa seveda ni popolnoma v skladu z žanrsko idejo hepeninga, kakršnega je realiziral Cage in ka­terega središcni poudarek je ležal v nedolocenem, prostorsko-situacijskem, realnem »živem« dogajanju in ne zgolj v sopostavljanju razlicnih dogajalnih in umetnostnih ravni. Petje ni vec v ospredju, saj glavna junaka govorita, podobno pa je skop tudi glasbeni material, ki se ponavlja in je precej heterogen (diatonika, bluzovska lestvica, harmonski grozdi, akordi, zgrajeni po logiki vertikalnih struktur, posneti, konkretni zvoki), skladatelj pa govori celo o »organizirani improvizaciji« (Šlamberger 6). Še bolj širokopotezen je bil skladatelj cez dve leti v glasbenoscenski drami po anticnih mo-tivih Ares-Eros oz. Lizistrata praznih rok (1970), za katero je besedilo sestavil sam v obliki montaže Aristofanovih komedij Lizistrata in Mir. Vdelu, ki je bilo izvedeno v okviru zag-rebškega Bienala leta 1971 (ansamblu Opere in baleta SNG Ljubljana je dirigiral skladatelj sam, režijo pa je podpisal Mile Korun), a ni bilo deležnih naklonjenih kritik, je skladatelj ocitno združil svoje ideje, ki jih je razvil kot avtor scenske glasbe, robnih primerov instru­mentalne glasbe, povezane z govorjeno besedo, in novih glasbenogledaliških poskusov. Partitura se naslanja na idejo nadzorovanega nakljucja, pri cemer so posamezni enostavni melodicni obrazci ujeti med kromatiko dodekafonije in modalnost antike, harmonija pa se naslanja na vertikalne strukture. Pretežno zelo razredcene orkestrske teksture seka govorjena beseda, zato glasba ponovno bolj nakazuje vzdušja, kot da bi pletla svojo lo-giko. To ne preseneca, saj je dogajanje zaradi zgošcenosti precej zapleteno, naprej pa ga poganjajo predvsem recitacije, medtem ko se zdi preostalo dogajanje precej ritualizirano, kar postane še posebej ocitno v zadnjem dejanju, domišljenem v obliki nekakšnih dionizij. Naslednje delo, opero-farso Lizistrata ‚75, ki svojo snov ponovno crpa iz iste Aristofanovekomedije, a jo je tokrat v posodobljen libreto, v katerem vojno med Atenci in Špartanci zamenja nogometna strast moških obeh mest, priredil Smiljan Samec, je Božic kljub po­novno novi žanrski oznaki domislil v istih dramaturški potezah kot svoja predhodna glas­benogledališka dela. Pri tem se mu je v intervjuju zdelo smiselno poudariti, »da to ni opera niti drama, temvec gledališka predstava nekje v sredi med tema dvema zvrstema. Delana je namerno tako, ker se v sodobnem teatru ti dve zvrsti vedno bolj zbližujeta« (Mracsek 4). Režiserju obeh postavitev opere (leta 1980 je bila izvedena v mariborski Operi in kasneje leta 1997 tudi v ljubljanski Operi) Juriju Soucku so se zdeli prav tako osrednjega pomena žanrski razmisleki in je šel celo tako dalec, da je delo oznacil kot antiopero. Spraševal se je, ali »naj o Lizistrati '75 Darijana Božica premišljujem kot o operi-farsi ali antioperi, ali komediji z glasbeno spremljavo, kar ni ne to ne ono« (Soucek 8), nato pa je zapisal še, da pripravlja premiero »farsicne neopere« (prav tam 9). Toda kljub takšnemu žanrskemu pozicioniranju, ki je ocitno želelo loviti stik z modernisticnimi snovanji drugod po Evropi, a so bila sicerob koncu sedemdesetih in na zacetku osemdesetih let že mocno upehana, je Božiceva logika spet podobna prejšnjim delom. Prevladuje razredcena – kritika je pisala celo o tem, da je skladatelj postavil predvsem glasbena locila (Ucakar, »Umetniški«) – mo­dernisticna zvocnost, ki izhaja iz dolgih zadržanih akordov, pogosto oblikovanih v obliki zvocnih grozdov ali »vertikalnih struktur«, aleatoricnih sosledij in ponovne želje po kolaž­nem sopostavljanju, ki se najjasneje kaže v prepevanju klubskih himen, ki jih podpira pi-halni orkesterna odru, in otroške pesmice v izvedbi otroškega zbora – bližje kot antioperi se zdi v takšnem trku izrazito modernisticnega (clustri) in tonalnega, celo popularnega (klubska himna), prvim znakom postmodernizma. Toda v iskanju »novega« žanra se Božic ni ustavil, na kar dajejo slutiti venomer nove žanrske oznake novonastajajocih glasbenogledaliških del. Tako je še v letu nastanka Lizistrate '75 zasnoval tudi koncertantno dramo Slovenske pesmi, ki je po svojih glav­nih potezah precej sorodna Božicevemu siceršnjemu ustvarjanju za gledališke deske. Oznaka »koncertantna drama« meri v svoji dvojnosti najbrž na to, da gre za dela, ki v osnovni niso namenjena gledališki, odrski, ampak koncertni izvedbi, a po drugi strani jih v dramaturškem pogledu poganja prav dramska ali literarna vsebinskost. V Slo­venskih pesmih tako ne nastopajo dramski junaki, mezzosopranistka ni nosilka vloge, težišce pripovedi nosita napovedovalca in recitatorja, ki razgrinjata tipicne slovenske tematike, kot soizseljenstvo, druga svetovna vojna, odtujenost, kar pomeni, da imamo opravka s kritiko sveta s slovenskega gledišca. Toda avtor sene odpoveduje niti os­novni mizanscenskosti – tako partitura predpisuje dolocene odrske kretnje izvajalcev (na zacetku stavka »Kmecka« skladatelj v partituro zapiše navodilo: »recitator sedi, pevka stoji – nekoliko sta obrnjena stran eden od drugega«). Ce vse to povežemo z glasbeno podobo, ki je ponovno precej redka (izhodišce predstavlja material »Pre­ludija«, ki se veckrat vraca, sestoji pa iz harmonskega grozda, poltonskih menjav in kratkega intervalnega niza) in podobna prej nastalim, »bolj« odrskim delom, se kljub novi oznaki/formi/žanru Božicev osnovni ustvarjalni raster v resnici ni spremenil. Da je v naslednjem desetletju ustvaril še štiri podobne koncertantne drame – v Beli krizantemi (1976) skladatelj v tekstovnem »scenariju«, kakorga sam imenuje, montira tekste iz Cankarjevih del Martin Kacur, Hlapec Jernej in Bela krizantema, da bi pred nas postavil Cankarjevo usodno figuro v odnosu do slovenskega naroda, podobna razpetost med javno in zasebno zaznamuje nato tudi Maximillena Robespierra (1978), koncer­ tantno dramo, zasnovano po biografskem romanu Rudolfa Harmsa (1901–1984) Ro­bespierre, medtem ko je v središcu Štirinajste (1980) zgodba o XIV. partizanski diviziji, pri cemer postanejo štirje recitatorji tudi nosilci vlog (prvi predstavlja politicnega ko­misarja divizije, Matevža Haceta, drugi je komandant, tretji nekaj casa borec, nato tudi zdravnik in cetrti pesnik Karel Destovnik Kajuh), delo pa je bilo napisano za festival Revolucija in glasba, v Slovenski visoki pesmi (1983) pa je skladatelj organiziral pesmi Mateja Bora in Dragotina Ketteja kot dialog med ljubimcema, soroden biblijski Visoki pesmi, pri cemer se zdi zaradi piclosti glasbe delo kot nekakšna zvocna oprema branja poezije – gre najbrž povezovati s konservativnostjo domacih opernih institucij, ki kljub Božicevemu uspehu z Lizistrato '75 v Mariboru niso želele tvegati z modernisticnimi poizkusi s formo, materialom, vsebino in dramaturgijo. Pogled po repertoarju ljubljan­ske operne hiše namrec pokaže, da so bila od sedemdesetih let naprej vrata za opere, nastale v 20. stoletju, skorajda neprodušno zaprta (Pompe, »Repertoarna«). Tudi od tod najbrž še nova, pomenljiva žanrska oznaka ob Božicevem novem prispevku za opero – leta 1985 je koncal »glasbenoscenski projekt« Kralj Lear, ki je bil naslednje leto izveden v Operi SNG Maribor. A ponovno je kljub novi žanrski oznaki Božic ostal pri svoji ustaljeni praksi, ki jo je v grobem zacrtal že leta 1966 s Polineikesom. Tako je besedilo zopet lepljenka iz Shakespearove drame Kralj Lear, dramatikovih sonetov in starih angleških pesmi, medtem ko je kolažno tokrat s pomocjo že obstojecega materiala zasnovana tudi glasbena podoba, za katero si je skladatelj songe sposodil iz Gayeve znamenite Beraške opere (1728), orkestralno glasbo pa v nekaj primerih iz svojih lastnih del Audiospectrum (1972) in Audiostrukturae (1973). Najvec izvirnosti je tako skladatelj v resnici namenil zgodbi, v kateri je naslovni junak ocitno duševno zmeden že od samega zacetka, karga vodi v številne krvolocnosti. Celotna dramaturgija dela se plete okoli številnih dvojnosti: živi glasbi se »zoperstavlja« zvok posnetega orkestra, govorjenemu besedilu peta beseda, svetu modernisticne glasbe srednjeveške pesmi, vertikalne strukture harmonskim groz­dom, kar najbrž vse ponazarja trk realnega in imaginarnega sveta. Zelo podobno strategijo je Božic ubral tudi ob snovanju svojega najobsežnejšega dela Telmah (1989), za katero je poiskal spet novo žanrsko oznako »glasbenogledališko dogajanje v gledališcu – popoldne, zvecer in v pozni noci«, v katerem lahko ugledamo sintezo številnih zgledov. »Dogajanje v gledališcu« jasno navaja na glasbeno gledališ-ce Kagla, še posebej njegov veliki projekt Državno gledališce, v katerem so bili obis-kovalci prica najrazlicnejšim akcijam, ki so se odvijale po celem poslopju gledališca, kar pomeni, da je Božic želel, da bi postal celoten obred obiska gledališca predstava,1 1 V tem pogledu je zanimivo brati navodila, ki jih je skladatelj namenil za cas odmora: »Odmor naj ne bo obicajna gledališka pavza, temvec režirano dogajanje. Na nek nacin del predstave. Združeno naj bo s kakšno tipicno slovensko kulturno prireditvijo, kot so na primer 'Knjižni sejem', pomembnejša obletnica kakšne zveze (umetniška fotografija, razlicna društva glasbenikov) itd. Lahko pa se za to priliko pripravi tudi posebna prireditev: razstava o življenju in delu Mirka Polica, pa Hinka Leskovška ali Nika Štritofa. Možno je vkljuciti – kot je bilo v elizabetinskih casih navada – nastope manjših gledaliških ali glasbenih skupin (komorni ansambli, solisti). Odnos publike do gledališkega dogajanja 'Telmah' naj bo tak, kot je odnos – v igri – dvorjanov do 'Mišnice'. Vse to dogajanje služi obiskovalcem za sprostitev in pripravo na pogostitev. Sledi vecerja. Kot bi bil gostitelj Klavdij ali Telmah – seveda ne dobesedno. Tako presledek med dvema dejanjema traja porazdeljenost na tri dneve dela pa sugerira na trilogijo, modelirano po zgledu Wag-nerjeve tetralogije Nibelungov prstan, ki naj bi se odvila v štirih zaporednih dnevih, ali Stockhausnove heptalogije Luc, v kateri je vsaka enota namenjena enemu dnevu v tednu in nosi tudi takšno ime. Božic je ponovno sam sestavil besedilo s pomocjo montaže tekstov iz razlicnih Shakespearovih dram (Hamlet, Rihard III., Macbeth, Ro­meo in Julija, Othello, Ljubezni trud zaman, Henrik VIII., Sen kresne noci, Vihar, Kralj Lear), dramatikovih sonetov in igre Roberta Bolta (1924–1995) Clovek za vse case, medtem ko uporablja zelo malo originalnega glasbenega materiala in se tokrat za­teka k orkestracijam motetov iz Gallusove zbirke Opus musicum, s cimer se seveda glasbeno prestavlja v Shakespearov cas. Obsežna partitura doloca tudi uporabo video in avdioposnetkov, kar kaže na željo po širši multimedialnosti, podobnemu kopicen­ju pa je namenjeno tudi eklekticno sopostavljanje in kolažiranje renesancne glasbe z modernisticnimi harmonskimi grozdi, dvanajsttonsko tehniko, jazzovskimi vdori in vertikalnimi strukturami, zato se delo približuje slogovni odvisnosti od postmoder­nizma. Božic tako kot Leara tudi Hamleta travestira in se sprašuje, kaj bi se zgodilo, ce bi glavni junak vendarle postal danski kralj, pri cemer je njegov odgovor povezan z vpeljavo drugih Shakespearovih dram, kar pomeni, da sklepa, da bi prevzel poteze Macbetha, Henrika VIII. in drugih – Božic je preprican, da se s takšnim predrugacen­jem približuje gledališcu režije (Menart 48). Kot v Kralju Learu mu je kot osnovno dramaturško vodilo služilo kontrastiranje raznolikih elementov: Vsa igra je grajena na združevanju »po-dva« gledaliških elementov. Najprej dram-sko-glasbenih. Dramski so sestavljeni iz prizorov, glasbeni pa iz stavkov. Nadalje sestav­ljata predstavo dva dela: prvi s težišcem na tekstu in dramski zasnovi gradnje in drugi s težišcem na glasbi z operno zasnovo uprizoritve. […] Dvojno je obravnavanje besede: govorjena - peta beseda. Dvojnost slike: živa igra na odru - filmski posnetek in TV spot. Na dva nacina seizvaja glasba: živo petje in igranje (reprodukcija posnetkov). Nadalje združevanje zapisane glasbe (tradicija) in improvizacije (free-jazz).2 Delo je tako zasnovano v tradicionalni obliki številcne opere (gl. tabelo 1), torej iz po­sameznih, zakljucenih enot, ki jim osnovo pogosto predstavljajo renesancni plesi (al-main, corant, sarabande, jig), medtem ko je skladatelj preprican, da je formo takšnih številk domislil simfonicno.3Zanimivo je, da je kritika opazila zvezo s postmoderniz-mom, saj je Tone Partljic zapisal, da gre za »postmodernisticno prepesnitev« (Hostnik Šetinc), ceprav je sam skladatelj sprva postmodernizem odklonil kot oznako, pod ka­tero »se skuša marsikaj uveljaviti: od neznanja tehnik strogega stavka, nepoznavanja dvanajsttonskega sistema do 'computer music' in sploh kakršnihkoli sistemov. Iz tega nastaja nekakšna zmešnjava« (Sajovic 4), kasneje, v casu ustvarjanja Telmaha, pa ga dalj casa in pomaga, dase obicajna dveurna predstava izpremeni v gledališko dogajanje, ki druži ob shakespearjanskih zgodbah nastopajoce in obiskovalce vecji del dneva: od popoldneva preko vecera do pozno v noc«. 2 Skladateljska mapa Darijana Božica z naslovom »Opera«, hrani Nacionalna in univerzitetna knjižnica v Ljubljani. 3 Božic piše, da gre za logiko »po osnovi gradnje simfonije«. Prim. partituro. je vendarle razumel kot »oddih, pri katerem lahko uporabiš katerokoli glasbeno teh­niko«, cemur smo res prica v tem »glasbenogledališkem dogajanju« (Hostnik Šetinc). Tabela 1: Razporeditev tock v Božicevem Telmahu (povzeto po skladateljevem kazalu v partituri) Tocka Naslov Tocka Naslov 1 UVOD 40 Agnus Dei / kronanje Ofelije 2 Prvi del: INFANS – INTRADA 41 Sanctus / kronanje Telmaha 3 PRVA SLIKA 42 Gloria 4 DRUGA SLIKA: almain 43 XV. SLIKA: almain 5 DIALOG 44 Corant 6 CORANT 45 Dialog 7 DRAMSKI PRIZOR 46 Srabande 8 SARABANDE 47 Dialog 9 DIALOG 48 Jig 10 JIG 49 XVI. SLIKA: Telmah – tretji monolog 11 TRETJA SLIKA: dialog 50 Ljubezenska scena, Horatia peljejo na morišce – arija 12 CETRTA SLIKA: napitnica lordov 51 MEDIGRA 13 Dramska scena 52 XVII. SLIKA: tabor, zbor vojakov 14 Telmah – prvi monolog 53 Telmahove prikazni 15 Scena pred predstavo 54 Boj 16 MIŠNICA 55 Erinije 17 Telmah – drugi monolog 56 XVIII. SLIKA: zabava pri Ofeliji 18 Kralj Klavdij: scena in arija 57 Fanfare 19 PETA SLIKA: recitativ 58 Telmah – cetrti monolog 20 MEDIGRA 59 Telmah in More 21 ŠESTA SLIKA: Polonijev pogreb 60 Telmah z Erinijami 22 Ofelija – monolog 61 XIX. SLIKA: More in vecerja pri kralju 23 SEDMA SLIKA: scena na stolpu 62 Scena in arija Yorškega škoga 24 OSMA SLIKA: scena in arija Duha 63 XX. SLIKA: almain 25 Volkodlak 64 Corant 26 DEVETA SLIKA: ljubezenska scena 65 Sarabande 27 DESETA SLIKA: dvoboj 66 Jig 28 Dramska scena in recitativ 67 XXI. SLIKA: Telmah ubije Ofelijo 29 PRVI FINALE 68 Po uboju 30 ODMOR 69 XXII. SLIKA: scena in arija kraljice 31 Zunanji uvod v drugi del 70 XXIII. SLIKA: noc na stolpu 32 Notranji uvod v drugi del 71 TV-spot: Birnamski gozd 33 Drugi del: REX MORTIFER 72 Telmah ob mrtvi materi 34 DVANAJSTA SLIKA 73 XXIV. SLIKA: ples vej in nožev 35 Fugatto 74 Telmah proti Malcolmu 36 Nastop glumacev 75 APOTEOZA 37 Hastingsa vodijo 76 Zakljucek – IN 38 Ofelija se ureja za poroko, Has-tingsa ubijejo 77 Zakljucek – OFF 39 XIV. SLIKA: TE DEUM – Kyrie/ poroka Omeniti velja še dve »poznejši« deli, v katerih se zdi, da je Božic vendarle dodatno gledališko eksperimentiral, pri cemer pa vsaj z izvedbo Provokativnih variacij (1986) ni bil prevec zadovoljen, zato najbrž ni vec stopal po podobni poti. Delo nosi namrec v žanrskem podnaslovu oznako »kontrolirana improvizacija umetniškega srecanja«. Skladatelj je ponovno montiral razlicne tekste (verze Prešerna, Strniše, Zlobca, Minattija, Petanove aforizme in intervju z igralcem Radkom Policem iz revije Start), nato pa delo poteka v pogovoru med glasbenikom in igralcem, ki odpirata razlicne teme, pri cemer citirata razlicne pisatelje, nato pa igralec v komunikacijo vkljuci tudi obcinstvo oz. ga razgreva s provokativnimi vprašanji, kot je na primer, kaj mislijo o seksu brez ljubezni. Toda paradoksalno, kljub temu da partitura pušca sorazmerno veliko svobode tako igralcu kot tudi glasbenikom, skladatelj ni bil zadovoljen z izvedbo, še posebej z igralskim deležem Radka Polica,4ki je sicer sijajno nastopil v drugih Božicevih glasbenogledaliških delih, kar vendarle kaže na to, da je bil Božic kljub jasni zavezanosti sodobnemu, odprtemu, eksperimentalnemu nekje globoko v svoji sredici vendarle bolj konservativen in odvisen od vnaprej danih form in rešitev. Morda je tudi zato s svojim zadnjim delom, ki bi ga lahko obravnavali v kontekstu glas­benega gledališca, stopil še proti drugi možnosti iskanja novih rešitev. Tako je Samo­roga (1992) domislil kot »multimedialni projekt«. Zasnovan je bil za odprtje razstave živalskih kipov Janeza Boljke (1931–2013) v Volcjem Potoku. Zdi se, da se skladatelj podobno kot že v Kralju Learu in Telmahu vse bolj umika iz aktivne kompozicije in vse bolj postaja le nekakšen »režiser« vecmedijskega dogajanja, da torej idejo kolažiranja iz glasbe same prenaša na kombiniranje razlicnih umetnosti. Tako uporablja besedilo Gregorja Strniše in spet citate iz Gallusa, toda veliko pomembnejši se zdita ta prostorska razporeditev glasbenega »dogajanja« (projekt se je odvijal na prostem), ki skuša upoš­tevati znacilnosti lokacije (gl. slika 1), in spektakularna obravnava pirotehnicnih sred­stev. Samoroga kot zadnjo Božicevo glasbenogledališko izjavo je tako mogoce razumeti le še kot dodatno umikanje glasbe in popolno izenacevanje z drugimi umetnostmi, po­stopek, ki je sicer znacilen že za skladateljeva prva modernisticna spopadanja z odrom. 4 Glasbena zbirka v NUK-u hrani avtorjevo pismo igralcu, v katerem prvi drugemu v krepkem jeziku ocita, da je »pljunil« na njegovo umetnost. Slika 1: Zamisli, povezane s specificno lokacijo v Božicevem Samorogu Zakljucek: Dvojna neuravnoteženost Razgled po Božicevem glasbenogledališkem opusu daje jasen vtis, da je celotno ka­riero – od leta 1958, ko je napisal prvo, še klasicno operno delo, do leta 1992, ko je glasbenogledališko snovanje zakljucil s Samorogom (ohranjeno je sicer še skladatel­jevo lastno besedilo za »multimedialni projekt po življenju skladatelja Jakoba Handla Gallusa »Ecce, Carniolus!«) – iskal svoj idealni žanr in formo, ki bi seveda bila v kar najtesnejšem soglasju s sodobnostjo, pri cemer so nanj v skoraj enakovredni meri vplivale zahodnoevropske modernisticne glasbene spodbude kot tudi dobro pozna­vanje slovenske gledališke scene. Takšno iskanje in tipanje ter zavezanost vsemu so-dobnemu, morda celo »naprednemu« dokazuje že samo pregled žanrskih oznak Bo­ žicevih del: Tabela 2: Božiceva glasbenogledališka dela Naslov Letnica nastanka Žanrska oznaka Boheme ’57 (Ljubezen na Montmartru) 1958 liricno-komicna opera Spoštovanja vredna vlacuga 1960 operna enodejanka Polineikes 1966 collage du drame Jago 1968 happening Ares-Eros (Lizistrata praznih rok) 1970 glasbenoscenska drama Lizistrata ’75 1975 opera-farsa Bela krizantema 1976 koncertantna drama Maximillen Robespierre 1978 koncertantna drama Štirinajsta 1980 koncertantna drama Slovenska visoka pesem 1983 koncertantna drama Kralj Lear 1985 glasbenoscenski projekt Hamlet 1985 glasbenoscenski projekt Provokativne meditacije 1986 kontrolirana improvizacija umetniškega srecanja Telmah 1989 glasbenogledališko dogajanje v gledališcu »Ecce, Carniolus!« (nedokoncano) (1992) multimedialni projekt Samorog 1992 multimedialni projekt Ce izvzamemo oznako koncertantna drama, torej žanr, ki je mejen, saj stoji med gle­dališcem in standardno koncertno obliko, je skladatelj prakticno za vsak nov glasbe­nogledališki projekt izbral novo oznako, edina resna sprememba pa vodi od rednega vkljucevanja dostavka »drama« k oznaki »projekt«, kar kaže na premik iz podrejanja glasbe dramskemu k vse vecjemu vkljucevanju multimedialnosti. Toda natancnejši pregled del pokaže, da so si le-ta kljub razlicnim žanrskim oznakam v svoji dramatur­ški in glasbeni logiki nenavadno podobna in da je osnovna vodila Božic nastavil že v Polineikesu, torej svojem prvem modernisticnem glasbenogledališkem delu. Že tu je vzpostavil posebno razmerje med literarnim, glasbenim in dramskim. Glasba se vse bolj umika v ozadje, vsebinski nosilec postaja beseda – najveckrat govorjena: njej se atmosfersko prilagaja glasba, iz besedila pa izhajajo dramski poudarki. Že muzikolog Andrej Rijavec je spoznal, da Božiceva dela svojo izpovedno težo dolgujejo predvsem tekstovnemu izboru in manj glasbenemu deležu (Rijavec 123) – paradoksalno tako Božiceva dela stojijo ali padejo z dramskimi igralci ali recitatorji, pri cemer je vsaj v koncertantnih dramah Bela krizantema in Maximillien Robespierre velika teža slonela na odlicnih izvedbah Radka Polica, ki se je sicer skladatelju v njegovih eksperimentih, ki so prestopali meje literarnega, izneveril. Toda Božicevo delo je zasidrano še v enem paradoksu. Kljub temu da se glasbeni delež mocno umika, da na prvo mesto postavlja literarno besedo, tej pa še pred glasbo sledi dramska akcija, je skušal svoja dela uresniciti v institucionalnih opernih gledališcih. Slednja pa ne doma ne drugod po svetu (pomembno izjemo je v tem pogledu predstavljala Hamburška državna opera med letoma 1959 in 1973, ko jo je vodil Rolf Liebermann (1910–1999), ki je v tem casu narocil kar 24 novih del) niso imela posluha za sodobno glasbo ali sodobnejše gledališke prijeme. Pa vendar Božic ni pomislil na možnosti alternativnih izvedb, na komorni medij, na specializirane ansamble za sodobno glasbo, karkaže na nenavadno križanje institucionalnega in neinstitucionalnega – ali še drugace: vodilni slovenski predstavniki glasbenega modernizma, nabrani v skupini Pro musica viva, so po obdobju, ko so se morali boriti za svoje priznanje in so obenem podirali tradicionalno dedišcino svojih profesorjev, zasedli prav ista institucionalna mesta, s katerih so prej pridigali njihovi oponenti (Darijan Božic je na primer postal umetniški vodja in upravnik Slovenske filharmonije (1970–1974) in nato tudi direktor ljubljanske Opere (1995–1998)). Institucionalno odklanjanje novih glasbenogledaliških rešitev je verjetno Božica prisililo k iznajdbi mejnega žanra koncertantne drame, s katero je operno institucionalnost zamenjal s klasicnim koncertnim odrom – simfonicni orkestri so vendarle pokazali vec odprtosti za sodobni eksperiment, zato je v tem mediju Božic lahko udejanjil svojo idejo zbliževanja literature, drame in glasbe. Tako je mogoce ob koncu trditi, da se ob poizkusu kontekstualiziranja Božicevega glasbenogledališkega dela izkaže, da gre za dvojno neuravnoteženost – v svojih glasbenogledaliških delih je v celoti dajal prednost literarno-dramskemu in je glasbo ohranjal na ravni zvocne opreme, zato je njegova glasbenogledališka dela mestoma težko razlocevati od scenske glasbe ali glasbene opreme za radijsko igro, po drugi strani pa iskanje novih glasbenogledaliških žanrov kaže na premike izven tradicionalne operne institucije, ki pa jih je skladatelj vendarle želel uresniciti v operi, kar se je koncalo s skladateljevo glasbenogledališko resignacijo in premikom v multimedialno, ki bi mu kasneje najbrž logicno sledilo tudi umikanje v digitalno in virtualno. Božicevo ustvarjanje tako ni le produkt avtorjeve osebnosti in casa, temvec v veliki meri tudi prostora. Bibliografija Ažman, Tatjana. »Darijan Božic. Umetnik, ki verjame v svojo resnico.« Gledališki list SNG Opera in balet Ljubljana, 4. nov. 1997, str. 2–3. Barbo, Matjaž. »Božic, Darijan.« Slovenska biografija, http://www.slovenska-biogra­fija.si/oseba/sbi1019960/#novi-slovenski-biografski-leksikon. Dostop 25. sept. 2022. —. Pro musica viva. Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2001. Bedina, Katarina. »Nova slovenska opera.« Delo, 18. maj 1971, str. 8. Božic, Darijan. »Ecce, Carniolus!« Nova Atlantida, letn. 2, št. 7, 1995, str. 82–149. —. Jago. Edicije Društva slovenskih skladateljev, 1968. —. »Vertikalne strukture savremene muzike.« Zvuk, št. 67, 1966, str. 163–188; št. 68, 1966, str. 297–321. Brockmann, Stephen. German Literary Culture at the Zero Hour. Camden House, 2004. Cage, John, Michael Kirby in Richard Schechner. »An Interview with John Cage.« The Tulane Drama Review, letn. 10, št. 2, 1965, 50–72. Danuser, Hermann. Die Musik des 20. Jahrhunderts. Laaber Verlag, 1984. Hostnik Šetinc, Majda. »Telmah ali Hamlet. Novo delo Darijana Božica.« Neodvisni dnevnik, letn. 38, št. 167, 1990, str. 9. Kesting, Marianne. »Musikalisierung des Theaters. Theatralisierung der Musik.« Me-los, letn. 36, št. 3, 1969, str. 101–109. Kreft, Mojca, ur. Oresteja ’68. Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2008. Menart, Mojca. »In discreto. Skladatelj in dirigent Darijan Božic.« Teleks, letn. 46, št. 4, 1990, str. 48. Mracsek, Mira. »Lizistrata 75. Pogovor s skladateljem in dirigentom Darijanom Boži-cem.« Dnevnik, 3. nov. 1980, str. 4. Nyman, Michael. Experimental Music. Cage and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, 1974. Pompe, Gregor. »Na obrobju. Delovanje ljubljanske Opere med letoma 1950 in 1960.« Ustanove, politika in glasba v Sloveniji in Srbiji 1945–1963, ur. Tatjana Markovic in Leon Stefanija, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, 2015, str. 66–85. —. »Repertoarna analiza ljubljanskega opernega uprizarjanja od ustanovitve Drama-ticnega društva do danes.« Vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališc v 20. in 21. stoletju, ur. Jernej Weiss, Založba Univerze na Primorskem, 2019, str. 351–372. —. »Slovenian music in the first decade after the Second World War – in search of socialist realism.« Muzikološki zbornik, letn. 54, št. 2, 2018, str. 187–200. Rebstock, Mathias, in David Roesner. Composed Theatre. Intellect Books, 2012. Rijavec, Andrej. »Razsežnosti snovanja Darijana Božica.« Muzikološki zbornik, letn. 14, 1978, str. 114–123. Sajovic, Irena. »Nekaj izjav skladateljev o Opatiji ’87.« Glasbena mladina, letn. 18, št. 1, 1988, str. 3–4. Salzmann, Eric, in Thomas Desi. The New Music Theater. Seeing the Voice, Hearing the Body. Oxford University Press, 2008. Schmidt, Felix, in Jürgen Hohmeyer. »Sprengt die Opernhäuser in die Luft!« Der Spie­gel, 25. sept. 1967, str. 166–174. Soucek, Jurij. »Lizistrata ’75.« Gledališki list SNG Opera in balet Ljubljana, 4. nov. 1997, str. 8–9. Strgar,Snežana. Operni opus Darijana Božica. Diplomsko delo. Univerza v Ljubljani, 1988. Strobel, Heinrich. »Umwandlung oder Ende der Oper?« Melos, letn. 5, 1948, str. 129– 133. Šlamberger, Snežana. »Zvok, enakovreden besedi.« Dnevnik, 24. apr. 1970, str. 6. Ucakar, Bogdan. »Na pravem mestu.« Delo, 20. maj 1992, str. 6. —. »Radiofonski Telmah.« Delo, 26. jun. 1991, str. 6. —. »Umetniški podvig.« Dnevnik, 20. nov. 1980, str. 4. Žižek, Slavoj, in Mladen Dolar. Opera’s Second Death. Routledge, 2002. UDK 78.071.1Božic D.:792 UDK 792:78.071.1Božic D. DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/252-272 Among Slovenian modernist composers, Darijan Božic dedicated the largest part of his work to musical theatre. The genre classifications of his works show that the composer constantly searched for a new form of musical theatre. It would appear that he finally settled on a medium that could almost be designated as a “radio play”, with an emphasis usually on the spoken word, accompanied by occasional interventions of instrumental music. Over time, these interventions appeared to lose their modernist edge (harmonic clusters) and approach postmodernism by juxtaposing diverse elements. Thus, a characteristic of Božic’s works is their double imbalance: the language strongly dominates the music, while at the same time, the composer’s desire to implement avant-garde theatrical procedures in an institutional opera house seems unusual. Keywords: Darijan Božic (1933–2018), Slovenian opera, 20th-century music, musical theatre, modernism, instrumental theatre, stage compositions Gregor Pompe studied comparative literature, German language and musicology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. He is currently a professor at the Department of Musicology of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, where he also defended his doctoral thesis. He has also lectured at the Faculty of Education, University of Maribor and the Department of Musicology, Karl Franz University in Graz, Austria. The principal areas of his interest include contemporary music and musical theatre. He has published several articles and books. He also works as a music critic and composer. gregor.pompe@ff.uni-lj.si Darijan Božic’s Musical Theatre Opus in the Context of the Slovenian Musical Theatre Scene: An Escape into the Literary-Dramatic in Opposition to the Desire for the Institutional Gregor Pompe Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana Opera and Modernism Despite numerous upheavals and great discussions about the first and also the seconddeath of opera (cf. Žižek and Dolar) in the first quarter of the 21stcentury, opera is alive and well, as evidenced by the many new stagings of operas, audio and video recordings, and the endless possibilities for online streaming. Opera is not dead. It is, however, facing a serious problem: as an institution, “with each passing year, the opera theatre of everyday practice is becoming more like a museum”, as noted by the musicologist Heinrich Strobel (1898–1970), who also adds, “perhaps opera really is dead” (130). There are several reasons why there is no real need for the opera to update its repertoire: (1) Opera intendants take care of the need for “innovation” by reviving older, forgotten works from the 18thand 19thcenturies. (2) Historical staging practice often casts a completely new light on baroque opera. (3) The so-called director’s theatre, Regietheater, which “recasts” old content into a contemporary performance, provides a contemporary feeling in terms of both content and dramaturgy. Equally diverse reasons can answer why contemporary opera as an institution broke its connection to contemporary operatic creativity. The iron repertoire emerged in the first half of the 19th century, mainly through the reprisals of Rossini’s incredibly successful operas. In contrast, the end of repertory opera could be linked to (1) Puccini’s last, even unfinished opera Turandot in 1924 and (2) Arnold Schönberg’s (1874–1951) and his pupils’ definitive transition to modernism. Additionally, potential turning points might also be found in (3) the “zero hour” (cf. Brockmann) after World War II and (4) the economic demands for a sustainable flow of profits, which appears to be more readily achievable by relying on old “hits” rather than taking up “risky” first-time stagings, which most certainly influenced such repertory decisions. Among the abovementioned possibilities, the most relevant one seems to be the one related to the “zero hour”: the new post-war generation wanted nothing to do with the foundations from which the Nazi and Fascist dictatorships grew. At this very time, opera as an art form and an institution reached its peak by supporting the ruling ideology. It is precisely in the context of moving away from pre-war models that one of the leading post-war musical modernists, Pierre Boulez (1925–2016), famously noted: Germany’s new opera houses certainly appear very modern – from the outside. On the inside, however, they remain extremely old-fashioned. It is almost impossible to create a modern opera in a theatre where mainly repertoire works are performed. It is quite unfathomable. Blowing up the opera houses would appear to be the most expensive solution. But do you not think that that would also be the most elegant solution? (Schmidt and Hohmeyer 170) Boulez’s radical opinions became an emblem for a young generation that subscribed to the fetishismof the new and believed in the purifying power of the “zero hour”, while the remaining conservative composers, still looking to the past, automatically became marginalised loners. The only door open to them was the opera house, where they paved their softer “renovation” with operas dealing with plots from antiquity, with a form of literary opera that was able to disguise its conservative composition with strong literary value, and finally with the comic opera, which was given very little space in the 19thcentury of repertory opera. This changed to a point in the 1960s, when some modernists realised that the older forms could be renewed by appealing to a strong social engagement, as we can see in the operas of Hans Werner Henze (1926–2012), who even moved to Cuba for a couple of years due to his left-wing enthusiasm, and in the works of Luigi Nono (1924–1990), an active member of the Italian Communist Party, who also happened to be Schönberg’s son-in-law. It was probably Nono, Henze and Luciano Berio (1925–2003) who started exploring new approaches to using the voice as a potential way of renovation, rather than drama and staging possibilities, and thus showed other modernists that it was possible to create opera also in contemporary language, material and forms. There was, however, no longer any talk about opera at all. Nevertheless, just like several other times in its history, the denial of opera paradoxically brought forth several new forms – modernists started composing new musical theatre works that were no longer called operas. Instead, they used many new genre names. Musicology has not yet found a single umbrella term for all such endeavours. However, the name that appears to be most appropriate is the distinctly general term musical theatre. The latter goes back to the tradition of the works by the tandem Weill/Brecht (Salzmann and Desi 13), in which individual theatrical elements did not merge but were deliberately kept apart. The termmusical theatre, however, can be used broadly or narrowly – in the broadest sense, it can encompass all musical theatre works from all periods and styles. In a more exclusive sense, it designates quite specific contemporary endeavours. It is precisely due to this confusing duality of the broader and narrower meanings that Hermann Danuser’s suggestion of the term stage compositions (350) seems interesting in relation to the musical theatre work of the great modernist Mauricio Kagel (1931– 2008), who bestowed this genre label onto his greatest work, Staatstheater (State Theatre,1970).It was later renamed as anti-opera. In his work, Kagel deconstructed all institutionalopera conventions and opera as a musical theatre form, thus reaching the peak of the negative modernist attitude towards opera. At the same time, his approach also marks a clear turn towards searching for new forms and genres that would use the musical theatre medium more appropriately for the modern age. New Forms and Genres of Musical Theatre The earliest attempts at new forms of musical theatre can be discerned in the musical works in which scenic elements suddenly became extremely interesting. This approach is particularly characteristic of several works composed by John Cage (1912–1992). In his Living Room Music (1940), percussionists use objects that could be found in a typical living room to produce music. Stagings of this work usually include scenographic elements that represent a living room environment (sofa, chest of drawers, club table, etc.). In Cage’s Water Walk (1959) composition, the performer sets off a variety of sound sources that either contain water or are placed in it so that rathermundane, non-musical elements (e.g., a tea kettle, bathtub, blender, flowerpot, steaming pot, various other vessels) find their way onto the stage thus drawing the spectator’s attention not only to more familiar sounds but also, at times, to the rather absurd movements of the performer among various objects and everyday actions. Particularly significant in this respect is the piece 4’33" (1952), in which, through apparent silence, the composer liberates the most neglected sounds, usually completely ignored in a concert situation. Michael Nyman, however, reminds us that in this piece, the listeners’ attention perhaps “shifted from listening to something that wasn’t really there, to watching something that was” (72). Cage believes that music is not only what we hear but also all that we can see (Cage et al. 50) – it is a holistic experience of action, and thus for him, any “relevant action is theatrical” (Cage 14). Cage’s initial idea was later further radicalised by Dieter Schnebel (1930–2018) with his concept of visible music, a typical example of which is the composition Nostalgia (1962), written exclusively for a solo conductor who expressively waves their hands through the air, while there are no musicians on stage so that we are bereft of any aural stimuli. Cage also fulfilled his idea of a theatre that is everywhere around us in a happening that he staged at Black Mountain College in 1960. There he randomly linked different activities into a unified artistic action, which can be interpreted today as a precursor to both performance art (the performers lent their real bodies to the performance) and multimedia art (besides Cage and pianist David Tudor, other performers included dancer Merce Cunningham, painter Robert Rauschenberg and others). A similar step towards merging the arts, albeit less open, is also characteristic of instrumental theatre, of which the most renowned representative is Mauricio Kagel. His works include instrumental pieces in which, besides playing their instruments, musicians perform additional tasks of a more theatrical nature. This is how the gradual appropriation of the characteristics of individual arts began, as noted in Marianne Kesting’s famous article, with the telling title “Musicalisation of Theatre. Theatricalisation of Music”. Cage’s happening can already be understood as the musicalisation of theatre sincea composer arranged non-musical actions according to the logic of a precise temporal sequence, which is typically a musical operation. However, the term composed theatre (Rebstock and Roesner) is even more articulated. It deals with the treatment of voice, gesture, stage movement, light, sound, visual imagery, stage design and other elements of theatre production through composition techniques, i.e., musical thinking. Contemporary musical theatre, which merges stage compositions, instrumental theatre, happenings, performance, multimedia projects, composed, total and experimental theatre, draws on theatrical innovations that Gordon Craig, Vsevolod Meyerhold, Antonin Artaud, László Moholy-Nagy and absurdist theatre introduced into performances/projects in the 20thcentury. It differs from its predecessor opera not only in the sheer breadth of its genre range and the associated terminological ambiguity but, above all, in a series of dramaturgical shifts. Thus, contemporary musical theatre can no longer be understood as a representation of literature: we are often left without a clear plot; linear discursivity is disrupted in favour of fragmentation; language rarely performs its discursive function; and the theatre action itself is not necessarily narrative. Further, the stage action appears to be a metaphor rather than a simulation of reality, and the voice, which has represented the focal point of opera for over three centuries, is no longer a necessary prerequisite. The central focus becomes the physical presence of the performer/actor, who no longer functions as a real theatrical subject. Musical elements are no longer in the foreground, but instead, they are on par with theatrical elements. While this often leads to the merging of different kinds of arts, it is no longer according to Richard Wagner’s logic of Gesamtkunstwerk, or total work of art, where all the arts are combined into a single amalgamation. Darijan Božic in the Context of Modernism in Music in Slovenia Despite major shifts in the global production of musical theatre that were happening in the second half of the 20thcentury, the musical theatre oeuvre of Darijan Božic (1933–2018), which is the focus of our discussion, must firstbe observed within the context of Slovenian musical culture. Here, the end of World War II also represents a significant turning point. It could again be understood as a kind of “zero point”, but not so much in the senseof opposing the regime that triggered the cataclysm of the war. Instead, the “zero point” signifies the establishment of a new political system and a new ideology, which, following the Soviet example, initially attempted to control all social subsystems, including the arts. In this respect, however, the new politics were not very consistent, at least as far as music was concerned, which is a characteristically abstract type of art and thus ideologically rather ambivalent – on the one hand, it is hard to make it discursive, while on the other hand, for that very same reason, it is easy to stamp it with virtually any label (cf. Pompe, “Slovenian”). Thus, immediately after 1945, Lucijan Marija Škerjanc (1900–1973) became a leading figure in Slovenian music, despite dedicating his Symphony No. 3 (1941) to the Fascist Italian authorities in Ljubljana only a short time before that and basing his musical style deep in the emotional colouring of the 19th-century Salon style, making him the epitome of bourgeois sensibilities. A similar situation occurred in opera immediately after the war, as it appears thatthe first post-war season, in particular, was ostensibly monitored in terms of the repertoire, which meant that the opera gears continued to grind the same as before the war or in Western Europe. The only difference here was that the socialist politics apparently had no idea what to make of opera ideologically and gradually deprived it of financing, which led to the undermining of its social status (Pompe, “Na obrobju” 75), the consequences of which can still be felt to this day. Darijan Božic’s generation was lucky to escape the times of the most rigid agitprop. At the Academy of Music in Ljubljana, he found friends in a group of composers who strived first to carve out a space for their own pieces and then to go beyond the aesthetic horizons of their professors at the academy, who, following Škerjanc’s logic (which apparently did not clash with the doctrine of socialist realism) were still deeply rooted in the 19thcentury. Similar aspirations brought together young composers, who as early as 1961 had begun to associate privately, to form the group Pro musica viva, in which Darijan Božic worked alongside Ivo Petric, Alojz Srebotnjak, Jakob Jež, Kruno Cipci, Igor Štuhec, Milan Stibilj and Lojze Lebic (cf. Barbo, Pro musica). In his early work in the late 1950s, Božic’s critical attitude towards prevailing institutional models is apparent from the inspiration he took from jazz music, which was initially not very popular with the authorities. But then, at the very beginning of the 1960s, he moved towards the objectivity of the Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity)movement, which was soon followed by the decisive impulses that Slovenian composers got from their visit to the Warsaw Autumn Festival of Contemporary Music. There, they got wind of the second wave of post-war modernism, which had already surpassed the radicality of the first serial phase by incorporating controlled aleatorics. Božic’s compositions soon start to reflect this, and he characteristically draws on three seemingly different sources of inspiration. He is still strongly attracted by (1) the language of jazz, which he supplements with (2) his own harmonic theory, the so-called vertical structures (Božic, “Vertikalne”), for which he is indebted to the New Objectivity of Paul Hindemith and his textbook Unterweisung im Tonsatz (1937), adding to these also (3) the logic of collaged juxtaposition. Matjaž Barbo mentions these three elements as “a multilayered sonic collage of layered heterogeneous elements. His compositional language could thus perhaps best be characterised by the term collage sonore, which he often uses in the titles of his compositions” (Barbo, “Božic”). New Forms and Genres of Musical Theatre in Božic’s Work The collage technique seems to have been the starting point for the musical theatre work that appealed to him even before he committed himself to modernism. In 1958 and 1960, he thus created two classical operas, which still have not yet been staged. First, he wrote La Boheme 57 (originally entitled Ljubezen na Montmartru [Love in Montmartre]), based on the novella Quand on aime by Roland Dorgčles (1885– 1973). This opera was still conceived tonally, comprising clearly discernible musical motifs, repeated several times; some segments of the musical flow even develop into clear “numbers”. The composer’s motivation for choosing the plot is also quite evident, as it deals with a slightly modernised version of amorous intrigues in an artistic environment similar to the one that characterised Puccini’s famous opera La Bohčme. Božic’s second work, the one-act opera Spoštovanja vredna vlacuga (The Respectable Prostitute), was also inspired by French literature, specifically Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1905–1980) play of the same name. Here we can see a shift in the theme from melancholic amorous intrigues towards explicit social criticism, as the play raises issues ofracism, the relationship between men and women, and the relevance of honesty, as the prostitute turns out to be much more worthy than the presumably respectable townspeople. Although still formally an opera, there is a clear shift in the musical phrasing – here, as a kind of prelude to the later collage sonore, Božic juxtaposes cool jazz with the serial technique. The main characters (Lizzie, Fred and The Black Man) are identified by their respective leitmotif, with The Black Man’s motif including characteristic jazzy traits, Fred’s motif is structured as a twelve-tone series, and the composer also uses a duration series, indicating a desire to move away from dodecaphony towards serialism. However, the latter is not fully realised by completely relying on the structural automatism characteristic of leading European serialists in the 1950s. It appears as if Božic, in the time of New Objectivity, was writing his Zeitoper modelled on works from the 1920s and 1930s – in his opera, he tries to deal with the present, and that is why he also includes the sound of the present, which is represented by jazz forms as well as by the dance music broadcasted from a radio. It was already in these early operas that Božic’s interest in juxtaposing, mixing and collaging became obvious, so it is not surprising that he later developed this line further. Two genre-defying works of his could be seen as an exercise for larger musical theatre works. In the chamber piece Collage sonore (1966), we encounter a combination of the auditoryand the theatrical. The latterpart was performed by two reciters reading from Svetlana Makarovic’s book of poems Somrak (Twilight).In musical terms, Božic is split between jazz impulses, the twelve-tone method and a few minor aleatoric evasions. The composer introduces an additional element in the piece Trije dnevi Ane Frank (Three Days in the Life of Ana Frank, 1963), which, in addition to a reciter and a chamber ensemble, also includes a tape recorder and two electronic sound generators. The central focus of the composer’s attention appears to be the text, which he tries to soundtrack, which means that we are almost dealing with a kind of musical accompaniment for a radio show. These examples show that Božic was searching and digging for inspiration primarily at the intersection of the literary, theatrical and musical, most notably in the theatre, as seen by his frequent collaborations with theatre directors forwhom he composed stage music. A significant turning point in this respect was Božic’s collaboration with the director Mile Korun on the famous performance of Oresteja (Oresteia)at the Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana in 1968, which fortunately is sufficiently documented along with a preserved notation of the musical score (cf. Oresteia). Božic’s score forthis stage work includes vocal parts and several parts fora few easy-to-handle instruments (the continuous rhythmic pulsation of sounds made by stones must have been particularly impressive). As a whole, however, the score often resorts to characteristically simple aleatoric formulas, the repetition of tiny material fragments, arranged here in an archaic modal way to suggest some historically distant, i.e., ancient, space, and to simulations of “real” music (whining, whimpering, grating sand in the cemetery). It was probably his collaboration with Korun that made Božic realise that in the standard operatic repertoire, “the directormust yield to the score and adapt to the conductoras the foremost interpreterof the score. [...] While in contemporary theatre [...] the primacy of rehearsal management alternates between the conductorand the director” (Ažman 3). In his own words, he became an adherent of Korun’s non-literary theatre, which is no longer particularly special, neither in the visual arts nor in contemporary music. [...] I didn’t want to create an opera score that would be sufficiently sonorous in itself but rather a script (just like in a film) from which the performance creators would create the final image of the work. The music must not dictate or limit the stage action. Instead, it must offer the widest possibilities to the creators. To me, opera is not aboutmusic but about theatre in the proper meaning of the word. (Niko Goršic: “Zdaj in nikoli vec?”; qtd. in Strgar 35) Even before he started collaborating with Korun, Božic had created the musical theatre work Polineikes (Polyneices,1966), to which he attached the genre label collage drama. As musicologist Andrej Rijavec points out, this work was based on Dominik Smole’s play Antigona (Antigone, 1960)and“could be situated between a radio drama and a concert melodrama” (120). The music mainly supports the text, and one could hardly speak of its autonomy, even though the composer uses a unified logic of twelve-tone series divided into smaller units that function like submotifs and have no structural role. The music functions as a kind of backdrop to the recited text, which comes to the fore and is the vehicle of the dramatic and the thematic, while the music is relegated to the ambient background. His next work, Iago (1968), for eight performers and magnetic tape, based on Shakespeare’s play Othello and the novel Gottes zweite Garnitur by Willi Heinrich (1920–2005), was labelled as a happening. In the score, the composer himself outlined what he was aiming for this genre label: The happening should be performed as a ritual or as a children’s play, i.e., a performance in which the sequence of words, movements and motions is predetermined and known in advance, allowing only a few variations on the prescribed scheme. However, the intensity of the play should be maximised just like in the case of a ritual or in the case of children’s play, in which the actors (be it priests or children) and the spectators (the faithful or children) participate with full commitment. (Božic, Iago) In this piece which revisits the issue of racism, Božic deals with three levels of action: (1) the thoughts, wishes and desires of the main characters that are expressed through the spoken word (Desdemona and Othello, Iago as the title character does not appear at all, a clear influence of Smole’s Antigone); (2) sound, be it performed live or recorded on tape; while (3) three actors and actresses each create a scenic backdrop by moving around chairs, thus complementing the action. The label happening as applying to Iago ought to be understood as the composer’s desire for multimedia, as he scores both the text and the live sound, recorded sound, soundscape and light-gesture-movement combinations, which of course, does not exactly resonate with the genre notion of happening as envisaged by Cage, for whom the central focal point was the undefined, spatial-situational,real “live” action, rather than the mere juxtaposition of different levels of action and art. Singing is no longer in the forefront, as the main characters instead choose to speak. The musical material is similarly sparse, repetitive and rather heterogeneous (diatonic and blues scales, harmonic clusters, chords built following the logic of vertical structures, recorded, concrete sounds). The composer even mentions “organised improvisation” (Šlamberger 6). Two years later, the composer produced his most ambitious project till then, entitled Ares-Eros oz. Lizistrata praznih rok (Ares-Eros or Lysistrata of the Empty Hands, 1970), a musical-scenic play based on ancient Greek motifs, for which he wrote the text himself in the form of a montage of Aristophanes’ comedies Lysistrata and Peace. This work premičred at the Music Biennale Zagreb in 1971 (the composer conducted the orchestra of the Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet Ljubljana, while Mile Korun was the director) but did not receive favourable reviews. Here, the composer apparently combined all of the ideas he had developed as a composer of stage music, marginal examples of instrumental music connected to spoken parts, and new musical theatre experiments. The score is based on the idea of controlled chance operations, with individual simple melodic formulas in-between chromatic dodecaphony and the modality of antiquity, while the harmony relies on vertical structures. The mostly very diluted orchestral textures are interrupted by spoken parts so that the music again serves more to suggest the atmospheres rather than weave its own logic. This quality is not surprising, as the action is quite complex due to its density and is driven forward mainly by the recitatives. In contrast, the rest of the action seems rather ritual, particularly in the last act, conceived as a kind of Dionysia. His subsequent work, the opera-farce Lizistrata 75 (Lysistrata 75), again draws on the same comedy by Aristophanes. However, this time it was adapted by Smiljan Samec into an updatedlibretto in which the war between the Athenians and the Spartans is replaced by the football passion of the citizens of the two cities. Despite the new genre label, Božic conceived it according to the same dramaturgical strokes as his previous musical theatre works. In this regard, he found it important to emphasise in an interview that “this is neither an opera nor a drama, but a theatre performance somewhere halfway between these two genres. It is deliberately done this way, since in contemporary theatre, these two genres are increasingly converging” (Božic qtd. in Mracsek 4). The director ofboth productions of the opera (it was first staged at the Maribor Opera House in 1980 and later in 1997 at the Ljubljana Opera House), Jurij Soucek, also felt that genre considerations were of central importance and even went sofar as to describe the work as an anti-opera. He wondered whether “I should think ofDarijan Božic’s Lysistrata 75 as an opera-farce or as an anti-opera, or even a comedy with musical accompaniment, which is neither of the two” (Soucek 8) and then went on to write that hewas preparing a premičre of a “farcical non-opera” (9). Despite this genre positioning, an apparent attempt to catch up with modernist conceptions elsewhere in Europe, which, however, appeared rather stale in the late 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, the logic of Božic’s piece is again similar to that of his earlier works. A diluted – critics even noted that the composer used music primarily as punctuation (Ucakar, “Umetniški”) – modernist sound prevails, stemming from long restrained chords, often shaped in the form of sound clusters or “vertical structures”, aleatoric sequences and a renewed desire for collaged juxtaposition, most clearly manifested in the singing of football club anthems, backed by a brass band playing live on stage, and children’s songs performed by a children’s choir. Due to such a collision of the distinctly modernist (clusters) and the tonal and even pop culture (club anthem), this work appears to signal the first traces of postmodernism rather than being an anti-opera. Božic did not stop searching for a “new” genre, as the ever-new genre labels of his newly producedmusical theatre works suggest. Thus, in the same year as Lysistrata 75, he also conceived the concert drama Slovenske pesmi (Slovenian Songs), which is quite similar to Božic’s other work for theatre in general features. The label “concert drama”, in its duality, probably refers to the fact that these works are not primarily intended for a theatre stage but rather for a concert performance. On the other hand, in terms of dramaturgy, it is their dramatic or literary content that actually drives them forward. Thus, there are no dramatic characters in Slovenian Songs; the mezzo-soprano is not a role-bearer. The two announcers and reciters provide the narrative focus and develop typically Slovenian themes such as emigration, World War II and alienation, which also means that we are dealing with a critique of the world from a Slovenian point of view. The composer does not give up basic mise-en-scene elements – the score prescribes certain stage gestures for the performers (at the beginning of the “Peasant” movement, the composer adds the following instruction into the score: “the reciter sits, the singer stands – they are facing slightly away from each other”). In connection to the musical image, which is again quite sparse (the starting point is the material of the “Prelude”, which reappears on several occasions, consisting of a harmonic cluster, semitone shifts and a short interval series) and similar to the earlier, “more” stage works, we can see that, despite the new label/form/genre, Božic’s basic creative register has not really changed. In the following decade, Božic created four other quite similar concert dramas. In Bela krizantema (The White Chrysanthemum,1976), the composer assembles texts from Ivan Cankar’s works Martin Kacur, Hlapec Jernej and Bela krizantema into a textual “script”, as he calls it, in order to present to us the fateful figure of Cankar in relation to the Slovenian nation. A similar split between the public and the private also characterises his piece Maximilien Robespierre (1978), a concert drama based on the biographical novel Robespierre by Rudolf Harms (1901–1984), while at the centre of Štirinajsta (The Fourteenth, 1980) lies the story of the 14th Partisan Division. Here, the four recitersalso become role-players (the first one represents the political commissar of the division, Matevž Hace, the secondone is the commander, the third one first acts as one of the soldiers, but later a doctor, while the fourth one is the poet Karel Destovnik Kajuh). The work was written for the Revolution and Music Festival. Finally, in Slovenski visoki pesmi (Slovenian Song of Songs, 1983), the composer arranged the poems written by Matej Bor and Dragotin Kette into a dialogue between two lovers, akin to the biblical Song of Songs, where the sparseness of the music makes the work appear like a kind of background to a poetry reading. This was probably due to the conservatism of domestic opera institutions, which, despite Božic’s success with Lysistrata 75 in Maribor, were reluctant to take risks with modernist experiments in form, material, content and dramaturgy. A glance at the repertoire of the Ljubljana Opera House shows that from the 1970s on, it virtually stopped staging operas written in the 20th century (Pompe, “Repertoarna”). This was, perhaps, also the reason why Božic used a new, quite telling genre label for his next contribution to opera. In 1985 he completed a “music-scene project”, King Lear, which premičred the following year at the Opera and Ballet of Slovene National Theatre Maribor. But again, despite the new genre label, Božicstuck to his established practice, which he had roughly outlined as early as 1966 with his Polyneices. The text is once again a collage of excerpts from Shakespeare’s play King Lear, his sonnets and old English poems. This time the musical image itself was likewise designed in the manner of a collage, using pre-existing material, for which the composer borrowed songs from John Gay’s (1685–1732) famous work The Beggar’s Opera (1728), while Božic derived the orchestral music in some cases from his previous works Audiospectrum (1972) and Audiostrukturae (1973). Thus the composer devoted most of his originality to the story, in which the titular character is obviously mentally disturbed from the very beginning, which leads him to commit several heinousand bloody deeds. The entire dramaturgy of the work is woven around a number of dualities: live music is “countered” by the sound of an orchestral recording, spoken text by singing, the world of modernist music by medieval songs, vertical structures by harmonic clusters, all of which probably represent the clash of the real and the imaginary world. Božic adopted a very similarstrategy when conceiving his most comprehensive work Telmah(1989), forwhich he again invented a new genre label: musical-theatre happening in the theatre – afternoon, evening and late-night, in which we can find a synthesis of several models. “Happening in the theatre” clearly refers to Kagel’s flagship project State Theatre, in which visitors witnessed all kinds of actions taking place throughout the theatre building. Likewise, Božic aspired to make the entire ritual of coming to the theatre part of the performance.1The division into three parts of the day suggests a 1 In this respect, it is interesting to read the composer’s instructions for the interval: “The interval should not be an ordinary theatrical break between two acts, but a directed action. Ina certainsense, it makes part of the performance. It should be combined with sometypical Slovenian cultural event, such as a ‘book fair’, a major anniversary of someassociation (artistic photography, various musicians’ associations), etc. Aspecial event could also be organised for the occasion: e.g., an exhibition aboutthe life and work of Mirko Polic, Hinko Leskovšek or Niko Štritof. Itis also possible to include – as was the custom in Elizabethan times – performances by smaller theatre or musical groups (chamber ensembles, soloists). The audience’s attitude to the theatrical happening of ‘Telmah’ should be like that of the courtiers to the ‘Mousetrap’ in the play. Everything that is going on serves to relax the audience and prepare them for the banquet. After this comes dinner as if the host were Claudius orTelmah – not literally, of course. Thus, the interval between the two acts can last for a longer time. It helps to transform a conventionaltwo-hour performance into a theatrical happening that in the context of Shakespeare’s stories brings together both the performers and the visitors for the better part of the day: from the afternoon through the evening and late into the night”. trilogy modelled on the example of Wagner’s tetralogy Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung), which was conceived to take place overfour consecutive days, orperhaps even Stockhausen’s heptalogy Licht (Light), in which each unit is dedicated to one day of the week and accordingly bears its name. Božic again composed the text himself, using a montage of texts from various Shakespeare’s plays (Hamlet, Richard III, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, Love’s Labour Lost, Henry VIII, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Tempest, King Lear), his sonnets, and Robert Bolt’s (1924–1995) play A Man for All Seasons while using very little original musical material, this time resorting to the orchestrations of the motets from Jacobus Gallus’s (1550–1591) Opus musicum collection, which of course evokes the music from Shakespeare’s times. The extensive score also includes video and audio recordings – suggesting a desire for a broader multimedia approach – and the eclectic juxtaposition and collage of Renaissance music with modernist harmonic clusters, the twelve-tone method, jazz interventions and vertical structures. Thus this piece is closely dependent on postmodernism in style. Besides King Lear, Božic here also travesties Hamlet, wondering what would happen if the titular character did become King of Denmark after all. His answer is linked to the introduction of other Shakespeare’s plays, which shows that he assumes that Hamlet would take on the traits of Macbeth, Henry VIII and others if this were the case. Božic is confident that he is approaching the model of director’s theatre (Menart 48). Just like in King Lear, the opposition of disparate elements served Božic as a basis for his dramaturgical approach: The whole play isbuilt on combining theatrical elements “by two”, first of all, drama and music. The dramatic elements consist of scenes and the musical ones of movements. Furthermore, the play is structured into two parts: the first one focuses on the text and its dramatic build, while the second one focuses on the music with an operatic conception of staging. [...] The language is likewise subjected to a double treatment: spoken lines vs singing. The duality of the image: live action on stage vs film and TV clips. There are two ways in which the music is performed: live singing vs playing (reproduction of recordings). Furthermore, combining scored music (tradition) vs improvisation (free-jazz).2 The work is thus conceived in the traditional form of a number opera (see Table 1), i.e., consisting of individual, completed units, often based on Renaissance dances (almain, corant, sarabande, jig). At the same time, the composer is convinced that he has established the form of these parts symphonically.3Interestingly, the critics acknowledged the connection to postmodernism, with Tone Partljic noting that the play is a “postmodernist reproduction” (Hostnik Šetinc). However, the composer initially dismissed postmodernism as a label given to “many a thing that is trying 2 The folder with the compositions of Darijan Božic entitled “Opera” iskept inthe National and University Library in Ljubljana. 3 Božic writes that this is according to the logic “based on the construction of a symphony”. Cf. the score. to establish itself: from ignorance of the techniques of strict phrasing to the lack of knowledge about the twelve-tone system, to ‘computer music’ and any systems whatsoever. It is becoming rather messy” (Sajovic 4). But later, during the creation of Telmah, he nevertheless accepted it as “a relief where you can use any musical technique”, which is, in fact, what we can notice in this “musical theatre development” (Hostnik Šetinc). Table 1: The distribution of numbers in Božic’s Telmah (taken from the composer’s table of contents in the score). Act Title Act Title 1 INTRODUCTION 40 Agnus Dei / Coronation of Ophelia 2 Part One: INFANS – INTRADA 41 Sanctus / Coronation of Telmah 3 PICTURE 1 42 Gloria 4 SECOND IMAGE: almain 43 PICTURE XV: almain 5 DIALOG 44 Corant 6 CORANT 45 Dialogue 7 DRAMATIC SCENE 46 Sarabande 8 SARABANDE 47 Dialogue 9 DIALOGUE 48 Jig 10 JIG 49 PICTURE XVI: Telmah – third monologue 11 PICTURE III: dialogue 50 Love scene, Horatio is led to the execution – aria 12 FOURTH IMAGE: the Lords’ tipple 51 INTERLUDE 13 Dramatic scene 52 PICTURE XVII: Camp, soldiers’ choir 14 Telmah – first monologue 53 Telmah’s phantoms 15 The scene before the performance 54 Battle 16 THE MOUSETRAP 55 Erinyes 17 Telmah – second monologue 56 PICTURE XVIII: party at Ophelia’s 18 King Claudius: scene and aria 57 Fanfare 19 PICTURE V: recitative 58 Telmah – fourth monologue 20 INTERLUDE 59 Telmah and More 21 PICTURE VI: Polonius’ funeral 60 Telmah with the Erinyes 22 Ophelia – monologue 61 PICTURE XIX: The Sea and the King’s Dinner 23 PICTURE VII: scene on the tower 62 Scene and aria of the Bishop of York 24 PICTURE VIII: scene and aria of the Ghost 63 PICTURE XX: almain 25 The Werewolf 64 Corant 26 PICTURE IX: love scene 65 Sarabande 27 PICTURE X: duel 66 Jig 28 Dramatic scene and recitative 67 PICTURE XXI: Telmah kills Ophelia 29 FIRST FINALE 68 After the murder 30 INTERVAL 69 PICTURE XXII: scene and aria of the Queen 31 External introduction to Part II 70 PICTURE XXIII: a night on the tower 32 Internal introduction to Part II 71 TV clip: the Birnam Wood 33 Part Two: REX MORTIFER 72 Telmah with the dead mother 34 PICTURE XII 73 PICTURE XXIV: the dance of branches and knives 35 Fugatto 74 Telmah vs Malcolm 36 Performance by the actors 75 APOTHEOSIS 37 Hastings is being led 76 Conclusion – IN 38 Ophelia arranges to marry; Hastings is killed 77 Conclusion – OFF 39 PICTURE XIV: TE DEUM – Kyrie/ wedding There are two more “later” works worth mentioning, which apparently show that Božic did venture to do some additional theatrical experiments. He was, however, not overly satisfied, at least with the performance of Provokativne variacije (Provocative Variations, 1986), which is probably why he did not continue along this path. In fact, the work features the genre label “controlled improvisation of an artistic encounter”. The composer again edited various texts (poems by France Prešeren, Gregor Strniša, Ciril Zlobec, Ivan Minatti, aphorisms by Žarko Petan and an interview with the actor Radko Polic from Start magazine). The work unfolds as a conversation between the musician and the actor, who raise various topics and quote various writers. Later, the actor also involves the audience in the communication by provoking them with questions, such as what they think about having sex without love. Paradoxically, although the score allows both the actor and the musicians to act relatively freely, the composer was not satisfied with the performance, especially with Radko Polic’s acting,4even though Polic had performed brilliantly in Božic’s previous musical theatre works. This shows that deep down in his essence, Božic, despite his commitment to all things contemporary, open and experimental, nevertheless remained conservative and dependent on pre-established forms and solutions. Perhaps this is why in his last work, which could still be considered in the context of musical theatre, he moved towards another possibility for finding innovative solutions. Thus, he conceived Samorog (The Unicorn, 1992) as a “multimedia project”. He wrote it for the opening of an exhibition of animal sculptures by Janez Boljka (1931–2013) in the Arboretum Volcji Potok. It seems that, just like in King Lear and 4 The National and UniversityLibraryMusic Collection holdsa letter from the author to the actor, in which he explicitly accuses the latter of “spitting” on his art. Telmah, the composer is moving away from active composition and becoming more and more a kind of “director” of multimedia happening, i.e., he is transposing the idea of music collage to combining diverse kinds of arts. Thus he uses the text by playwright Gregor Strniša and once again also quotations from Gallus. However, what seems to be most important to him here is the spatial arrangement of the musical “happening” (the project took place outdoors), which attempts to take into account the characteristics of the location (see Figure 1), and the spectacular treatment of pyrotechnics. As Božic’s final contribution to musical theatre, The Unicorn can thus only be understood as further withdrawal from music and its complete assimilation to otherarts, which is a process that was evident already in the composer’s earliest modernist encounters with the stage. Figure 1: Ideas related to a specific location in Božic’s The Unicorn. Conclusion: double imbalance The overview of Božic’s musical theatre opus leaves us with a clear impression that the composer spent his entire career – from 1958, when he wrote his first, still classical opera, to 1992, when he completed his work in musical theatre with The Unicorn (although there is one more work that has been preserved, the composer’s own text for “a multimedia project based on the life of composer Jacobus Gallus, Ecce, Carniolus!”) – looking for the ideal genre and form, which would, of course, resonate as closely as possible with modernity, influenced in almost equal parts by Western European modernist musical impulses as well as his knowledge about the Slovenian theatre scene. Such searching and probing and commitment to all things contemporary, perhaps even “progressive”, is evidenced by a mere examination of the genre labels of Božic’s works: Table 2: Božic’s musical theatre works. Title Year of creation Genre label Boheme ’57 (Love in Montmartre) 1958 lyrical-comic opera A Respectable Prostitute 1960 one-act opera Polyneices 1966 collage drama Iago 1968 happening Ares-Eros (Lysistrata of the Empty Hands ) 1970 musical-scenic drama Lysistrata ’75 1975 opera-farce The White Chrysanthemum 1976 concert drama Maximilien Robespierre 1978 concert drama Fourteenth 1980 concert drama Slovenian Song of Songs 1983 concert drama King Lear 1985 musical-scenic project Hamlet 1985 musical-scenic project Provocative Meditations 1986 controlled improvisation of an artistic encounter Telmah 1989 musical-theatricalhappening in the theatre “Ecce, Carniolus!” (unfinished) (1992) multimedia project The Unicorn 1992 multimedia project Except for the label concert drama, which is a borderline genre, as it is positioned in-between theatre and the standard concert form, the composer has chosen a new label for virtually every new musical theatre project, while the only real change led from regularly including the term “drama” to replace it with the label “project”, which indicatesa shift from subordinating music to drama to increasingly including multimedia. However, a closer inspection of the works indicates that they are unusually similar in theirdramaturgicaland musical logic, despite the different genre labels and that Božic outlined the basic features already in Polyneices, his first modernist musical theatre work. It was there that he established a special relationship between the literary, the musical and the dramatic. The music increasingly recedes into the background. The content focus shifts to the text, which is usually spoken: the music is atmospherically adapted to the text, and all the dramatic accents also derive from it. The musicologist Andrej Rijavec already first noted that the expressive gravitas of Božic’s works is more dependent on the selection of text rather than on the musical parts (123). Paradoxically, Božic’s works, thus, rely heavily on the performances of dramatic actors or reciters, particularly, at least in the concert dramas The White Chrysanthemum and Maximilien Robespierre, on the excellentperformances by Radko Polic, even though he later failed the composer in his experiments that reached beyond the boundaries of the literary. There is, however, another paradox characteristic of Božic’s work. Although he downplayed the musical part and gave the literary text and dramatic action precedence over the music, he nevertheless constantly tried to realise his works in institutional opera theatres. The institutions, however, turned a deaf ear to contemporary music and modern theatrical approaches, be it at home or abroad (an important exception in this respect being the Hamburg State Opera between 1959 and 1973, when Rolf Liebermann (1910–1999) was its artistic director, who commissioned no fewer than 24 new works during that period). However, Božic never considered the possibilities of alternative venues, of a more intimate chamber music approach, of specialised ensembles for contemporary music, which indicates a curious cross-fertilisation of the institutional and the non-institutional. In other words: after a period during which they had to fight for recognition while at the same time deconstructing the traditional heritage of their professors, the leading Slovenian representatives of musical modernism gathered in the Pro musica viva group took over the very same institutional positions that were previously held by their opponents (Darijan Božic, for example, became the artistic director and general manager of the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra (1970–1974) and later general manager of the Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet Ljubljana (1995–1998)). Probably this refusal on the part of institutions to accept new musical theatre solutions forced Božic to invent the borderline genre of concert drama, exchanging the institution of opera for the classical concert stage – as symphony orchestras proved to be more open to contemporary experimentation. In this medium, Božic was able to realise his idea of the convergence of literature, drama and music. Thus, in the end, one could argue that the attempt to contextualise Božic’s musical theatre work indicates a double imbalance. In his musical theatre works, he fully prioritised the literary-dramatic elements, keeping the music at the level of accompaniment so that his musical theatre works are sometimes difficult to distinguish from stage music or musical accompaniment to a radio play. On the other hand, his search for new musical theatre genres indicates that he moved beyond the traditional opera institutions, which the composer nevertheless endeavoured to realise in those institutions. This resulted in his resignation and him giving up musical theatre and moving towards multimedia, which would later probably be followed by the next logical step, i.e., a retreat into the digital and the virtual. Thus, Božic’s work was not only a product of his character and time but also, to a large extent, of space. Literature Ažman, Tatjana. “Darijan Božic. Umetnik, ki verjame v svojo resnico.” Gledališki list SNG Opera in balet Ljubljana, 4 Nov. 1997, pp. 2–3. Barbo, Matjaž. “Božic, Darijan.” Slovenska biografija, http://www.slovenska-biografija. si/oseba/sbi1019960/#novi-slovenski-biografski-leksikon. Accessed 25 Sep. 2022. —. Pro musica viva. Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2001. Bedina, Katarina. “Nova slovenska opera.” Delo, 18 May 1971, p. 8. Božic, Darijan. “Ecce, Carniolus!” Nova Atlantida, vol. 2, no. 7, 1995, pp. 82–149. —. Jago. Edicije Društva slovenskih skladateljev, 1968. —. “Vertikalne strukture savremene muzike.” Zvuk, no. 67, 1966, pp. 163–188; no. 68, 1966, pp. 297–321. Brockmann, Stephen. German Literary Culture at the Zero Hour. Camden House, 2004. Cage, John. Silence. Wesleyan University Press, 1961. Cage, John, Michael Kirby and Richard Schechner. “An Interview with John Cage.” The Tulane Drama Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 1965, pp. 50–72. Danuser, Hermann. Die Musik des 20. Jahrhunderts. Laaber Verlag, 1984. Hostnik Šetinc, Majda. “Telmah ali Hamlet. Novo delo Darijana Božica.” Neodvisni dnevnik, vol. 38, no. 167, 1990, p. 9. Kesting, Marianne. “Musikalisierung des Theaters. Theatralisierung der Musik.” Melos, vol. 36, no. 3, 1969, pp. 101–109. Kreft, Mojca, ed. Oresteja ’68 [Oresteia ’68]. Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2008. Menart, Mojca. “In discreto. Skladatelj in dirigent Darijan Božic.” Teleks, vol. 46, no. 4, 1990, p. 48. Mracsek, Mira. “Lizistrata 75. Pogovor s skladateljem in dirigentom Darijanom Božicem.” Dnevnik, 3 Nov. 1980, p. 4. Nyman, Michael. Experimental Music. Cage and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, 1974. Pompe, Gregor. “Na obrobju. Delovanje ljubljanske Opere med letoma 1950 in 1960.” Ustanove, politika in glasba v Sloveniji in Srbiji 1945–1963, ed. Tatjana Markovic and Leon Stefanija, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, 2015, pp. 66–85. —. “Repertoarna analiza ljubljanskega opernega uprizarjanja od ustanovitve Dramaticnega društva do danes.” Vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališc. v 20. in 21. stoletju, ed. Jernej Weiss, Založba Univerze na Primorskem, 2019, pp. 351–372. —. “Slovenian music in the first decade after the Second World War – in search of socialist realism.” Muzikološki zbornik, vol. 54, no. 2, 2018, pp. 187–200. Rebstock, Mathias, and David Roesner. Composed Theatre. Intellect Books, 2012. Rijavec, Andrej. “Razsežnosti snovanja Darijana Božica.” Muzikološki zbornik, vol. 14, 1978, pp. 114–123. Sajovic, Irena. “Nekaj izjav skladateljev o Opatiji ’87.” Glasbena mladina, vol. 18, no. 1, 1988, pp. 3–4. Salzmann, Eric, and Thomas Desi. The New Music Theater. Seeing the Voice, Hearing the Body. Oxford University Press, 2008. Schmidt, Felix, and Jürgen Hohmeyer. “Sprengt die Opernhäuser in die Luft!” Der Spiegel, 25 Sep. 1967, pp. 166–174. Soucek, Jurij. “Lizistrata ’75.” Gledališki list SNG Opera in balet Ljubljana, 4 Nov. 1997, pp. 8–9. Strgar,Snežana. Operni opus Darijana Božica. Bachelor’s thesis. University of Ljubljana, 1988. Strobel, Heinrich. “Umwandlung oder Ende der Oper?” Melos, vol. 5, 1948, pp. 129– 133. Šlamberger, Snežana. “Zvok, enakovreden besedi.” Dnevnik, 24 Apr. 1970, p. 6. Ucakar, Bogdan. “Na pravem mestu.” Delo, 20 May 1992, p. 6. —. “Radiofonski Telmah.” Delo, 26 Jun. 6. 1991, p. 6. —. “Umetniški podvig.” Dnevnik, 20 Nov. 1980, p. 4. Žižek, Slavoj, and Mladen Dolar. Opera’s Second Death. Routledge, 2002. UDK 821.163.6.09-2“1966/1986“ DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/274-291 Izhodišce razprave je idejna in tematsko-motivna (torej znotrajliterarna) analiza besedil iz zbornika Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov: slovenski eksperimentalni dramski in uprizoritveni teksti iz obdobja modernizma (1966–1986). Namen prispevka je osvetliti izbrana besedila skozi perspektivo, ki mi je med njihovim prebiranjem v Generatorju umanjkala; gre za žensko perspektivo, pravzaprav za njeno odsotnost. Prispevek se ukvarja s posledicami, ki jih lahko ima odsotnost ozavešcenosti glede manka ženske perspektive v slovenski dramatiki na reprezentacijo žensk in ženskosti, zlasti ce gre za zabrisan ucinek patriarhalne ideologije, ki se prikazuje kot univerzalna in merodajna izkušnja, ceprav so izkušnje drugih spolov iz nje izkljucene. Namen prispevka je raziskati reprezentacije žensk(osti) v slovenski dramatiki in ozavestiti morebitno ucinkovanje patriarhalne ideologije ter njene posledice z idejno, tematsko in motivno analizo samih dramskih besedil. Pri tem se posebej posvetim razliki med moško in (maloštevilno) žensko dramsko pisavo. Besedila iz Generatorja vzamem zgolj kot študijo primera, da bi prikazala obstoj dolocenih simptomov v slovenski (eksperimentalni) dramatiki v danem casovnem obdobju (1966–1986). Razlike v reprezentaciji žensk(osti) na kratko osvetlim, razvojno gledano, tudi širše, s casovne distance, in sicer prek primerjalne analize s sodobno žensko dramsko pisavo, predvsem z dramoletom Nemi lik Simone Hamer (2010). Kljucne besede: slovenska dramatika, modernizem, eksperiment, ženska pisava, dramaticarke, reprezentacija žensk, ženskost Nika Leskovšek je doktorirala iz študijev scenskih umetnosti na Akademiji za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo Univerze v Ljubljani. Deluje kot raziskovalka, gledališka kriticarka in dramaturginja. Bila je selektorica in clanica žirij vec slovenskih gledaliških festivalov. Na UL AGRFT je izvoljena v naziv asistentka-raziskovalka za habilitacijsko podrocje dramaturgije in študijev scenskih umetnosti. nika.leskovsek@agrft.uni-lj.si Nemi liki: dramaticarke, ženska pisava in reprezentacija žensk(osti) v slovenskem dramskem eksperimentu (1966–1986) Nika Leskovšek Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza v Ljubljani Predgovor in poskus samokritike1 Odsotnost ženskih dramaticark v zgodovini slovenske dramatike (1966–1986) Izhodišce za pricujoci prispevek2 je bil zbornik Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. In sicer me je k pisanju razprave na temo reprezentacije žensk(osti), ki v slovenski dramatiki (tega obdobja) ironicno poteka skorajda brez ženske perspektive, spodbudila naslednja misel iz uvodnika urednika zbornika Blaža Lukana: V dramah in uprizoritvenih tekstih iz antologije namrec lahko prepoznavamo tematsko in jezikovno imaginacijo, resnicen dramskoeksperimentalni izbruh, ki ga lahko – vsaj tak je videz – po šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih v slovenski dramatiki identificiramo šele ali spet po letu 2000, s pojavom vrste izrazitih postdramskih imen zdaj že srednje in mlajše generacije piscev, tocneje pisk (npr. Simona Semenic, Simona Hamer, Iza Strehar, Varja Hrvatin). Posebej opozarjamna pojav pisk […], ki je v slovenski dramatiki novost, saj so bile desetletja v manjšini; v knjigo so uvršcena le tri imena, tudi v širšem izboru jih veliko vec ni bilo. (Lukan 27) Od tridesetih avtorjev oz. umetniških kolektivov, ki reprezentirajo obdobje med letoma 1966 in 1986, so v zbornik Generator umešcena tri ženska imena: Svetlana 1 Predgovor oz. »poskussamokritike« sem razvila v odziv na podlagi diskusijskih komentarjev na moj prispevek »Zakon III. branje« za Amfiteatrov znanstveni simpozij »Gledališki eksperiment na Slovenskem (1966–1986) in njegovi odmevi«. Knjiga oz. zbornik Generator je bil tudi miselno izhodišce pricujoce konference za premislek o eksperimentalni in slovenski dramatiki. Tukaj objavljena verzija razprave je predelana in nadgrajena v samostojno znanstveno in argumentativno podkrepljeno obliko.»Poskus samokritike« sicer izvira iz Nietzschejevega uvoda kRojstvu tragedije iz duha glasbe (dostopen v slovenskem prevodu (1995)), v katerem Nietzsche (samo)kriticno pokomentira, ovrednoti in tudi casovno umesti svoje delo 15 let po njegovem nastanku. 2 Raziskava Nike Leskovšek (šifra raziskovalke 39188) je vkljucena v raziskovalni program »Gledališke in medumetnostneraziskave« (P6–0376), ki ga (so)financira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proracuna. Makarovic, Ifigenija Zagoricnik in Brina Švigelj,3 kar je približno desetina oziroma deset odstotkov. To kaže na izrazito prevlado moških dramatikov.4Lukanov komentar sugerira, da sta bila neenakovredno razmerje med spoloma in pomanjkljiva zastopanost dramaticark v javnosti tudi realno stanje tistega casa. Vprašanje je, ali res lahko govorimo o dejanskem stanju ali pa gre pri pomanjkljivi zastopanosti dramaticark v zgodovini slovenske dramatike prej za posledico nereflektiranih ucinkov patriarhalne ideologije? V razpravi tako najprej pokažem statisticno porazdeljenost in reprezentacijo spolov na podrocju slovenske dramatike, vendar podatke o odsotnosti ženskih avtoric (pa tudi o odsotnosti ženske perspektive pisanja in ženske reprezentacije v javnosti) umestim v družbeno-casovni kontinuum in kontekst obdobja 1966–1986, da bi pojasnila, kako je do tega prišlo. Odsotnost raziskovanja vzrokov za »dejansko stanje« namrec zakriva delovanje (patriarhalne) ideologije in omogoca njeno nadaljnjo reprodukcijo. Nadalje v prispevku dokazujem, da tovrstna neenakopravna zastopanost spolov ni nedolžna. Historicno pomanjkanje zastopanosti ženskih avtoric in ženske pisave v polju slovenske dramatike pomembno vpliva na reprezentacijo žensk(osti), ki jo ustvarjajo in reproducirajo znotraj slovenske dramske pisave. Slednjo – zgodovinsko gledano – vecinoma zastopajo moški dramatiki, ti pa v dramski pisavi (navadno) zastopajo tudi moško perspektivo in ustvarjajo moško dramsko pisavo.5 V prispevku pokažem, kakšna je reprezentacija žensk(osti) v moški dramski pisavi tega obdobja na primeru besedil iz zbornika Generator – gre za slovenska eksperimentalna dramska besedila in naceloma krajše uprizoritvene tekste iz obdobja modernizma (1966–1986). Nato pokažem razlike med žensko in moško dramsko pisavo v besedilih, zbranih v isti publikaciji – zlasti torej opozorim na razliko v reprezentaciji žensk(osti) pri obeh pisavah: na nacin koncipiranja ženskih likov, (stereo)tipizacijo, oblikovanje podobe žensk(osti), kakšno miselnost, idejo in ideologijo, reproducira delo … V prispevku pokažem na potrebo po družbeni in casovni umešcenosti interpretacije tiste reprezentacije žensk(osti), ki se je, historicno gledano, množicno in nereflektirano reproducirala v slovenski dramatiki kot »dejansko« oz. »objektivno stanje«. Razprava temelji na idejni in tematsko-motivni analizidramskih besedil, torej na znotrajliterarni metodi raziskovanja dramatike, prej njenem »close readingu«. Za konec opravim še primerjalno analizo z dramskimi besedili iz sodobnosti, 3 Ifigenija Zagoricnik jepoznana tudi pod imenom Ifigenija Zagoricnik Simonovic; Brina Švigelj pa tudi kot Brina Švigelj Mérat oz. Brina Svit, kar obenem prica o podvrženosti ženskih imen dolocenim dogovornim, a vendarle družbeno spodbujenim spremembam, ki jim moška imena tega casa v veliki vecini niso podvržena. 4 Lektorja/-ico prosim, naj ne popravlja zanj/-o navidezne redundance pri izrazih »moški dramatik« in »ženska dramaticarka«, saj dejstvo izbire moškega spola kot gramaticno dominantnega v slovenšcini postavlja moški spol kot merodajen in univerzalen ter zabriše dejstvo izkljucenosti preostalih spolov iz govorne situacije. Poleg tega po Criado Perez (Nevidne) psihološko vpliva na izkušnjo dojemanja izkljucenosti žensk iz govorne situacije. 5 Ženskosti (pa tudi moškosti) oziroma spola ne dojemam kot biološke, pac pa kot fluidno performativno kategorijo (po Judith Butler: Težave s spolom: feminizem in subverzija identitete). Ceprav postane to zadnje v polnem pomenu in razvoju politik spola v dramskih besedilih povsem ocitno šele v kasnejšem obdobju, pri Zakonu III. branje, pred tem (v Generatorju) je prej izjema. zlasti z vidika reprezentacije žensk(osti), da bi utrdila differentio specifico besedil modernizma, ki se mi trenutno kažejo skozi odsotnost ženske perspektive in ucinek vladavine patriarhalne ideologije. Manko ženskih dramaticark Odsotnost javno evidentiranih dramaticark, omenjena v primeru zbornika Generator (Lukan 27), v slovenski dramatiki iz obdobja 1966–1986 potrdi tudi analiza podatkov iz drugih virov, denimo evidentiranih tekstov, ki so bili prijavljeni za nagrado Slavka Gruma. Grumova nagrada (ustanovljena 1978 in prvic podeljena 1979) je najvišje priznanje v polju slovenske dramatike; podeljena je letno za najboljše dramsko besedilo. Analiza podatkov za prvih dvajset let podeljevanja nagrade (podatki so iz brošure, izdaneob 40-letnici Tedna slovenske drame – TSD) mi razkrije naslednje stanje: v prvem desetletju obstoja Grumove nagrade (1979–1988) prijave ne presežejo pet prijavljenih avtoric na posamezno leto. Situacija je nespremenjena oz. po številu avtoric v drugem desetletju (1989–1998) celo slabša; število prijavljenih dramaticark upada. Leta 1991 je tako prijavljena samo ena avtorica, leta 1992 nobena; leta 1993 je prvic izjemoma prijavljenih šest avtoric, nato ponovno sledi upad. Pri tem se imena prijavljenih avtoric vecinoma ponavljajo: Svetlana Makarovic, Alenka Goljevšcek, Polonca Kovac, Jana Kolaric, Zlata Volaric, Alja Tkacev, Brina Švigelj, Vera Remic Jager, Jelena Sitar, Ivanka Hergold, Jana Milcinski, Zora Tavcar, Bina Štampe Žmavc (po enkrat so prijavljene še Anka Kolenc, Mateja Mahnic, Maricka Cilenšek, Regina Kralj …) (gl. Drnovšcek, Poštrak). Situacija se zacne nekoliko spreminjati šele v tretjem desetletju obstoja nagrade (1999–2008), tocneje po letu 2001, ko je prijavljenih sedemavtoric,6nato leta 2005 število prijav avtoric zraste na 11 in leta 2007 na rekordnih 15. Leto 2007 štejem za prelomno v vec smislih. Grumovo nagrado 1. aprila 2007 prvic v zgodovini TSD po 29 letih podeljevanja podelijo ženski avtorici, in sicer Dragici Potocnjak za besedilo Za naše mlade dame. Situacija se zdi še slabša pri nagradi za žlahtno komedijsko pero (torej za žanrsko doloceno dramsko besedilo), ki jo podeljujejo na festivalu Dnevi komedije v Celju od leta 1998 (vendar ne vsako leto). Tu ženska avtorica prejme nagrado prvic (in doslej tudi edinic) šele leta 2018; nagrada gre Izi Strehar za Vsak glas šteje (»Nagrade festivala Dnevi komedije«). Pomanjkljiva zastopanost ženskih avtoric v raziskovanem obdobju se potrdi tako pri evidenci oz. številu prijavljenih besedil kot pri uspešnosti prodora v nagrajevalne mehanizme. Situacija se zacne spreminjati šele v tretjem desetletju obstoja Grumove nagrade (1999–2008). 6 Upoštevala sem samostojna dela ženskih avtoric, navajam število prijavljenih avtoric. Število prijavljenih besedil (avtoric) je pogosto višje, saj so se avtorji (ne glede na spol) pogosto prijavljali z vec razlicnimi besedili. Zakaj (pri prijavah za Grumovo nagrado) ni ženskih dramaticark? Za bolj celostno sliko vzrokov za majhno število dramaticark, prijavljenih na natecaj za Grumovo nagrado, in za majhno število v javnosti uradno evidentiranih dramaticark v sedemdesetih, osemdesetih in devetdesetih letih je treba upoštevati dodatne dejavnike in umešcenost v casovni in družbeni kontekst. Na delu so kompleksnejši procesi, kot jih kaže zgolj statistika. Najprej je tu dejstvo, da je bila tri- do štiriclanska žirija, ki je ocenjevala prijavljena besedila, do leta 1995 sestavljena izkljucno iz moških clanov (torej v vseh prvih 17 letih obstoja nagrade). Leta 1995 vstopi v triclansko žirijo Ignacija Fridl kot prva in edina ženska, šele leta 1999 sta v petclanski žiriji prvic dve žirantki: Marinka Poštrak in Tea Štoka. Drugo dejstvo je, da je marsikatera avtorica ustvarjala mladinsko literaturo, besedila ali pesmi, namenjene otrokom oz. mlajšemu obcinstvu, po poklicu so bile tudi igralke, lutkarice, mladinske pisateljice ipd., ki so s prijavo iskale tudi potrditev, legitimacijo in profesionalizacijo dolocenih žanrov in tipov dramatike (nekaterih namenjenih tudi mlajši publiki). To je prvi pokazatelj, da je imela ženska pisava svoje teme in posebnosti, za katere v (moški) žiriji tistega casa ni bilo posluha.7 Moška prevlada, celo monopol na podrocju slovenske dramatike (tako po številu na natecaje prijavljenih dramatikov kot po strokovnem obvladovanju polja), percepcija dramatika kot moškega poklica, pomanjkanje posluha za dolocene (ženske) teme in avtoricam ustvarjalkam nasploh nenaklonjen položaj v družbi (vecinoma so bile žene in matere, ki jim je za ustvarjanje zmanjkovalo casa) so dejavniki, ki so avtorice odvracali od prijav ali celo samega ustvarjanja.8Pokazatelj tega je tudi upad števila prijavljenih dramaticark v drugem desetletju obstoja nagrade, kar kaže na doloceno nezaupanje v institucionalne nagrajevalne mehanizme s strani avtoric. Na to, da spol ni igral nevtralne ali zanemarljive vloge pri prijavah in nagradah, kaže tudi nenaden porast anonimnih prijav oz. prijav pod šifro. Da ne gre za golo prikritje identitete, pac pa je ta odlocitev motivirana po spolu, kaže podatek, da se leta 2004 na tecaj ni prijavila nobena avtorica, bilo pa je vsaj deset prijav z identiteto pod šifro(recimo: »Šifra Janezek«, »Šifra Lojze« ali pa kar anonimni avtor).9 Kljub naceloma anonimnemu procesu izbora10je porast anonimnih oziroma dodatno šifriranih prijav 7 Trenutno je prijava na Grumovo nagrado omejena zgolj na besedila za odraslo obcinstvo. 8 S historicnim pomanjkanjem (slovenskih) ženskih ustvarjalk na podrocju literature, sicer najvec na podrocju romana oz. pripovedništva, in z razlogi zanj se je sicer precej ukvarjala Silvija Borovnik v Pišejo ženske drugace? (1995), na vec mestih pa tudi Katja Mihurko Poniž, denimo Zapisano z njenim peresom: prelomi zgodnjih slovenskih književnic s paradigmo nacionalne literature (2014) in pa Od lastnega glasu do lastne sobe: literarne ustvarjalke od zacetkov do modernizma (2001). 9 Edina uradno prijavljena avtorica tistega leta je sicer Martina Šiler, vendar z drugo verzijo svojega besedila Reykjavik, ki ga je prijavila že leto poprej. 10 Identiteta avtorjev je v tem obdobju podeljevanja Grumove nagrade žiriji naceloma nepoznana, saj se je ob prijavi besedila ime avtorja oddalo v loceni kuverti, razen ce ni šlo za že uprizorjeno ali javnosti znano besedilo, denimo v primeru samodejne uvrstitve nominirancev v ožjem izboru preteklega leta v tekmovanje naslednje leto. opazen vsaj od leta 2001. Svojevrstno dodatno zadrego v zadevi spolne pristranskosti (angl. gender bias) pri nagrajevanju je povzrocila Žanina Mircevska leta 2009, ko se je na natecaj prijavila pod moškim psevdonimom Tomi Leskovec ternato istega leta Grumovo nagrado tudi osvojila skupaj s Simono Semenic. Skupaj sta v tridesetih letih obstoja nagrade postali šele drugi ženski, za Potocnjakovo, ki sta prejeli Grumovo nagrado. Prevlada patriarhalnega diskurza v literaturi in literarni teoriji Na to, da ne gre za posebnost niti slovenske dramatike niti širše (slovenske literature in literarne zgodovine), kažejo sledece analize fenomena ženske pisave. Silvija Borovnik v svoji študiji Pišejo ženske drugace?, ki se naslanja predvsem na nemško govoreco teorijo in prakso, pokaže, da gre za prevlado patriarhalnega diskurza na literarnem podrocju. Že Manfred Jürgensen na zacetku osemdesetih let dvajsetega stoletja ugotavlja, da je »recepcija ženske literature vsaj v nemško govorecem prostoru še vedno zavezana patriarhalnemu literarnozgodovinskemu konceptu« (nav. po Borovnik 12). Sigrid Schmid Bortenschlager nato še konec osemdesetih opozarja, da je bila ženska literatura izkljucena iz (znanstvene) literarnozgodovinske obravnave, saj je veljala »za manjvredno, za trivialno« (nav. po Borovnik 14) – pripominjam, da bi na to podrocje spregledane in omalovaževane ter iz znanstvenega diskurza izkljucene ženske literature lahko v slovenski dramatiki, denimo, umestili tudi besedila, namenjena otrokom in mladostnikom. Renate Wiggershaus ugotavlja še pomanjkanje zastopanosti ženske literature v izborih in literarnozgodovinskih pregledih – z redko izjemo tistih del, kjer so protagonisti vecidel moški, tako da se lahko žirija z njimi identificira (nav. po Borovnik 16). Borovnik navaja še pomanjkanje prevodov ženske literature v tuje jezike, kar vse pomaga k ustvarjanju in utrjevanju »splošnega vtisa, da pišejo kakovostno literaturo vecinoma moški« (prav tam). Odsotnost žensk v odlocevalnih mehanizmih – dolocanje moškega pogleda kot univerzalnega Da imata sistemska neenakost in podzastopanost ali celo odsotnost žensk odlocilne posledice za življenja žensk širše, in to ne samo na podrocju dramatike – dodajam: to vpliva tudi na reprezentacijo žensk in ženskosti – pokaže britanska avtorica Caroline Criado Perez, ki se posveti primeru analize odsotnosti žensk v odlocevalnih mehanizmih in delovni praksi. Po analogiji prikaza ucinkovanja patriarhalne ideologije – kar je posredna tema tega prispevka – jih lahko postavljam v razmerje bodisi s prevlado patriarhalnega diskurza v literaturi (Borovnik 12–16) bodisi z odsotnostjo ženskih strokovnjakinj v nagrajevalnih in selektivnih mehanizmih, denimo pri Grumovi nagradi. Criado Perez v svojem obsežnem raziskovalnem delu Nevidne: kako vrzeli v podatkih in raziskavah oblikujejo svet po moški meri na podlagi številnih mednarodnih statisticnih podatkov iz vsakodnevnega življenja analizira, kako podzastopanost žensk v politikah moci povzroca (statisticne in dejanske) vrzeli v podatkih. Ženske in njihova perspektiva so namrec navadno pomanjkljivo zastopane ali celo odsotne v posvetovalnih in odlocevalnih mehanizmih, s tem pa njihov položaj ostaja spregledan, dolocen kot nebistven, obroben. Izkljucenost ženske pozicije iz odlocevalnih mehanizmov in sistemov reprezentacij posledicno ustvarja vtis, da je moška pozicija nevtralna, vecinska, kar pomaga oblikovati in nadalje utrjevati svet po patriarhalnem merilu. Problem nastane torej, kadar sta moška perspektiva in pogled v uradnih podatkih predstavljena kot merodajna ter kot izhodišce za posploševanje in univerzalno izkušnjo. Vendar je pomembno priznati in opozarjati, da ne gre za univerzalno izkušnjo, saj je izkušnja drugih spolov iz tega izkljucena.11 Na podrocju slovenske dramatike (vsaj med letoma 1966 in 1986) – kot je prikazano v prejšnjem poglavju – so dolgoletna izkljucenost ženskih predstavnic iz vrst strokovnjakov oz. odlocevalnih organov pri podeljevanju Grumove nagrade, posledicno pomanjkanje priznanja pomena dolocenih »ženskih tem« teržanrov za razvoj slovenske dramatike pa tudi pomanjkanje podpore (nadaljnjemu) ustvarjanju ženskih avtoric in zmanjševanje njihove vidnosti v javnem prostoru prispevali k obstoju in širjenju patriarhalnega diskurza na podrocju dramatike. To pa pomaga utrjevati ne le prepricanje, da je kakovostna dramska pisava izkljucno v moški domeni (29 let brez ženske nagrajenke), pac pa omogoca tudi številcno prevlado moške dramske pisave.12Analiza prevlade in delovanja patriarhalne ideologije kot pomembno vzpostavlja zavedanje, da reprezentacija žensk in ženskosti, kakor se je množicno reproducirala skozi vecinsko moško dramsko pisavo v Sloveniji (v obdobju modernizma), ne predstavlja objektivne ali univerzalne izkušnje, saj ne vkljucuje izkušenj drugih spolov. Pomembno je priznavati in ozavešcati razlike med moško in žensko dramsko pisavo ter enostransko reprezentacijo žensk(osti). Poglejmo torej, kako sta reprezentirani ženska in ženskost, zlasti kot se kažeta skozi oblikovanje ženskih likov na konkretnih primerih moške pisave. Primeri moške dramske pisave na analizi besedil iz Generatorja V tem poglavju analiziram izkljucno tekste, ki so nastali v avtorstvu danes uveljavljenih moških dramatikov, pesnikov ali kolektivov v vecinsko moškem sestavu iz zbornika Generator.13Analiza ženskih likov in ženskih vlog pri prvem, 11 Podoben problem politik spola predstavlja tudi uporaba moškega spola kot gramaticno dominantnega. Criado Perez pokaže, da taka uporaba moškega spola kljucno vpliva na našo percepcijo in dojemanje ter, denimo, na izkljucenost preostalih spolov iz jezikovne situacije, zato nikakor ne gre za nevtralno obliko rabe. 12 To so posredno (ironicno) omogocale tudi ženske s prevzemanjem vlog njihovih žena in mater. 13 Po formalni in žanrski opredelitvi gre za hepeninge, poetizirane dramolete in serije navodil (oz. scores). površinskem pregledu nekaterih nakljucno izbranih gledaliških tekstov mi razkrije naslednje reprezentacije žensk(osti). Primer iz prve izbrane igre. Prva podoba ženske, ki se pojavi v igri, je dama v vlogi umetniškega modela, ki pozira za akt, pri cemer »se zelo trudi, da bi posnemala znani Modiglianijev model« (Lukan, Generator 79). Ob tem je v navodilu igre eksplicitno pripisano: »Ta prizor naj v nobenem primeru ne moti ostalega dogajanja na odru« (prav tam). V taistem tekstu se med ženskimi liki pojavi šeigralka, ki »ljudi, ki jim ni do športa, navdušuje za petje« (80), in pa balerina. Edini ženski liki, ki se pojavijo v tej dramski igri, so torej zasedeni v vlogah golega (slikarskega) modela, igralke, ki prepeva, in balerine. Naj opomnim, da so vsi ženski liki tudi nemi, torej niso verbalno reprezentirani (z izjemo prepevanja). V naslednjem gledališkem tekstu/dramoletu iz Generatorja ženski lik v celoti umanjka. V še naslednjem pa zasledimo tako žensko podobo: »Pojavi se gol ženski hrbet. Nanj se projicirajo gole ženske prsi. Oboje se združi v hrbet s prsmi. Hrbet miruje, dojki skaceta« (88). Podoba oziroma reprezentacija žensk, ki si jo lahko bralka/-ec izriše iz teh nakljucno izbranih dramskih del moške pisave iz Generatorja, je bodisi lik, ki je povecini nem, anonimen in zamenljiv, nima posebnih razlocevalnih karakteristik, bodisi gre v drugo skrajnost in je reprezentacija ženske v popolnosti odsotna: ženski lik se v dramoletih sploh ne pojavi, saj liki in teme žensk(osti) niso v ospredju, avtorjev ne zanimajo, posledicno pa ženski liki v teh igrah v celoti izostanejo. Ženski liki se v teh dramskih delih pojavljajo kot nezanimiva, manjkajoca, celo nepotrebna plat. V teh primerih moške pisave iz Generatorja gre poleg tega za splošceno, senzualizirano, mestoma seksualizirano in objektivizirano podobo ženske, ki je najraje reducirana na vizualni ucinek lepe zunanjosti, telesnosti, pogosto celo golote. Ženske v teh besedilih nimajo odlocilnih ali aktivnih vlog, njihove vloge so raje omejene na podporno funkcijo hipnih impresij, ki naj se dogajajo nekje v ozadju za morebitno popestritev dogajanja, pri cemer pa naj raje ne motijo osrednjega dogajanja. Analiza nadaljnjih primerov reprezentacije žensk iz Generatorja tovrstno podobo in ucinek le še potrjuje. Ženske se najveckrat pojavljajo kot prostitutke ali (vulgarno) kar kurbe, zasedene so v vlogah seksualnega objekta, žrtve spolnega, verbalnega ali fizicnega nasilja, pogosta vloga, ki jo zasedajo, so še matere, mestoma (redkeje) nastopijo tudi kot žene pa tudi kot ljubice oziroma priležnice. Ženske se v drugih tekstih moških avtorjev iz Generatorja pojavijo še v naslednjih vlogah: Punca v vlogi žrtve (skorajšnjega) posilstva (Generator 31–6), podoben motiv se pojavi vsaj še enkrat (prav tam 241), lik »Ženska z golimi prsmi« (prav tam52–60): »Vstopi ženska z golimi prsmi: Mleko, sveže mleko, pijte moje mleko, pijte ga, pijte samo sveže mleko, pijte samo moje mleko! Se sprehaja po sobi. Vstopi plešec. Sedeta na tla. Plešec jo poboža po prsih, nato pije njeno mleko« (59). Na nekem drugem mestu beremo: »Saj vendar ne boste zanikali, da je ženska z razparanimi prsmi ali pa brez njih zanimivejša od ženske, ki je v vseh pogledih normalna« (63). Pojavi se tudi naslednji citat: »Invalid brez penisa: 'Vse kurbe pred puško! Ja, kar vse dajmo pred zid! Še prej pa tristooseminšestdeset dedcev cez njih. Naj pocrkajo prasice! In moja naj bo prva!'« (65), ali pa denimo: »MOŠKI GLAS I: Fuj pa ženska poezija! To je fakt« (258). Edina izjema, ki izstopa v pozitivnem smislu in dodobra prevetri spolna razmerja ter se že z vzdevkom oz. nadimkom poigrava s spolno identiteto, je »Andrej Rozman imenovana Roza« in njegovo/njeno besedilo »Odkar sem tajnica dvojno življenje živim (izpoved)« (prav tam 322). Doloceni teksti pri igralskih vlogah upoštevajo vsaj nacelno enakost med spoloma.14 Vpreostalih dramskih delih iz Generatorja so podobe ženske oz. ženskih likov odsotne, s tem pa sploh umanjka reprezentacija žensk(osti) kot taka. Tam, kjer se pojavijo, je ženskih likov manj kot moških in imajo tudi manj teksta. Pri analizi so bili upoštevani vsi teksti izpod moškega peresa v zborniku, torej vseh 55 besedil (od skupno 58). Pravzaprav je zastopanost ženskih avtoric v zborniku še nižja, saj so moški avtorji povecini zastopani z vec besedili. Torej lahko govorimo o petodstotni zastopanosti ženskih besedil v zborniku. Poudarjam, da so v moški pisavi ženski liki po vecini nemi (tudi brezimni, anonimni). Vteh dramoletih jim ni niti podeljena možnost govora, s cimer sta jim odvzeti lastna beseda in možnost artikulacije lastnega položaja in vloge.15 Neenakopravna reprezentacija žensk – nemi liki Ne gre pozabiti podatka, da je tovrstna reprezentacija žensk in ženskosti znotraj t. i. moške pisave v tem casovnem obdobju (1968–1986), kot ravnokar analizirana v Generatorju, številcno prevladujoca. Neenakopravna zastopanost spolov in njene posledice se kažejo tudi na drugih podrocjih umetnosti in v javnosti nasploh. Podatke navaja denimo prispevek Maje Kac »Spominjanje žensk v javnem prostoru: 'Dokler o njih ne govorimo, jih ne spravljamo v zavest'«. Podatki, ki jih v svetovnem merilu navaja Criado Perez v svoji obsežni študiji Nevidne, niso bistveno drugacni. Podatkov konkretno za gledališce oziroma dramatiko avtorica sicer ne navaja. Vendar je iz številnih in raznolikih primerov, ki jih poda, moc sklepati, da so ženski liki v širših vsakodnevnih situacijah in tudi v umetniških medijih podzastopani, celo odsotni ali pa pogosto nemi, kar pomeni, da ne govorijo oziroma nimajo pravice do svojega glasu, in to celo, kadar je ženska v vlogi glavnega protagonista. Glede nemosti žensk in pomanjkljive (verbalne) zastopanosti žensk na podrocju 14 Sem bi lahko sodile, denimo, Limite Milana Jesiha, Pupilija Ferkeverk in Zaspancek Razkodrancek Tomaža Kralja, Radijska igra za pet glasov Iztoka Osojnika ter Minutni dramski teksti Gledališca sester Scipion Nasice. 15 »Egist: Az bla na vrt? Vida: Ja. Egist: As vidla smrt? Vida: Ja Egist: No, po s pa lahko tih!« (Generator 316) umetnosti, vecinoma filma in televizije, Criado Perez ugotavlja naslednje. Z analizo spolne zastopanosti/reprezentacije likov v filmih, primernih za otroke (predvajanih med letoma 1990 in 2005), »je prišla do spoznanja, da je bilo ženskega spola samo 28 % likov, ki govorijo« (Criado Perez28–29).16Nadalje analiza pokaže ne le, da imajo moški vec vlog, imajo tudi dvakrat oziroma trikrat daljšo minutažo (kadar je v glavni vlogi moški lik, kar je vecinoma) (prav tam). »Moškim vrh tega pripada vecje število vrstic in v celoti govorijo vec ko ženske; trikrat vec govorijo v filmih, v katerih so protagonisti moški, ter skoraj dvakrat vec v filmih z moškimi in ženskimi stranskimi vlogami« (prav tam). Podobnih podatkov, ki kažejo na neenakosti med spoloma ter potrjujejo vecinsko zastopanost moških v filmih in kinematografih ter na televiziji (po prisotnosti, številcni prevladi, vidnosti in verbalni zastopanosti), je še vec. Podobno (spolno) neuravnotežena situacija se kaže pri analizi spolne zastopanosti na kipih, bankovcih, celo v porocilih (radijskih in televizijskih ter casopisnih medijev) in ucbenikih (prav tam).Zastopanost žensk je zgolj 24-odstotna: gre za ženske, ki jih poslušamo ali o njih beremo (radio, TV in casopis) (prav tam 30). To je podatek za svetovno raven. Podatek za Slovenijo bi znal biti še nižji. Primer iz Registra nepremicne kulturne dedišcine na Slovenskem po clanku Maje Kac navaja podatek: od 233 kipov na Slovenskem jih je spominu žensk posveceno le deset; 223, torej 96 odstotkov, pa moškim (Kac). Ženska pisava – razlocevalne karakteristike Glede karakteristik ženske pisave – Borovnik jo sicer imenuje ženska literatura, pri cemer gre za literaturo izpod peresa ženskih avtoric – Silvija Borovnik ugotavlja, da je šele ženska pisava tista, ki pogosto izpricuje slabe pogoje dela in okolišcine, v katerih nastaja, razkrinkava zgolj navidezno enakopravnost med spoloma, nacenja ženska vprašanja in je tako tesno povezana z družbenim položajem žensk (24-5). Borovnik v svoji razpravi Pišejo ženske drugace? tako ugotavlja in utrdi zavest o tematski razliki med moško in žensko pisavo: »Tematski razpon pa je gotovo tisto podrocje, kjer je o 'moškem' in 'ženskem' v literaturi še najlažje govoriti« (227). Pri tem se mi zdi pomembna ugotovitev Borovnik o tematski razširjenosti zadev politicnega in usode naroda pri moški pisavi, medtem ko se pri ženski pisavi kaže njena povezanost s feministicnim gibanjem, bojem za emancipacijo žensk terz osebnim oz. zasebnim, ki je politicno (prav tam). Borovnik ugotavlja še, da tako ni nenavadno, da se ženska pisava oblikuje sprva kot izkustvena literatura, z veliko mero avtobiografskega in izpovednega, pri cemer pogosto (iz osebne, avtenticne izkušnje s prvoosebno izpovedjo) protestira proti družbeno reproducirani patriarhalni podobi ženske ter tako vzpostavlja ženske kot subjekte (224-5). Borovnik še dodaja, da se ženska pisava pogosto zateka v prijeme humornega, absurdnega in 16 Delo Nevidne sicertemelji na medkulturni primerjalni analizi in številnih mednarodnih statisticnih podatkih, ki obsegajo analize razlicnih vsakodnevnih življenjskih situacij. Prvotno objavljena v letu 2019, se opira na najsodobnejše (statisticne) podatke in študije (slovenski prevod je izšel leta 2022 pri založbi UMco). groteske ter ironije (243). Iz vsega tega je mogoce sklepati, da šele znastopom ženske pisave pride do ozavešcanja problematike podreprezentiranosti žensk, poudarjanja specificnosti njihove robne (ustvarjalne) pozicije ter ideološkega ustvarjanja nemosti ženske pozicije v javnosti. Navadno zaradi preprostega razloga, ker avtorjev vecinsko moške pisave te teme niso zanimale, niso bile del njihove (osebne) izkušnje in niso cutili potrebe po njihovi legitimaciji. Zaradi podreprezentiranosti ženske dramske pisave izostane iz dramatike cela plejada ženskih tem, pogosto tudi vzpostavitev ženskih likov kot polnokrvnih subjektov. Razliko med moško in žensko pisave je zaznati že v maloštevilnih primerih ženske pisave iz zbornika Generator. Poglejmo primere. Primeri reprezentacije žensk(osti) v ženski dramski pisavi iz zbornika Generator Vnasprotju z moško pisavo v zbornikuGenerator pri vseh ženskih avtoricah pridejodo besede in govora ženski liki z vsebino. Pri obeh avtoricah, Brini Švigelj in Ifigeniji Zagoricnik, zanimivo, iz klasicnega evropskega dramskega repertoarja Ofelija oz. anticna kraljica Klitajmestra. Motivi, ki se pojavljajo v ženski pisavi izGeneratorja, so si med seboj zacuda podobni:17carovništvo, grmade, lov na carovnice, sojenja in carovniški procesi, ženske so postavljene v vlogo žrtev, žrtvovanja, pogosta so zapiranja in zamejevanje svobode, spolne in fizicne zlorabe, ki so pri dramski obdelavi zamaskirane v prispodobe, crpajo iz fantasticne, pravljicne, ljudske motivike ali uporabljajo mitološke like. Pri Ifigeniji Zagoricnik v igri stepping outside she is free se v središcu vecstoletnega lova na carovnice znajde Klitajmestra. Odlomek se zakljuci s prasketanjem grmade, ki caka Klitajmestro v družbi z ostalimi ženskami (ksenijo, ksantipo, njeno materjo in materjo božjo). Podobno sev igri Svetlane Makarovic Starci: igra v osmih slikah (Generator 128) pojavi motiv carovništva, carovniškega procesa in lik carovnice Oranžne, ki dela oblake, veter in soncnice – pomemben je motiv (carovnicine osebne) svobode. Prisotne so pravljicna in fantasticna motivika in variacija motivov in likov ter spolne zamenjave, denimo carovnice iz Janka in Metke. Zlobna starca sta tista, ki mlade žrtve zapirata v kletke in se napajata z njihovimi sanjami in mladostjo – pojavi se tudi motiv femicida: od žrtve ostane le še zoglenelo, razbito in zmrcvarjeno truplo, pri cemer ponovno poudarjam brezimnost žrtve.18»Pa še vceraj sem bila Marjetica, danes pa nimam vec imena, ali ni cudno, v tem mrazu« (prav tam 143). Pri avtoricah je zaznati doloceno mero osebne izpovednosti in avtobiografskosti, vsebinsko in besedno poigravanje z znano motiviko iz klasicnega dramskega repertoarja in anticne grške mitologije ali klasicne tragedije (Klitajmestra, Ofelija) 17 Zacuda zato, ker ne gre za programsko usklajena, pac pa za individualizirana in naknadno skupaj nabrana besedila. 18 V igri Makaroviceve mrgoli vlog, ki veljajo za stereotipe nacionalnega psihološkega karakterja, denimo posesivne patološke matere, na drugi strani pa izobcenih (ostarelih) carovnic brez otrok. ter predelavo na oseben avtorski nacin. Pri Makarovicevi je, denimo, opazen njen prepoznavni stil iz pesniškega in baladnega ustvarjanja ter iz predelav ljudske motivike (deklic, sirot/desetnic), prevlada temacne atmosfere, krutih prispodob, dolocenih iteracij (»v tem mrazu«) ipd. Ifigenija Zagoricnik uporabi lik kraljice Klitajmestre, pri cemer avtoricina vpeljava žrtvovanja – carovniški proces s sežigom na grmadi – tudi zaradi imena Ifigenije19 kot Klitajmestrine hcere priklice raje osebnoizpovedni ucinek in avtobiografskost prekvašenja razlicnih motivov iz anticne grške tragedije in mitologije, denimo kombinacijo izvornega (Agamemnonovega) žrtvovanja Ifigenije (po motivu iz Evripidove Ifigenije v Avlidi, prev. K. Gantar) ter Orestov matricid Klitajmestre (v Ajshilovi Oresteji) kot odziv na njeno mašcevanje Agamemnonu. Avtorski poudarek je na ženskih likih in žrtvovani vlogi (plemenite) ženske, kraljice in Ifigenijine matere. Podobno je z (intimno osebno) reinterpretacijo klasicne motivike pri Brini Švigelj, ki ocitno govori prej o izseljenskem motivu Lepe Vide, vendar pa prav raba imena (Ofelija) prica o bolj tragicni razrešitvi usode mladega dekleta, ki je odšlo neznano kam (besedilo insinuira, da morda z vlakom, s taksijem) in izginilo v temi razocaranja prve (in zadnje) ljubezenske noci. Jezik Ofelije (Švigelj) je poeticen, poln prispodob, tankocutno senzibilen za nianse in spremembe atmosfer, prica o globini notranjega obcutenja in bogastvu cutnih vtisov ter custvenih razpoloženj, kar ga razlikuje od sicer stvarnega jezika in dogajanja, vcasih pa tudi od absurdisticnosti in konceptualne zasnovanosti vecjega dela moške pisave iz Generatorja. Analiza teh besedil kaže, da se je skozi žensko pisavo reproducirala reprezentacija žensk(osti), ki je razlicna od tiste, ki jo najdemo v moški pisavi. Slednja pa vlogo ženske po vecini reducira na nemi lik, pri cemer je moška pisava prevladujoca in s tem dolocujoca za družbeno podobo žensk.20 Ženska pisava se s tem (literarnim) dejstvom, prek moške pisave razširjene reprezentacije ženske kot nemega lika, ocitno poigrava, ga izpostavlja, ozavešca, reflektira in preinterpretira. Tako je kljucen nacin avtoricine umetniške obdelave dramskega sižeja Ofelije, ki nemosti ženskega lika z njegovo postavitvijo v osrednjo vlogo ne jemlje kot samoumevne niti je ne reducira na obstranskost in nepomembnost, marvec to nemost samo hote poudarja. Ofelija je, ceprav neprestana tema pogovora ostalih likov, ki v dogajanju zavzema centralno vlogo, s tako spretnim dramskim manevrom izpostavljena kot odsotna ter nema.21V 19 Dramolet podpisuje Ifigenija (Zagoricnik), ime pa v anticni grški tragediji oziroma mitologiji oznacuje hci Klitajmestre in Agamemnona (možje in sinovi so tukaj reducirani na stransko vlogo, na omembo kot funkcija potencialnega izdajstva), ki je bila žrtvovana bogovom s strani lastnega oceta z namenom, da se je omogocil vojni pohod na Trojo. Avtoricina igra z imeni nakazuje na osebno preinterpretacijo mita. 20 Spomnimo, da je ena najbolj znanih slovenskih (politicnih) dram Antigona Dominika Smoleta (1960) sicer naslovljena po ženskem liku, a ta ostaja nem, pravzaprav odsoten, saj se v drami ne pojavi. 21 Ocitni sta tudi razdeljenost in spolna polariziranost v dramoletu Švigelj na moško (mladi fant, oblecen v paža) in žensko perspektivo, Prva in Druga (po vsem videzu Ofelijini spleticni, njeni /osebni in intimni/ zaupnici, tolažnici, sem pa sodi tudi vloga zbora, ljudstva). igri je precej ponavljanj, premolkov, tišin, vzdihov (»(kratek presledek)« 330-1, 333), neizgovorjenega, jezik je mestoma pretrgan, precej je indicev, namigov, insinuacij brez dokoncnega odgovora, kam je po ljubezenski noci izginilo mlado dekle. Pomenljiva je sprememba (patriarhalnega) diskurza v ženskega, v smislu priznavanja, afirmacije bolecine, stiske mladega dekleta, konca neke mlade poti zaradi odstopanja od družbene norme in spodobnosti ženskega spola: »Prevec samostojna, so najbrž govorili« (prav tam 328); »Ljudje govorijo, še veš, o njunih vecerih na obali« (331); »Obleka je bila prekratka« (332). V pisavi Ofelije Švigelj se v doloceni meri napovedujejo že karakteristike, ki jih lahko (brezindicev neposrednega vpliva) najdemo, denimo, v sodobnejši dramski ženski pisavi Simone Semenic.22 Nastopijo praznine, premolki, medprostori, nemost, s cimerse kažeta upor in prelom z moško pisavo. Patriarhalni diskurz se naenkrat izkaže za nezadostnega, vsiljen s perspektive nekega drugega pogleda. Temu še ni ponujena prava alternativa, saj v tem casu (1966–86) nova (ženska) pisava še ni množicno zasedla svojega prostora. O tej lahko govorimo v sodobnejših dramskih primerih. Ženski Nemi lik Kot prispodobo reprezentacije žensk(osti) (oz. njene odsotnosti) tako uporabljam nemi lik, ker posega neposredno v srž tematike politik spola in hegemonicnih razmerij znotraj spolov na podrocju uprizoritvenih umetnosti oz. dramatike ter koncno eksplicitno tematizira tocno tisto pozicijo nemosti, ki se je uveljavila kot reprezentacija žensk(osti) skozi zgodovino slovenske dramatike. Kot primer sodobne ženske pisave, ki je sposobna kriticno misliti in artikulirati nemo in verbalno odsotno reprezentacijo žensk (poleg žeomenjene Ofelije Švigelj), uporabim primer dramske pisave Simone Hamer. Nemi lik Simone Hamer je napisan oz. uprizorjen kot del akcije preglej: Zakon! (2010) oz. Zakon III. branje (2011),23kjer se nemi lik oz. njegova nemost pojavi v eksplicitno artikulirani obliki. Nemi lik je (eksperimentalni) gledališki tekst, po dolžini prej dramolet, saj sev knjižni objavi nahaja na dveh straneh. Formalno ima torej podobnosti z modernisticnimi dramskimi eksperimenti iz Generatorja.24 Vbesedilu Nemi lik obstaja diskrepanca med njegovim verbalnim, besednim delom in 22 Raztrganost pisave,premolkov, jezika, opušcanje (slovnicnih) pravil in normativov opozarja na problematiziranje obstojecih patriarhalnih vrednot in ideoloških narativov ter diskurzov, v katere so ženske potisnjene. 23 Zakon III. branje je bila performativna akcija takratne skupine oz. dramskega laboratorija PreGlej (kasneje Preglej), ki je bila jasno politicno usmerjena in eksplicitno družbeno angažirana, pri tem pa spolno nikakor ne nevtralna. Naslov Zakon se nanaša na Družinski zakonik, III. branje pa na njegovo obravnavo v državnem zboru, ki je potekala leta 2010. 24 Uprizoritveni tekst tako po formi kot vsebini spominja na delo visokega modernizma, na metagledališki tekst Samuela Becketta Catastrophe (1982), ki prav tako sestoji iz navodil, ki jih uprizarjajo režiser, njegova asistentka ter objekt, ki je nem. Besedilo je posveceno ceškoslovaškemu dramatiku (in kasnejšemu predsedniku), Václavu Havlu; napisano je bilo v casu Havlovega priprtja zaradi disidentstva ter je tako eno redkih eksplicitno politicnih Beckettovih del. vizualnim.25 Govorjeno besedilo predstavljajo navodila (ta lahko uprizori glas iz offa). Pri cemerje evidenten nek manko, saj se vsebina besedila/navodila nanaša na lik, ki v besedilu ni govorno zastopan, na nemi lik. Nemi lik je na govorni ravni odsoten, nem, gre za odsotnost njegove verbalne reprezentacije. Kot tak nemi lik v dramskem besedilu ne more obstajati. Obstaja lahko le zunaj teksta, skrit v didaskalijah oz. scenskih navodilih kot performativna sled. Njegov modus obstoja je v prezenci in redukciji na golo telesnost. To je v Nemem liku dvojno poudarjeno, vsebinsko in uprizoritveno. Nemi lik ni spolno nevtralen lik, ni zgolj jezikovna funkcija niti nevtralni oznacevalec. Kot poudari avtorica, ima nemi lik spolovilo in tudi prsi. Nemi lik je ženski lik, ki pa je podvržen desubjektivaciji, objektivaciji in redukciji na svoj spol. Navodila glasu iz offa oz. režiser mucne situacije ga dobesedno silijo v javno razgaljenje njegove intime, njegovega spola. Ce bi uporabljala patriarhalni diskurz, bi lahko navedla, da gre pri redukciji nemega lika na njegov spol, na njegovo telesnost in na vizualno, zunanjo, površinsko dimenzijo za simbolno umetniško kastracijo. Dodaten pomen dobi tekst zuprizoritvijo, saj je nemi lik v akciji preglej: Zakon! uprizorila kar avtorica Simona Hamer sama (12. 3. 2010 v Cankarjevem domu), s cimerje pozicionirala svojo vlogo ženske dramaticarke znotraj simbolnih spolnih in dramaticnih razmerij sodobne dramatike. Tako uspe Hamer z zvito uporabo nemega lika v sodobni ženski dramski pisavi kriticno ozavestiti položaj ženske oziroma dramaticarke znotraj patriarhalnega diskurza ter opozoriti na njeno redukcijo na nemost. Nemi liki so pri Simoni Hamerformalno in stilisticno – s kurzivo – loceni od glavnega teksta, nahajajo se torej zgolj v didaskalijah in v teoriji drame pomenijo robno pozicijo in redukcijo na stranski tekst. Ta je lahko uprizorjen, lahko pa tudi ne. S tem ko je nemim likom odvzeta pravica do govora in do glavnega teksta, pa so v lastni nemoci obsojeni na milost in odvisnost od velikega drugega, pripovedovalca in avtorja oziroma režiserja, da jim podeli vidnost (in slišnost) ali jim jo odvzame.26 Pet let po Zakonu III. branje in Nemem liku (2010) je Hamersintagmo nemega lika še dodatno razvila in vsebinsko razširila v drami Nemi liki(2015), v kateri se nemi liki nanašajo na vse družbeno deprivilegirane, ne le na ženske, ampak na vse brezimne marginalizirane skupine in robne eksistence ter izražajo vloge številnih zamenljivih in z vidika družbe pogrešljivih anonimnežev.27 S tem Hamer svojo kritiko patriarhata in oblastniških ter vrednostnih sistemov razširi na kritiko turbokapitalisticnega potrošniškega sistema.28 25 Dramolet je formalno clenjen na štiri dele, ki so loceni po vertikali in horizontali. Prvi del predstavlja opis (dramske) situacije nemega lika. Drugi del predstavlja glas iz offa, ki postavlja navodila nememu liku (glede akcije). Tretji del predstavlja navodilo nam, bralcem oz. gledalcem, kako ravnati v odnosu do uprizoritve oz. besedila: »PA KAJ TI NI JASNO? / NE, NE BERI – GLEJ!!!« (gre za vizualno simulacijo kricanja na gledalca/bralca). Zadnji, cetrti del predstavlja opomba pod crto v drobnem tisku: »To je nemi lik. / Nic drugega ni / razen tega, kar vidite. / …« (Zakon III. branje 34). 26 Simona Hamer je koncept nemih likov razvijala v svojem projektu do leta 2015, dvoletni spremljevalni del svoje umetniške raziskave je zakljucila s (prakticno) okroglo mizo na Borštnikovem srecanju leta 2014. Ta je potekala pod naslovom »Nemi lik(i) v dramatiki, na odru in v realnosti«. 27 Od migrantov in številnih brezimnih beguncev do podplacanih delavk z Bližnjega vzhoda, žrtev verbalnega nadlegovanja, fizicnega in spolnega nasilja, žensk žrtev vojne, žensk, brezimnih cistilk in tajnic, strežnic, plesalk v nocnih klubih ... 28 Pri Nemih likih Simone Hamer gre ševedno za dramo, v kateri ves cas govorijo samo moški, najstniki in njihovi ocetje, Pa reprezentacija žensk(osti) v dramski pisavi danes? Sprememba na bolje? Situacija glede enakovrednejše spolne zastopanosti na podrocju slovenske dramatike se zacenja spreminjati šele po letu 2000: porast števila anonimnih prijav na razpis za Grumovo nagrado (2001), ženske imajo prvic vecinski delež v žiriji (2002), prva podelitev Grumove nagrade ženski avtorici (2007). Od takrat (2007) je podeljevanje nagrade vsaj približno bolj uravnoteženo po spolu, ceprav še vedno prevladujejo moški: nagrada je bila osemkrat podeljena moškemu avtorju in petkrat ženskim avtoricam, dvakrat pa vec razlicnim avtorjem. Skupno je bila nagrada v zadnjih 16 letih (2007–2022) osemkrat podeljena ženski avtorici in desetkrat avtorju. Nagrado še vedno pogosteje prejmejo moški. Kljub temu se je situacija glede prisotnosti in spolne zastopanosti dramaticark do danesradikalno spremenila. Za potrditev navajam še ugotovitev Maje Šorli, ki je primerjala delovanje gledališkega kolektiva Pupilije Ferkeverk in predhodnih pesniških skupin, t. i. Pupilckov (aktivni v šestdesetih letih) s sodobnejšimi udeleženci Pregleja, t. i. Preglejcki (delujejo okrog prelomnega leta 2007). Takole pravi: »Ustvarjalci – pesniki skupin 441, 442 in gibanja 443 – so bili vsi moškega spola, nekakšno spolno uravnoteženost so dosegli šele s Pupilijo. Sopotnice (kot jih imenuje Svetina) niso pisale lastnih pesmi. In v tem je temeljna razlika med Preglejcki in Pupilcki. VPGLabu so prevladovale ženske, v izvedbi Devet lahkih komadov je bilo število izvajalk in izvajalcev po spolu uravnoteženo« (Šorli 74).29Denimo v Zakonu III. branje v avtorstvu skupine Preglej (uprizorjen 2010, objavljen 2011), v katerem je objavljen tudi tekst Nemi lik, ki ga primerjalno analiziram z zbornikom Generator, je besedil vsega skupaj sedem, od tega so vecino (pet) tekstov napisale ženske.30 Razmerje med spoloma se pri Preglejckih v cetrt stoletja in vec prevesi v 5/7 oziroma 71 odstotkov v prid avtoricam oziroma dramaticarkam. Zakljucek V prispevku se posvetim problematiki neenakovrednega razmerja v zastopanosti spolov v slovenski dramatiki, zlasti med letoma 1966 in 1986, tj. izraziti številcni prevladi moških dramatikov in odsotnosti zastopanosti žensk, kar se navadno obrazloži kot posledica dejanskega stanja manjšega števila ženskih dramaticark, vojaki, stranke nocnihklubov, poslovneži. Reprodukcijo patriarhalne reprezentacije žensk v šovbiznisu, entertainmentu in kapitalisticni potrošniški družbi podpirajo citati iz besedil slavnih pop zvezdnic (Beyonce, Rihanna, Rita Ora, Nicky Minaj), ki v pretirano seksualiziranih besedilih prepevajo o ustrežljivosti, submisivnosti, ženske(ga telesa) in njeni objektifikaciji. 29 »V PGLabu velikokrat pri svojih obravnavah besedil trcimo ob teme enakopravnosti, enakih možnosti ter drugacnosti predvsem v odnosu do spolne politike. Šestdeseta leta so bila sicer leta spolne svobode, ne pa tudi spolne enakosti in spoštovanja. V skupinah 441, 442 in 443 ni bilo ženskih pesnic. Danes na splošno na tem podrocju še ni bistvenega napredka, zato si Preglejcki prizadevamo gojiti spoštovanje in enake možnosti obeh spolov« (Šorli 85). 30 Od teh sta dve imeni psevdonima, pri cemer je v razmerju med avtorjem in psevdonimom ohranjen spolni enacaj. manj pa se upošteva ali poskuša razumevati vzroke za nastalo situacijo. V prispevku se lotim prav tega. Ob dominaciji polja dramatike s strani moških strokovnih avtoritet in ob pomanjkljivi zastopanosti dramaticark v nagrajevalnih mehanizmih, ob nepriznavanju pomena ženskih tem ali specifike ženskega ustvarjanja ter ob odsotnosti njenega spodbujanja se mi stanje neenakovredne reprezentiranosti med spoloma prej kot dejansko stanje kaže kot ucinek delovanja patriarhalne ideologije. Vpreostanku prispevka se posvetim ugotavljanju pomena, ki ga ima situacija prevlade moške dramske pisave za reprezentacijo žensk(osti) v polju slovenske dramatike in njene odsotnosti pa tudi za samo pomanjkanje ozavešcenosti glede (odsotnosti) ženske perspektive. Prakticne posledice, ki jih lahko povzroci enostransko z vecinsko moško dramsko pisavo dolocena reprodukcija reprezentacije žensk(osti), sem v prispevku prikazala na primerih analize moške pisave iz Generatorja, za katere se izkaže, da nekriticno reproducirajo podobo anonimnih, nemih in na vizualno ali seksualno dimenzijo splošcenih ženskih likov. V primeru enostranske in monolitne, lahko celo enodimenzionalne ali stereotipne reprezentacije žensk(osti) v moški dramski pisavi (vsaj od tukaj obravnavanih dramskih primerov izGeneratorja; za ugotavljanje dejanskega stanja v zgodovini celotne slovenske dramatike bi bil potreben vecji vzorec dramskih besedil) poudarjam potrebo po ozavešcenosti glede sistemskih slepih peg pri interpretacijah, ki nastanejo brez zavedanja odsotnosti ženske perspektive. V tem obdobju (1966–86) vecinska, moška dramska pisava ni niti merodajna niti univerzalna izkušnja za reprezentacijo žensk(osti), cepravse kot taka morda prikazuje. Ženska perspektiva oziroma perspektiva drugih spolov jenamrec iz nje izkljucena. Še zlasti je to pomembno, kerto stanje patriarhalne prevlade traja najmanj tri do štiri desetletja med letoma 1966 in 2006. Z neravnovesjem v zastopanosti spolov, s historicnim pomanjkanjem zastopanosti ženske pisave in s prevlado moške pisave se alternativna, raznolika in uravnotežena reprezentacija žensk(osti) onemogoca in siromaši; umanjkata cela paleta kriticne obdelave dolocenih (ženskih) tem in raznolikost portretiranja ženskih likov – reprezentacij žensk(osti). Pojavi se nevarnost prevlade in reprodukcije zgolj zožene, pasivne, objektivizirane ter moškemu pogledu podrejene reprezentacije žensk(osti), ki je na eni strani celo seksualizirana, na drugi pa navadno pozicionirana znotraj patriarhalnega ali/in kršcanskega sistema vrednot. Gre za reprezentacijo žensk(osti), ki je predvsem nema. Nemost oz. nemi lik se v prispevku tako izkaže kot ustrezna prispodoba tako za poimenovanje položaja (odsotnih) ženskih avtoric, slovenskih dramaticark in za njihovo neustrezno zastopanost, torej za realni, zunajfikcijski element, kot tudi za (znotrajliterarno oz. znotrajfikcijsko) upodobitev oz. reprezentacijo žensk(osti) dramskih oseb znotraj slovenske dramatike. Ker dramaticarke in reprezentacije žensk(osti) v slovenski dramatiki ostajajo neme, pogosto umanjkata tudi glas in artikulacija te nemosti in odsotnosti same.Nasprotno je nemi lik kot kriticno orodje za prikaz patriarhalne prevlade uporabljen šele v ženski dramski pisavi (primera Ofelija Brine Švigelj in Nemi lik Simone Hamer). Literatura Borovnik, Silvija. Pišejo ženske drugace? O Slovenkah kot pisateljicah in literarnih likih. Mihelac, 1995. Butler, Judith. Težave s spolom: feminizem in subverzija identitete. ŠKUC, 2001. Criado Perez, Caroline. Nevidne: kako vrzeli v podatkih in raziskavah oblikujejo svet po moški meri. UMco, 2022. Drnovšcek, Mirjan, in Marinka Poštrak, ur. 40 let Tedna slovenske drame 1971–2010. Prešernovo gledališce, 2010. Hamer, Simona. Nemi liki. https://sigledal.org/w/images/9/9a/NemiLiki_final.pdf. Dostop 26. sept. 2022. —. »Nemi lik.« Zakon III. branje/The Act: Third Reading. KD Integrali, 2011. Kac, Maja. »Spominjanje žensk v javnem prostoru: 'Dokler o njih ne govorimo, jih ne spravljamo v zavest'.« Multimedijski center/MMC RTV Slovenija, https://www. rtvslo.si/kultura/dediscina/spominjanje-zensk-v-javnem-prostoru-dokler-o-njih­ne-govorimo-jih-ne-spravljamo-v-zavest/660434. Dostop 3. apr. 2023. Lukan, Blaž, ur. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov: slovenski eksperimentalni dramski in uprizoritveni teksti iz obdobja modernizma (1966–1986). SLOGI, AGRFT, 2001. Mihurko Poniž, Katja. Zapisano z njenim peresom: prelomi zgodnjih slovenskih književnic s paradigmo nacionalne literature. Založba Univerze v Novi Gorici, 2014. —. Od lastnega glasu do lastne sobe: literarne ustvarjalke od zacetkov do modernizma. Beletrina, 2001. »Nagrade festivala Dnevi komedije.« sigledal.org, https://sigledal.org/geslo/ Nagrade_festivala_Dnevi_komedije. Dostop 29. dec. 2022. Nietzsche, Friedrich. »Poskus samokritike.« Rojstvo tragedije iz duha glasbe, Založba Karantanija, 1995. Open.si. Spletna stran (naslovna stran), http://www.open.si/. Dostop 27. sept. 2022. »Podatki VDT RS o femicidu v Sloveniji.« Državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije, https:// www.dt-rs.si/158/podatki-vdt-rs-o-femicidu-v-sloveniji. Dostop 3. okt. 2022. Preglej na glas: festival dramske pisave. Produkcija: Gledališce Glej, Cankarjev dom, TSD. Ljubljana: Cankarjev dom, 2010. Letak. Hrani avtorica. Šorli, Maja. »Dva primera ready-made besedila v slovenskem gledališcu.« Drama, tekst, pisava, ur. Petra Pogorevc, Tomaž Toporišic, Knjižnica MGL, 2008. Zakon III. branje / The Act: Third Reading. KD Integrali, 2011. Zakon III. branje / The Act: Third Reading.Elektronska verzija. https://veza.sigledal. org/media/uploads/Dokumenti/preglej_zakon_iii.branje.pdf. Dostop 27. sept. 2022. UDK 821.163.6.09-2”1966/1986” DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/292-311 The paper begins by analysing the ideas, themes and motifs of the theatre texts from the anthology The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes (Slovenian Experimental Dramatic and Performative Texts from the Modernist Period (1966–1986)). It aims to shed light on the anthology’s selected texts through the female perspective, or rather, its absence. It deals with the consequences that the absence of awareness about the lack of a female perspective in Slovenian drama can have on the representation of women and woman(liness). The paper explores such representations in Slovenian (exper­imental) drama and raises awareness about the possible effects of patriarchal ideology and its consequences by analysing the plays’ ideas, themes and motifs. In doing so, it pays special attention to the difference between men’s and (rare) women’s playwriting. The texts from The Generator are taken merely as a case study to indicate the presence of particular symptoms in Slovenian (experimental) drama within the anthology’s given period. The paper briefly highlights the differences in the representation of woman(liness) from a broader developmental perspective, from a temporal distance, in the form of a comparative analysis of contemporary women’s playwriting, specifically, Simona Hamer’s 2010 play Nemi lik (The Silent Character). Keywords: Slovenian Drama, modernism, experiment, Women’s Writing, Female Playwrights, representation of women, womanliness Nika Leskovšek holds a PhD in performing arts studies from the University of Ljubljana, Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television (UL AGRFT). She has been active as a researcher, theatre critic and dramaturg, as well as a selector and jury member of several Slovenian theatre festivals. She has been appointed an assistant researcher at the UL AGRFT for dramaturgy and performing arts studies. nika.leskovsek@agrft.uni-lj.si Silent Characters: Women Playwrights, Women’s Writing and the Representation of Woman(liness) in the Slovenian Drama Experiment (1966–1986) Nika Leskovšek Academy of Theatre, Film, Radio and Television, University of Ljubljana Preface and an Attempt at Self–Criticism:1 The Absence of Female Playwrights in the History of Slovenian Drama (1966–1986) The paper’s starting point2was the anthology The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes. The following words from the anthology’s in­troduction by the editorBlaž Lukan prompted me to write a thesis on the topic of the representation of women or womanliness – which in Slovenian drama (from this period) ironically takes place in the virtual absence of representation of the female perspective: In the plays and performance texts in the anthology, we can observe thematic and lin­guistic imagination, a real dramatic-experimental outburst, similar to what, after the 1960s and 1970s, can only be identified in Slovenian drama again after 2000 – at least it would appear so – with the emergence of many distinctive post-dramatic names of the now middle and younger generation of writers, more precisely, women writers (e.g., Simona Semenic, Simona Hamer, Iza Strehar, Varja Hrvatin). 1 I developed the “Preface or An Attempt at Self-Criticism” in response to the comments at the discussion of my paper “The Act: Third Reading” at the Amfiteater journal symposium Theatre Experiment in Slovenia (1966–1986) and Its Resonance. The anthology The Generator was also the starting point for the present conference to reflect on experimental and Slovenian drama. The version of the discussion published here has been reworked and elaborated into an independent scholarly and argumentatively supported form.The title “An Attempt at Self-Criticism” has its origins in Nietzsche’s introduction to The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music (1995), in which Nietzsche (self-)critically comments on, evaluates and also temporarily positions his own work 15 years after its creation. 2 Thisresearch paper by Nika Leskovšek (39188) has been a part of the programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” (P6­0376), (co-)funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. I would especially like to draw attention to the phenomenon of women writers, which is a novelty in Slovenian drama, as they have been in the minority for decades; only three wom­en are included in this book, and there were not many more in the wider selection. (27) Of the thirty authors or artistic collectives representing the period 1966–1986, only three women are included in The Generator: Svetlana Makarovic, Ifigenija Zagoricnik and Brina Švigelj.3Representing only 10 per cent, this number indicates a significant predominance of male playwrights.4Lukan’s comment suggests that the unequal gen­der ratio and under-representation of female playwrights in the public sphere reflect the reality of the time. The question is whether this was indeed the actual situation, or is the under-representation offemale playwrights in the history of Slovenian drama somewhat a consequence of the unreflected effects of patriarchal ideology? In the paper, I first review the statistical distribution and representation of gender in Slovenian drama. However, I situate the data on the absence of women authors (as wellas the absence of a female perspective in writing and female representation in public) into the socio-temporal continuum and context of the 1966–1986 period to explain how this came about. The absence of research into the causes behind the “reality” obfuscates the functioning of (patriarchal) ideology and enables its further reproduction. Furthermore, I argue that this unequal gender representation is not in­nocent. The historical lack of representation of women authors and women’s writing in Slovenian drama implies significant consequences for the representation of wom­an(liness) as isproduced and reproduced within Slovenian playwriting. Historically, it has been overwhelmingly represented by male playwrights, who (usually) also rep­resent a male perspective in their playwriting and produce men’s writing.5 In this paper, I show the representation of woman(liness) in men’s playwriting of this period, using texts from The Generator as examples. These encompass Slovenian experimental dramatic texts and shorter theatre texts from the modernist period, 1966–1986. Later, I show the differences between female and male dramatic writing in the texts published in the anthology. I mainly draw attention to the difference in the 3 Ifigenija Zagoricnik, a.k.a, Ifigenija Zagoricnik Simonovic; Brina Švigelj, a.k.a., Brina Švigelj Mérat or Brina Svit, which at the same time testifiesto the fact that women’s names are subject to certain conventional, yet socially influenced changes, to which men’s names of the time were overwhelmingly not subject. 4 In examining the disparity in the representation of woman(liness) within women’s writing on the one hand and men’s writing on the other, I ask the proofreader (of the Slovenian [and English] version[s] of the text) not to correct the apparent redundancy of using “male playwright” and “female playwright”, since the sole use ofthe word “playwright”, along with the fact that the masculine gender is grammatically dominant in the Slovenian language, obfuscates the exclusion of other genders from the speech situation. Moreover, according to Caroline Criado Perez, using only “playwright” would have a psychological impact in a way that the women experience perceived exclusion from the speech situation. 5 I do not consider femininity (as well as masculinity) or gender as biological, but as a fluid performative category (according to Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990). Although the latter only becomes entirely obvious in the full meaning and development of gender politics in dramatic texts in the later period, in the The Act: Third Reading, before that (in The Generator) it is more of an exception. representation of woman(liness) in the two writings: how female characters are con­structed, the (stereo-)typification, the formation of the image of woman(liness), what kind of mentality, ideas and ideology the works reproduce ... In the paper, I indicate the need for social and temporal contextualisation of the interpretation of this kind of unreflected representation of woman(liness), which has been historically reproduced in Slovenian drama as “actual” or “objective” on a massive scale. The essay is based on a conceptual, thematic and motivic analysis of dramatic texts, i.e., on the method of drama analysis or, rather, its close reading. Finally, I embark on a comparative analysis of contemporary dramatic texts, especially from the point of view of the representa­tion of woman(liness), to consolidate the differentia specifica of the modernist texts, which I currently detect through the absence of the female perspective and the effect of the domination of patriarchal ideology. The Lack of Female Playwrights The absence of publicly recorded female playwrights, already mentioned in The Genera­tor (Lukan 27), is confirmed for the case of Slovenian drama from 1966–1986 by analys­ing data from othersources. For example, an analysis of the registered texts submitted forthe Slavko Grum Award. Founded in 1978 and awarded annually since 1979 for the best dramatic text, the Slavko Grum Award is the most important in Slovenian drama. An analysis of the data forthe first 20 years of the award (taken from the brochure pub­lished on the 40thanniversary of the Week of Slovenian Drama) reveals the following situation: in the first decade of the award’s existence (1979–1988), the number of en­tries did not exceed five female authors per year. The situation remained the same – or worse – regarding the number of female authors in the second decade (1989–1998), as fewer female playwrights submitted texts for the award. In 1991, there was only one female playwright; in 1992, there were none; in 1993, forthe first time, there were, ex­ceptionally, six female playwrights registered, and then the numberdropped again. The names of registered authors throughout the years mostly repeat: Svetlana Makarovic,Alenka Goljevšcek, Polonca Kovac, Jana Kolaric, Zlata Volaric, Alja Tkacev, Brina Švigelj,Vera Remic Jager, Jelena Sitar, Ivanka Hergold, Jana Milcinski, Zora Tavcar, Bina ŠtampeŽmavc (with Anka Kolenc, Mateja Mahnic, Maricka Cilenšek, Regina Kralj … registered with only one entry each) (Drnovšcek and Poštrak). The situation started to change only in the third decade of the prize’s existence (1999–2008), more precisely after 2001, when the number of entries was seven.6 Then, in 2005, it grew to 11, and in 2007 to a record 15 entries. I consider 2007 to be 6 I have considered works by individual female authors, and the number listed is that of authors who submitted. The number of submittedtexts (by female authors) is often higher, as authors (regardless of their gender) often submitted several different texts in the same year. a watershed year in several senses. On 1 April 2007, for the first time in the history of the Slovenian Drama Week, after 29 years of awarding the Slavko Grum Award, it was awarded to a female author, namely Dragica Potocnjak for her text Za naše mlade dame (For Our Young Ladies). The situation appears even worse if we look at the Gracious Comedy Quill Award, i.e., the award for a genre-specifictheatre text, given at the Days of Comedy Festival in Celje since 1998 (but not every year). Here, the first (and sofar only) female author received the award in 2018: Iza Strehar for the comedy Vsak glas šteje (Every Vote Counts)(“Nagrade festivala”). The under-representation of female authors for the an-alysed period is confirmed by the number of entries and the success of female authors in the award mechanisms. Thesituation begins to change only in the third decade of the Slavko Grum Award’s existence (1999–2008). Why Are There No Female Playwrights (Submitting Texts for the Slavko Grum Award)? To better understand the reasons for the low number of female playwrights submit­ting texts for the Slavko Grum Award competition and the low number of female play­wrights officially registered in the public domain during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, we must consider additional factors and situate them into the temporal and social context. There are more complex processes at work here than can be inferred from the statistics alone. First, the three-to-four-member jury that evaluated the submitted texts consisted exclusively of male members until 1995 (i.e., for the first 17 years of the award). In 1995, Ignacija Fridl joined the three-member jury as the first and only woman, and only in 1999 did the then five-member jury for the first time include two female jurors, Marinka Poštrak and Tea Štoka. Another fact is that many of the female authors were mostly writing youth literature, texts or poems intended for children or younger audiences; they tended to be actresses, puppeteers and youth writers, who, by applying, were also seeking validation, legitimation and professionalisation of spe­cific genres and types of drama (some of them aimed at younger audiences as well.) Thus, the first indication that women’s writing had its own themes and specificities, which the (male) jury did not appreciate at the time.7 The male dominance, or even monopoly, in Slovenian drama, both in the number of playwrights submitting for competitions and in the professional control of the field (the perception of playwriting as a male profession; the lack of attention to specific (female) topics), as well as the generally unfavourable social conditions for female playwrights (who were primarily wives and mothers, who did not have the time to 7 Currently, the Slavko Grum Award is limited to texts for adult audiences. create), can all be considered factors that discouraged female playwrights from sub­mitting their works or even from creating them.8The decline in the number of female playwrights applying in the award’s second decade also indicates a certain distrust of institutional award mechanisms on the part of female playwrights. The sudden increase in anonymous or coded entries demonstrates that gender has not played a neutral or negligible role in submissions and awards. In 2004, no female authors applied for the competition. However, there were at least ten applications with a coded identity (e.g., “Code Janezek”, “Code Lojze”, or simply an anonymous author), which shows that this is not a case of merely concealing one’s identity, but rather a gender-motivated decision (the coded names were Slovenian male names).9 Despite the generally anonymous selection process,10since at least 2001, anonymous or additionally coded entries have increased. A peculiar additional complication in the matter of gender bias in bestowing the awards was triggered by Žanina Mircevska in 2009 when she entered the competition under the male pseudonym Tomi Leskovec and then went on to win the Slavko Grum Award together with Simona Semenic that same year. Together, they became the second and third female authors after Potocnjak to win the Slavko Grum Award in the award’s first 30 years. The Dominance of Patriarchal Discourse in Literature and Literary Theory The following analyses of the phenomenon of women’s writing show that this is not a peculiarity of Slovenian drama or, more broadly, of Slovenian literature and literary his­tory. Silvija Borovnik, in her study Do Women Write Differently, which draws mainly on German-language theory and practice, shows that patriarchal discourse is predominant in the literary field. In the early 1980s, Manfred Jürgensen noted that “the reception of women’s literature, at least in the German-speaking world, is still bound by the patriar­chal literary-historical concept” (qtd. in Borovnik 12). In comparison, in the late 1980s, Sigrid Schmid Bortenschlagerpointed out that women’s literature was excluded from (scientific) consideration by literary history, as it was considered “inferior, trivial” (qtd. in 8 The historical lack of(Slovenian) women artists in the field of literature, mainly in the field of writing novels or narratives, and the reasons for it have been dealt with extensively by Silvija Borovnik Pišejo ženskedrugace? (Do Women Write Differently?, 1995); and in several publications by Katja Mihurko Poniž, for example, Zapisano z njenim peresom: prelomi zgodnjih slovenskih književnic s paradigmo nacionalne literature (Written with Her Pen: Breaking the Paradigm of a National Literature by Early Slovenian Women Writers, 2014) and Od lastnega glasu do lastne sobe: literarne ustvarjalke od zacetkov do modernizma (From One’s Own Voice to One’s Own Room: Women Literary Creators from the Beginnings to Modernism, 2001). 9 Theonly official female entrant that year was Martina Šiler, but she applied with a redacted version of her play Reykjavik, which she had already submitted the year before. 10 In this period, the identity of the authors was, in principle, unknown to the jury awarding the Grum Award, as the author’s name was submitted in a separate envelope when the text was submitted. Unless it was a text that had already been staged or was known to the public, for example, in the case of the automatic transfer of the previous year’s shortlisted nominees for the following year’s prize, or text that had already been staged. Borovnik 14). In Slovenian drama, texts forchildren and adolescents could also be listed in this category of overlooked and denigrated women’s literature, excluded from scientific discourse. Renate Wiggershaus also notes the lack of representation of women’s litera­ture in anthologies and reviews of literary history – with the rare exception of works by female authors with predominantly male protagonists so that the (male) jury can identify with them (qtd. in Borovnik 16). Borovnik also cites the lack of translations of women’s literature into foreign languages. These situations all help to create and reinforce the “gen­eral impression that quality literature is written predominantly by men” (Borovnik 16). The Absence of Women in Decision-Making Mechanisms: Defining the Male Perspective as Universal British author Caroline Criado Perez aptly demonstrates how systemic inequality and the under-representation or even absence of women in all fields, not just in drama have decisive consequences for women’s lives in general, which also affect the rep­resentation of women and womanliness. Criado Perez takes the example of analys­ing the absence of women in decision-making mechanisms and working practices. By analogy with the demonstration of the functioning of patriarchal ideology – the indirect topic of this paper – I relate this to either the dominance of patriarchal dis­course in literature (Borovnik 12–16) or the absence of female experts in award and selection mechanisms, for example, in the Slavko Grum Award. In her comprehensive research work Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, Criado Perezanalyses how the under-representation of women in power politics causes (statistical and real) data gaps based on a wide range of inter­national statistics from everyday life. Women and their perspectives are usually un-der-represented or absent from deliberative and decision-making mechanisms. Thus, their position remains overlooked, defined as irrelevant, and marginal. The exclusion of the female position from decision-making mechanisms and systems of representa­tion consequently creates the impression that the male position is neutral and major­ity, which helps to shape and further entrench the world along patriarchal lines. The problem ariseswhen the male perspective and view are presented in official data as the relevant one and as a starting point for generalisations and universal experience. However, it is essential to recognise that the male perspective is not a universal expe­rience, as the experience of other genders is excluded.11 As shown in the previous chapter, in Slovenian drama – at least from 1966 to 1986 – the long-standing exclusion of female representatives from the ranks of experts or deci­ 11 The use of the masculine gender as the grammatically dominant gender represents a similar problem in gender politics. Criado Perez shows that the use of the masculine gender has a crucial impact on our perception and experience and, for example, on the exclusion of other genders from the linguistic situation and is thus by no means a neutral form of use. sion-making bodies in the awarding of the Slavko Grum Award, the consequent lack of recognition of the importance of specific “female topics” and genres for the development of Slovenian drama, the lack of support for(further) creativity of female authors and the diminishing of their visibility in the public sphere have contributed to the persistence and spread of a patriarchal discourse in the field of drama. These factors help to reinforce the belief that quality playwriting is exclusively in the male domain (29 years without a female award-winner) and enable the numerical dominance of male playwriting.12In ana­lysing patriarchal ideology in the context of Slovenian drama during the modernist period it becomes apparent that the predominantly male playwriting does not encompass an objective or universal experience, as it disregards the experiences of other genders. What is essential here is to recognise and become aware of the differences between men’s and women’s dramatic writing and the one-sided representation of womanliness. Therefore, using concrete examples, let us look at how women and womanliness are represented, particularly how they are manifested through the female characters in men’s playwriting. Examples of Men’s Dramatic Writing in the Analysis of Texts from The Generator In this section, I exclusively analyse texts13written by the now well-established male playwrights, poets orpredominantly male collectives in The Generator anthology. In a superficial examination of some randomly selected theatre texts, the analysis of female characters and female roles reveals the following representations of woman(liness). An example from the first selected play: the first image of a woman appearing in the play is a lady in the role of a naked model, posing for a nude, “trying very hard to imitate the famous Modigliani model” (Lukan79). The instructions for the play explicitly state that “this scene should in no way interfere with the rest of the action on stage” (79). Other female characters in the text include an actress who “makes people, who are not into sport, sing” (80) and a ballerina. Therefore, the only female characters in this play are cast as a nude model (forpainting), an actress who sings and a ballerina. Note that all the female characters are also silent, i.e., they are not verbally represented (except forsinging). Female characters are completely absent in the next theatre text from The Generator. In the very next one, we see the following female image: “A naked woman’s back appears. Naked woman’s breasts are projected onto it. The two merge to form a back with breasts. The back is still, the breasts are bobbing up and down” (88). The image or representation of women that the reader can draw from these randomly selected plays of male writing from The Generator is eitherone of the female char­ 12 Ironically, this was indirectly made possible by women taking on the roles of wives and mothers. 13 Formally and genre-wise, they are defined as happenings, poeticised playlets and series of instructions (or scores). acters being mostly silent, anonymous and interchangeable, lacking any particular distinguishing characteristics, or, at the other extreme, one without any female char­acter at all, because the characters and topics of women/womanliness are not in the foreground, are not of interest to the (male) authors, and consequently, the female characters in these plays are absent. Female characters appear in these plays as an uninteresting, missing, and unnecessary aspect. Moreover, in these examples of men’s writing from The Generator, the image of women appears as one-dimensional, sensu­alised, sometimes sexualised and objectified, preferably reduced to the visual effect of a beautiful exterior, physicality, and often even nudity. In these texts, women do not play decisive or active roles. Instead, their roles are limited to the supporting function of momentary impressions, which should take place somewhere in the background to possibly liven up the main action but not distract from it. The analysis offurther examples of the representation of women in The Generator only confirms this image and effect. Women appear mostly as prostitutes or (vulgar­ly) whores, they are cast as sexual objects and victims of sexual, verbal or physical violence. Mothers are another role they frequently occupy, and sometimes (less fre­quently), they also appear as wives and mistresses or concubines. Women also ap­pear in other texts written by male authors in the following roles: A girl in the role of a victim of (imminent) rape (Lukan31–6) with a similar motif appearing at least once more (241). The character “Woman with bare breasts” (52–60) is described: “A woman with bare breasts enters: Milk, fresh milk, drink my milk, drink it, drink only fresh milk, drink only my milk! She wanders around the room. Enter the bald man. They sit on the floor. The bald man strokes her breasts, then drinks her milk” (59), and in another segment, it says: “But you cannot deny that a woman with or without her breasts torn open is more interesting than a woman who is normal in every way” (63). There is also the following quote: “A disabled man without a penis: ‘All whores should be shot! Yes, let’s put them all in front of the wall! And before that, three hundred and sixty-eight hunks should pass over them. Let the bitches drop dead! And let mine be first!” (65) or, for example, “MALE VOICE I: Ugh, women’s poetry! That’s a fact” (258). The only exception that stands out in a positive sense and introduces some fresh air to gender relations, playing with gender identity with his/her female nickname or surname is Andrej Rozman imenovana Roza (Andrej Rozman named Roza) and his/ her text Odkar sem tajnica dvojno življenježivim(izpoved) (Since I became a female secretary I’ve been living a double life (a confession)) (322).14Specific texts respect gender equality, at least in principle, in the distribution of acting roles.15 14 The (male) author is actually using female pronouns in the text, which is more obvious in the Slovenian original. 15 These texts include, for example, Milan Jesih’s Limite (Limits), TomažKralj’s Pupilija Ferkeverk in Zaspancek Razkodrancek (Pupilija Ferkeverk and Sleepy Curlyhead), Iztok Osojnik’s Radijska igra za pet glasov (Radio Play for Five Voices), and Gledališce sester Scipiona Nasice (Scipion Nasice Sisters Theatre): Minutni dramski teksti (Minute Drama Texts). In all other plays from The Generator, images of women or female characters are ab­sent, thus missing the representation of women/womanliness. Where they do appear, there are fewerfemale characters than male ones, and they also have fewer lines. The analysis considers all the texts by male authors in the anthology, i.e., 55 out of 58. The representation of women authors in the collection is even lower than the initial 10 per cent, as there are typically several texts representing male authors, compared to one text per each female author. We can therefore say that 5 per cent of the texts in the anthology represent women authors. I would like to point out also that in men’s writing, the female characters are mostly silent (as well as nameless, anonymous). In these playlets, they are not even allowed to speak, thus depriving them of their own voice and the possibility of articulating their own position and role.16 Unequal Representation of Women: Silent (Silenced, Non­speaking, Voiceless) Characters As analysed in The Generator, we cannot overlook that this kind of representation of women and womanliness is numerically predominant within the so-called men’s writing in the period 1968–1986. The unequal representation of genders and its con­sequences are also visible in other areas of the arts and the public in general. Maja Kac’s article “Spominjanje žensk v javnem prostoru: ‘Dokler o njih ne govorimo, jih ne spravljamo v zavest’” (“Remembering Women in the Public Space: ‘Unless we talk about them, we do not become aware of them’”) provides some data for Slovenia. The data at the global scale that Criado Perez cites in her comprehensive study Invisible Women do not differ significantly. While she does not quote specific figures for theatre or drama, it can be inferred from the many diverse examples she gives that female characters are under-represented, even absent, or often silent, in broader everyday situations as well as in artistic media. That is to say, they do not speak or have no right to a voice, even when a woman is the main protagonist. With regard to women’s silence and the lack of (verbal) representation of women in the arts, mainly film and television, Criado Perez notes the following: “An analysis of G-rated (suitable for children) films released between 1990 and 2005 found that only 28%of speaking roles went to female characters” (20).17Further analysis shows that men have more roles and spend twice as much time on screen – this rises to nearly three times as much when, as most films do, the film has a male lead (Criado Perez 20). Moreover: “Men also get more lines, speaking twice as much as women overall; three times as much in films with male leads; and almost twice as much in 16 “Egist: You’ve been to the garden? Vida: Yep. Egist: You’ve seen death? Vida: Yep. Egist: Well, then you can shut up!” (316). 17 The book Invisible Women is based on cross-cultural comparative analysis and a wide range of international statistical date including analyses of different everyday life situations. Originally published in 2019, it draws on the most up-to-date (statistical) data and studies (Slovenian translation in 2022 by UMco publishing). films with maleand female co-leads” (20). There is much more data like this, which shows gender inequalities and confirms the majority representation of men in films and on television (in terms of presence, numerical predominance, visibility and ver­bal representation). A similarly unbalanced situation (in terms of gender) is evident when analysing gender representation on statues, banknotes, and even in the news (radio and TV and newspaper media) and textbooks (20–21). Women’s share in rep­resentation is a mere 24%: that is, of the women we listen to or read about (radio, TV and newspaper) (21). This is a figure measured globally. In Slovenia, this percentage might be even lower. An example from the Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage in Slovenia, according to the article by Maja Kac, quotes the following data: out of 233 statues in Slovenia, only ten are dedicated to the memory of women; 223, or 96%, are dedicated to men. Women’s Writing: Distinctive Characteristics As for the distinctive characteristics of women’s writing – Borovnik designates it as women’s literature, meaning literature written by women authors – Silvija Borovnik notes that it is only in women’s writing that the poor conditions of work and the cir­cumstances in which it is produced are more often exposed; it exposes gender equal­ity as just apparent, it raises “the woman question”, and it is thus closely linked to the social position of women (24–25). Thus, in her discussion Do Women Write Differ­ently?, Borovnik establishes and reinforces the awareness of the thematic difference between men’s and women’s writing: “The thematic range is certainly the area where it is still easiest to talk about the ‘male’ and the ‘female’ in literature” (227). In my opinion, an important observation by Borovnik here is to highlight the topics of politi­cal matters and national destiny in men’s writing. In contrast, women’s writing shows its connection to the feminist movement, the struggle for women’s emancipation, and the personal, orprivate, as political (Borovnik 227). Borovnik further notes that it is thus not unusual for women’s writing to take form initially as experiential literature, with a large portion of autobiographical and confessional material, often protesting (from personal, authentic experience through first-person confession) against the so­cially reproduced patriarchal image of women, and thus establishing women as sub­jects (224–225). Borovnik adds that women’s writing often resorts to the devices of the humorous, the absurd and the grotesque, as well as irony (243). From all this, it can be concluded that it is only with the emergence of women’s writing that the awareness about the problems of women’s under-representation, the emphasis on the specificity of their marginal (creative) position, and the ideological creation of the silence of women’s positionin public come to the fore. Because most male writers were not interested in these topics, they were usually not part of their (personal) ex­perience, and they did not feel the need to legitimise them. The under-representation of women’s dramatic writing consequently leaves out of the drama a whole plethora of female topics, often including the establishment of female characters as full-blood­ed subjects. The difference between men’s and women’s writing can be detected al­ready in the few examples of men’s writing in The Generator anthology. Let us look at some examples. Examples of the Representation of Woman(liness) in Women’s Dramatic Writing from The Generator Anthology In contrast to the men’s writing in The Generator anthology, all the female authors have female characters with content who are given a voiceand the opportunity to speak. In two authors, Brina Švigelj and Ifigenija Zagoricnik,the characters interest­ingly come from the classical European dramatic repertoire, namely Ophelia and the ancient queen Clytemnestra. The motifs arising in women’s writing in The Generator are strikingly similar:18witchcraft, burning at the stake, witch hunts and witch trials, and women are placed in the role of victims. Sacrifice, imprisonment and the limita­tion of freedomare frequent topics, as well as sexual and physical abuse, disguised as metaphors in the dramatic treatment, drawing on fantastic, fairy-tale, and folk motifs or using mythological characters. In Ifigenija Zagoricnik’s play stepping outside she is free, Clytemnestra finds herself in the focus of a centuries-long witch hunt. The passage concludes with the burning of the stake that awaits Clytemnestra, accompanied by other women (xenia, xanthippe, her mother and the mother of God). Similarly, in Svetlana Makarovic’s play Starci: Igra v osmih slikah (Old People: A Play in Eight Pictures)(Lukan128), the motifs of witchcraft, the witch trials and the character of the witch named Orange, who makes clouds and wind and sunflowers, are present. Significant is the motif of the (witch’s personal) freedom. Fairy tale and fantasy motifs and variations of motifs and char­acters are present, as well as gender swaps, for example, the witch from Hansel and Gretel. Here it is a couple of evil older men who cage the younger victims and feed on their dreams and youth. The motif of femicide also appears: all that remains of the victim is a charred, broken and mangled corpse, which again emphasises the victim’s anonymity.19“But yesterday I was Marjetica, and today I have no name anymore, isn’t it strange, in this cold” (143). 18 Strikingly, as they arenot thematically coordinated, but rather individual texts thathave only been selected to appear together post festum. 19 Makarovic’s play abounds with characters that are considered stereotypes of the Slovenian national psychological character, such as the possessive pathological mother on the one hand and outcast (elderly) childless witches on the other. There are some elements of personal confession and autobiography in the authors’ work, playing with familiar motifs from the classical dramatic repertoire and ancient Greek mythology or classical tragedy (Clytemnestra, Ophelia) in terms of content and words and reworking them in a personal-authorial way. In Makarovic’s work, for ex­ample, one can notice the distinctive style of her poetry and ballads, as well as her reinterpretations of folk motifs (maidens, orphans), the predominance of dark atmo­sphere, cruel imagery, specific iterations (“in this cold”), etc. Ifigenija Zagoricnik uses the character of Queen Clytemnestra. However, the author’s introduction of sacrifice – a witch trial with burning at the stake – instead evokes a confessional-personal effect and autobiographical derivation of various motifs from ancient Greek tragedy and mythology (e.g., the appearance of Clytemnestra’s daugh­ter Iphigenia),20combining the original sacrifice of Iphigenia by Agamemnon (based on a motif from Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis, translated to Slovenian by K. Gantar) and Orestes’ matricide of Clytemnestra (in Aeschylus’ Oresteia) as a reaction to her revenge on Agamemnon. The author emphasises the female characters and the sacri­ficial role of the (noble) woman, the queen and Iphigenia’s mother. Similarly, Brina Švigelj (intimately and personally) reinterprets a classical motif, which appears to be more about the emigration motif of Beautiful Vida. However, it is the use of the name (Ophelia) that testifies to a more tragic resolution of the fate of the young girl who has left for parts unknown (perhaps by train or by taxi, as the text implies) and disappeared in the darkness of the disappointing first (and last) night of love. Švigelj’s language in Ofelija (Ophelia)is poetic, full of metaphors, and subtly sensitive to nuance and mood changes, testifying to the depth of inner feeling and richness of sensory impressions and emotional moods, which distinguishes it from the otherwise realistic language and action, and sometimesalso the absurdist and conceptually conceived nature of much of the men’s writing in The Generator. An analysis of these texts shows that women’s writing reproduces a different repre­sentation of womanliness than men’s writing. Men’s writing reduces the role of wom­en to silent (non-speaking, voiceless, even silenced) characters; it is dominant and thus determines the social image of women.21Women’s writing plays with the (liter­ary) tendency of men’s writing to represent women as silent characters by highlight­ing, raising awareness of, reflecting on and reinterpreting it. In this regard, Švigelj’s artistic treatment of the plot in Ophelia is crucial. Positioning the silent female char­acter into a central role does not take the silent female character for granted, nor does 20 The playlet is signed by Ifigenija (Zagoricnik), a name that in ancient Greek tragedy or mythology designates the daughter of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon (in the play, husbands and sons are reduced to a supporting role, mentioned in their function of potential betrayal), who was sacrificed to the gods by her own father in order to make the military campaign against Troy possible. The author’s playing with names suggests a personal reinterpretation of the myth. 21 Let us recall that in one of the most famous Slovenian (political) plays, Dominik Smole’s Antigona (Antigone,1960), the titular character remains silent, in fact even absent, as she does not appear in the play at all. it reduce it to an irrelevant side character but willingly emphasises the silence itself. Although a constant topic of conversation by other characters and central to the ac­tion, Ophelia is exposed as absent and silent by a skilful dramatic manoeuvre.22There is a great deal of repetition, pauses, silences, sighs (“(short break)” 330–331, 333), un­spoken thoughts, the language is at times disrupted, there are many innuendos, hints, insinuations without a definite answer as to where the young girl has disappeared to after a night of love. What is significant is the change of (patriarchal) discourse into a feminine/feminist one, in the sense of acknowledging and affirming the pain, the anguish of a young girl, the end of a young path due to deviating from the social norm and what is considered appropriate for the female gender: “Too independent, they must have said” (328); “People talk, you know, about theirevenings on the shore” (331); “Her dress was too short” (332). Švigelj’s writing in Ophelia already anticipates, to a certain extent, the characteristics that can be found (with no indication of direct influence), for example, in the more contemporary dramatic women’s writing of Simona Semenic.23There are gaps, paus­es, interstices, and silences, which indicate a rebellion against and a break with men’s writing. The patriarchal discourse suddenly proves to be insufficient, imposed from the perspective of a different view. A proper alternative to this was not yet offered since, atthe time (1966–86), the new (women’s) writing had not yet won its place en masse. We can only speak of that in more contemporary dramatic examples. The Female Silent (Non-speaking, Voiceless, Silenced) Character I use the silent character as a metaphor for the representation of woman(liness) (or its absence), as this goes directly to the heart of the theme of gender politics and hegemonic gender relations in performing arts or drama. Moreover, it explicitly the-matises the very position of silence that became established as the representation of woman(liness) throughout the history of Slovenian drama. I use the example of Simo­na Hamer’s dramatic writing as an example of contemporary women’s writing that can critically reflect on and articulate the silent and verbally absent representation of women (besides the aforementioned Ophelia by Švigelj). Simona Hamer’s The Silent Character was written or, rather, performed as part of the 2010 action preglej: Zakon! (preglej The Act!) and 2011’s The Act: Third Reading,24where the silent character or 22 In Švigelj’s playlet, we can also see a clear division and gender polarisation between the male (the young boy dressed as a page) and the female perspective, the First One and the Second One (by all appearances Ophelia’s chambermaids, her (personal and intimate) confidants, comforters, which also includes the role of the chorus, the people). 23 The fragmentation of writing, pauses, language, the abandonment of (grammatical) rules and norms points to the problematisation of existing patriarchal values and ideological narratives and discourses into which women are forced. 24 The Act: Third Reading was a performative action of the then group or drama laboratory PreGlej (later Preglej), which was clearly politically oriented and explicitly socially engaged, while by no means gender-neutral. The title of The Act refers to the family legislation act, while Third Reading refers to the National Assembly reading the bill in 2010. rather her silence, appears in an explicitly articulated form. The Silent Character is an (experimental) theatrical text, more akin to a playlet in length, as it only takes up two pages in its original publication. Thus, formally, it bears similarities with the modern­ist drama experiments of The Generator.25 In The Silent Character,there is a discrepancy between its verbal, spoken part and its visual part.26The spoken text is represented by instructions (that can be staged by a voice from the off). There is an evident lack here, as the content of the text/instruc­tions refers to a character thatis not verbally represented in the text, the silent char­acter. The silent character is absent at the speech level, she is silent, and the play is about the absence of her verbal re-presentation. As such, the silent character cannot exist in the dramatic text. It can only exist outside the text, hidden in the didascalies or stage directions as a performative trace. Her mode of existence is in her presence and her reduction to bare corporeality. In The Silent Character, this is doubly emphasised, both in terms of content and per­formance. The silent character is not a gender-neutral character, nor is it merely a lin­guistic function ora neutral signifier. As the authorpoints out: the silent characterhas genitals and breasts as well. The silent character is a female character, albeit subject to de-subjectification, objectification and reduction to gender. The instructions of the voice from the off, i.e., the directorof the torturous situation, literally force her to expose herself publicly, her intimacy, and her gender. If I were to use the patriarchal discourse, I could claim that the reduction of the silent character to hergender, to her corporeality and to the visual, external, superficial dimension functions as a symbolic artistic castra­tion. The text acquired additional meaning through its performance, as in The Act: Third Reading, the silent character was performed by the author Simona Hamerherself (12 March 2010 at Cankarjev dom), thus positioning her role of a female playwright within the symbolic sexual and dramatic relations of contemporary drama. In this way, through her cunning use of the silent characterin contemporary women’s playwriting, Hamer manages to critically reflect on the position of the female playwright within the patriar­chal discourse and to draw attention to her reduction to silence. In Simona Hamer’s work, silent characters are formally and stylistically separated from the main text – by italics. They can therefore be found only in stage directions which in drama theory represent the marginal position and reduction to secondary 25 In both form and content, her performance text is reminiscent of a work of high modernism, Samuel Beckett’s meta-theatre text Catastrophe (1982), which also consists of instructions performed by the director, his assistant and the object, which is mute. The text is dedicated to the Czechoslovak playwright (and later president) Václav Havel. Beckett wrote it at the time of Havel’s imprisonment for dissent, and it is thus one of his few explicitly political works. 26 The playlet is formally divided into four parts, separated vertically and horizontally. The first part is a description of the (dramatic) situation of the silent character. The second part is a voice from the off, giving instructions to the silent character (regarding the action). The third part is an instruction to us, the readers or viewers, on how to act in relation to the performance or the text: “WHAT PART DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? / NO, DON’T READ – LOOK!!!” (this is a visual simulation of shouting at the spectator/reader). The fourth and final part is a footnote in small print: “This is a silent character. / There is nothing else / except what you see. / …” (The Act: Third Reading 34). text that may or may not be staged. By depriving the silent characters of the right to speak and of the main text, they are condemned in their own impotence to be at the mercy of and dependent on the big other, the narrator and the author or, rather, direc­tor, to give them visibility (and audibility) or to deprive them of it.27 Five years afterThe Act: Third Reading and The Silent Character (2010), Hamer further developed and expanded the concept of the silent character in her play Nemi liki (Si­lent Characters,2015), in which silent characters refer to all socially deprived groups, not only women, but all nameless marginalised groups and existences, expressing the roles of the many interchangeable and, from the point of view of society, expendable anonymous people.28Hamer thus extends her critique of patriarchy and systems of power and value to the critique of the turbo-capitalist consumerist system.29 What about Representation of Women and Womanliness in Playwriting Today? A Change for the Better? In Slovenian drama, gender representation only started to move towards equality af­ter 2000: In 2001, the number of anonymous submissions forthe Slavko Grum Award increased (2001). For the first time in 2002, women were in the majority on the jury. In 2007, the award was given to a female author for the first time. Since 2007, the Slavko Grum Award has become more gender-balanced in general, although still male-domi­nated: the award has been thus given eight times to male authors, five times to female authors, and twice to several authors. Overall, in the last 16years (2007–2022), the award has been given eight times to female authors and ten times to male authors. Men still tend to be awarded the prize in a higher proportion. However, the situation regarding the presence and gender representation of female playwrights has changed radically. To confirm this, I would also like to quote Maja Šorli’s observation, who compared the activities of the theatre collective Pupilija Ferkeverk and their predecessors, the so-called Pupilcki (Pupilceks) poetry groups (active in the 1960s) to the more contemporary participantsof PreGlej (the so-called PreGlejcki were active around the breaking year 2007). As she puts it: 27 Simona Hamer developed the concept ofsilent characters in her project lasting until 2015, and concluded the two-year accompanying part ofher artistic research with a (practical) round table at the 2014 Maribor Theatre Festival entitled Silent Character(s) in Dramatic Literature, on Stage and in Reality. 28 From migrants, the countless anonymous refugees and underpaid workers from the Middle East, victims of verbal harassment, physical and sexual violence, female victims of war, women, nameless cleaners and secretaries, maids, nightclub dancers, etc. 29 Simona Hamer’s Silent Characters is still a play in which only men speak all the time, be it teenagers or their fathers, soldiers, nightclub customers and businessmen. The reproduction of the patriarchal representation of women in showbiz, entertainment and capitalist consumerist society is supported by quotations from the lyrics of famous pop stars (Beyonce, Rihanna, Rita Ora, Nicky Minaj), who sing about helpfulness, submissiveness, the female body and its objectification in over-sexualised lyrics. 308 The artists – the poets of the groups 441, 442 and the 443 movement – were all male, and it was only with Pupilija thata kind of gender balance was reached. The female co-travellers (as Ivo Svetina calls them) did not write their own poetry. Moreover, this is the fundamental difference between the Preglejcki and the Pupilcki. The PGLab was dominated by women, while in the performance of Devet lahkih komadov (Nine Easy Pieces),the number of performers was balanced by gender.30 (Šorli 74) For example, in The Act: Third Reading by the Preglej group (staged in 2010, published in 2011), which also contains the text The Silent Character, which I am analysing in comparison to The Generator anthology, there are seven texts in total, the majority of which, specifically five texts, are written by women and two by men.31The gender ratio in the Preglejcki group shifted to 5/7, or 71 per cent, in favour of female authors or rather playwrights during the course of over a quarter of a century. Conclusion In this paper, I focus on the problem of the unequal representation of gender in the area of Slovenian drama, especially in the period 1966–1986, i.e., the explicit domi­nance of male playwrights and the absence of female representation, which is usually interpreted as the consequence of the reality of there being less female playwrights, while less attention is paid to and fewer attempts are made to understand the causes of this situation. In the paper, I address this very issue. With the dominance in the field of drama by male professional authorities and the under-representation of female playwrights in the award mechanisms, the lack of recognition of the importance of female topics or the specificity of women’s work, and the absence of its promotion, the situation ofunequal representation between the gendersappears to be the effect of the functioning of patriarchal ideology, rather than representing reality. In the rest of this paper, I focus on the significance of this dominant situation of male playwriting for the representation of woman(liness) in Slovenian drama and its ab­sence, as well as for the lack of awareness about the (absence of) female perspective. I illustrate the practical consequences caused by the dominant male playwriting uni­laterally determining the reproduction of the representation of woman(liness)) by using examples from the analysis of men’s writing from The Generator, which turns out to uncritically reproduce the image of anonymous and silent female characters reduced to the visual or sexual dimension. In the case of the one-sided and monolithic, 30 “Inthe PGLab, in considering our texts, we often come across the topics of equality, equal opportunities and difference, especially in relation to gender politics. The 1960s were the years of sexual liberation, but not of sexual equality and respect. There were no women poets in the 441, 442 and 443 groups. Today, in general, there is still no significant progress in this area, which is why the Preglejcki endeavour to foster respect and equal opportunities for both sexes” (Šorli 85). 31 Two of them are pseudonyms, however, there is gender equivalence in the relationship between the author andtheir pseudonym. even one-dimensional or stereotypical representation of woman(liness) in male play­writing (at least in the examples of plays from The Generator discussed here; a larger sample of plays would be needed to assess the situation in the history of Slovenian drama in its entirety), I emphasise the need for awareness of systemic blind spots in interpretations that emerge without any awareness of the absence of a female per­spective. Despite being in the majority during this period, male playwriting is neither the normative nor the universal experience in the representation of woman(liness), although it may be presented as such. The female and any other gender perspective are, in fact, excluded from it. This is especially important because this state of patriar­chal domination persists throughout at least three to four decades of Slovenian drama 1966–2006. The imbalance in gender representation, the historical lack of representation of wom­en’s writing and the dominance of men’s writing render an alternative, diverse and balanced representation of woman(liness) impossible and impoverished; the whole range of critical treatment of specific (female) topics and diversity in the portrayals of female characters (representations of women) is missing. Thus arises the danger of domination and reproduction of a narrow, passive, objectified and male-centred representation of woman(liness), which on the one hand, issexualised and, on the other hand, is usually positioned within a patriarchal and/or Christian system of val­ues. It is a representation of woman(liness) that is, first and foremost, silent. Silence, or rather, the silent character, thus turns out to be an appropriate metaphor both for naming the position of (absent) female authors, Slovenian female playwrights and their inadequate representation, i.e., for the real, extra-fictional element, as well as for the (intra-literary, or intra-fictional) representation of female characters within Slovenian drama. Since female playwrights and representations of woman(liness) in Slovenian drama remain silent, the voice and articulation of this silence and absence are also often missing. On the contrary, it is only in female playwriting that the silent character is used as a critical tool for exposing patriarchal domination (in the cases of Brina Švigelj’s Ophelia and Simona Hamer’s The Silent Character). Literature Borovnik, Silvija. Pišejo ženskedrugace? O Slovenkah kot pisateljicah in literarnih likih. Mihelac, 1995. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble.: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 2006. Criado Perez, Caroline. Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Abrams Press, 2019. Drnovšcek, Mirjan, and Marinka Poštrak, editors. 40 let Tedna slovenske drame 1971– 2010. Prešernovo gledališce, 2010. Hamer, Simona. Nemi liki. https://sigledal.org/w/images/9/9a/NemiLiki_final.pdf. Accessed 26 Sep. 2022. —. “Nemi lik.” Zakon III. branje/The Act: Third Reading. KD Integrali, 2011. Kac, Maja. “Spominjanje žensk v javnem prostoru: ‘Dokler o njih ne govorimo, jih ne spravljamo v zavest’.” Multimedijski center/MMC RTV Slovenija, https://www.rtvslo. si/kultura/dediscina/spominjanje-zensk-v-javnem-prostoru-dokler-o-njih-ne-go­vorimo-jih-ne-spravljamo-v-zavest/660434. Accessed 3 Apr. 2023. Lukan, Blaž, editor. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega številadramskih komplek­sov (Slovenski eksperimentalni dramski in uprizoritveni teksti iz obdobja modernizma (1966–1986)). SLOGI, AGRFT, 2001. Mihurko Poniž, Katja. Zapisano z njenim peresom: prelomi zgodnjih slovenskih kn-jiževnic s paradigmo nacionalne literature. Založba Univerze v Novi Gorici, 2014. —. Od lastnega glasu do lastne sobe: literarne ustvarjalke od zacetkov do modernizma. Beletrina, 2001. “Nagrade festivala Dnevi komedije.” sigledal.org, https://sigledal.org/geslo/Nagra­de_festivala_Dnevi_komedije. Accessed 29 Dec. 2022. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Poskus samokritike.” Rojstvo tragedije iz duha glasbe, Založba Karantanija, 1995. Open.si. Web page (homepage), http://www.open.si/. Accessed 27 Sep. 2022. “Podatki VDT RS o femicidu v Sloveniji.” https://www.dt-rs.si/158/podatki-v­dt-rs-o-femicidu-v-sloveniji. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Preglej na glas: festival dramske pisave. Produkcija: Gledališce Glej, Cankarjev dom, TSD. Ljubljana: Cankarjev dom, 2010. Flyer. Author’s personal archive. Šorli, Maja. “Dva primera ready-made besedila v slovenskem gledališcu.” Drama, tekst, pisava, edited by Petra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišic, Knjižnica MGL, 2008. Zakon III. branje / The Act: Third Reading. KD Integrali, 2011. Zakon III. branje / The Act: Third Reading.Electronic version. https://veza.sigledal.org/ media/uploads/Dokumenti/preglej_zakon_iii.branje.pdf. Accessed 27 Sep. 2022. Recenzija / Review Slojevit naboj komedije Tajda Lipicer, tajda.lipicer@gmail.com Jure Gantar: Eseji o komediji. MGL, 2022. »Komika umira hitro in lahko dolgorocno preživi samo, ce postane del kolektivnega kulturnega spomina. Zato potrebuje uprizoritve« (85), zapiše Jure Gantar v eseju »Komedija in država« (2007), ki je del nove zbirke Eseji o komediji (MGL, 2022). Slednja z dvaindvajsetimi eseji, ki so nastali kot zapisi za gledališke liste ob upri­zoritvah obravnavanih besedil, predstavlja izbor metodološko raznovrstnih dra­maturških razclemb. Za zbirko, ki s kronološko ureditvijo predstavlja »nekakšen vzorcen presek skozi zgodovino komedije od starih Grkov do Matjaža Zupanci­ca in Iva Prijatelja«, se zdi, kot da v celoti odzvanja v zacetku zapisano izhodiš-ce: Gantar ob analiziranju venomer izhaja iz notranjih zakonitosti komedije kot dramske forme, preko katere se obraca v prakso ali kontekst družbene stvarnosti ter slednje neposredno pretvarja nazaj v artikulirano teorijo. Tako zbirka ni stro-go zapisana le teatrološki stroki, temvec je prav zaradi svoje fragmentarne zgošce­nosti in jedrnatosti, a interpretacijske natancnosti uporabna tudi v uprizoritvene namene. Zbirka obsega primerjalne, sociološke in antropološke analize komedij, obenem pa zajema tudi natancne analize dejanj ter karakterizacije likov obravna­vanih komedij, ki se utegnejo izkazati za prirocen konceptualno-uprizoritveni, ce ne vsaj pojmovni kljuc. Zbirko zacenja esej o Aristofanu (triindvajseti esej), ki je za razliko od ostalih esejev nastal za revijo Maska, zakljucujeta pa jo eseja o Matjažu Zupancicu in Ivu Prijatelju, karbi lahko pripisali v uvodni zahvali zastavljenemu nacinu ureditve zbirke – gre za kronologijo, ki vzdržuje preglednost. Morda pa odlocitev za zakljucitev zbirke s slovenskima avtorjema ni povsem arbitrarna. Ob pregledu kazala vsebine namrec lahko opazimo zanimivo podrobnost: od vsega skupaj dvaindvajsetih esejev le trije obravnavajo slovensko komediografijo. Poleg zakljucnih dveh je tu še esej o Ivanu Cankarju, pri katerem pa gre bolj ko ne za primerjalni esej (v zbirko pa je uvršcen tudi primerjalni esej med Karlom Valentinom in Charliejem Chaplinom, ki je nastal ob uprizoritvi Valentiniada v SNG Drama Ljubljana leta 2016 v priredbidramaticarke in dramaturginje Žanine Mircevske, ki pa v eseju ni omenjena). Resda gre pri zbirki za izbrane eseje, torej za omejeno bazo podatkov, iz katere težko potegnemoultimativnezakljucke, pa vendar se zdi pisanje, ustvarjanje in ne nazadnje uprizarjanje slovenske dramatike podhranjeno. Ob tem lahko le upamo, da je v zacetku izpostavljena Gantarjeva izjava samo dobronamerno svarilna, ne pa tudi preroška. Poigravanje z neuprizorljivim Kaj nas ob pogledu na uprizorjeno spolnost spravi v smeh? Je to le odraz cloveške zadržanosti, sramu ali samocenzure? Privlacnost Gantarjeve teorije o t. i. »eroticnem smehu« iz prvega eseja »Aristofan, erotika in smeh« (2000)je prav v tem, da ga ne poskuša – kot je to pogosto v navadi – razlagati s pomocjo psihoanalize ter zakonov cloveške zavesti, temvec z analizo objekta posmeha samega in ne subjekta, ki se temu objektu smeji. »Smeh kot odziv na odrsko upodobitev spolnosti […] je prej odraz odr­skih težav, ki jih gledališcu povzroca uprizarjanje mejnih pojavov« (12). S slednjim v mislih je Aristofan po Gantarju nacelno vpeljeval motive obscenosti in eksplicitnosti, ne kot element šoka, naslade ali presenecenja, temvec kot znak »pomanjkljivosti anti­cne gledališke prakse« (13). Te pomanjkljivosti pa ocitno niso zapisane le zgodovini. Gledališce kot mimeticna umetnost na svoje prizorišce postavlja znake. Stvari so, a se pretvarjajo, da so nekaj drugega, in potrebna je mera konvencije, da jih sprejmemo v njihovi matricirani podobi. Razni »vdori realnosti« (na primer otroci ali živali) matri-co prebijajo in zaustavljajo sprejem gledališke iluzije, zato Gantar izpostavlja nenapi­san zakon, »ki zahteva, da je dva izmed temeljnih dogodkov v našem življenju – koitus in smrt –na odru potrebno vedno simulirati« (14). A konvencije, ki jih Gantar poime­nuje »uprizoritvene bližnjice« (17), v teh primerih hitro postanejo nezadostne, tarca posmeha pa postane sam nacin in ne predmet posnemanja. Edini nacin, po katerem se gledališce v uprizarjanju erotike lahko izogne smehu, je, da je ne uprizori, temvec jo dejansko izvede. Sledi Gantarjev prvi mocnejši tezicni poudarek zbirke: kjer mimikri­ja ni mogoca, gledališce deluje inherentno komicno. Moličre kot glasnik novega sistema vrednot Prvi del zbirke je v primerjavi z drugim delom relativno razredcen, saj v njem Gantar nameni veliko prostora razvijanju misli o posameznem avtorju ali literarno-gleda­liškem obdobju. Prva eseja obravnavata anticno grško in rimsko komedijo, dva eseja obravnavata Shakespearja, sledijo pa štirje eseji o Moličru, ki predstavljajo vecji del prvega dela zbirke. V ciklu štirih esejev Gantar z analizo Don Juana (1665), Ljudomrz­nika (1666), Skopuha (1668) in Plemenitega mešcana (1670) pokaže na Moličrovo napredno razumevanje tradicionalnih komicnih obrazcev. V eseju »Moličrovi italijan­ ski posli« (2010) na primeru igre Skopuh Gantar obravnava Moličrovo razumevanje lazzijev: v commedii dell’arte strukturno locen komicni interludij pri Moličru postane povezovalni in ne clenitveni element dramskega dogajanja.Z »dramaturškim dvopic­jem« (73) – kot Moličrovo predelavo dramaturškega obrazca poimenuje Gantar – Mo-ličre razplasti dejanje do stopnje njegovega komicnega ucinkovanja. »Lazzo je premor, ki veže« (73) – interno dinamiko dramskega prizora razdvaja, a obenem ohranja fabu­lativno vzrocno-posledicno logiko. Kot najizvirnejši primer takšne predelave lazza Gantar vidi preprosto uprizoritveno navodilo v Skopuhu, po katerem se skopuh Harpagonv svojem samogovoru »zgrabi za roko«, za katero se zdi, da se je pobezljano osamosvojila odtelesa. Globine pomena geste Gantar ne vidi le v njenem komicnem ucinkovanju, ki nastopi na racun izvedbe­ne natancnosti, temvec ji dodatno vrednost pripiše z artikulacijo znacilnosti Brechto­vega gestusa. Roka, ki se je odcepila od subjekta in postala sama po sebi locen subjekt, namrec sprva »problematizira vprašanje posameznikove identitete kot enovitega in nedeljivega konstrukta naše zavesti« (73) ter obenem oznacuje »konec tradicionalne ontološke hierarhije [med nadrejenim duhom in podrejenim telesom, op. a.] ter zace­tek samorefleksije kot nujnega predpogoja moderne dobe« (73). S ponovitvijo v prvem in zadnjem eseju cikel zaobjame teza o mapiranju novoveškega subjekta kot sidrišca Moličrove komediografije. Razliko med racionalizmom in em-pirizmom Gantar iz prvega eseja cikla »Srednjenovi vek« (2011) crpa v zadnji esej »Junaštvo gospoda Jourdaina« (2007), v katerem poglobi Jourdainovo karakteriza­cijo in opravi s stereotipnim prepricanjem, da Moličrežlahtnega mešcana smeši. Po Gantarju se Moličre pravzaprav pogosteje postavlja na stran Jourdaina, ki ob sicer komicnem, a povsem utemeljenem preizpraševanju »stroke« (ki posledicno ob njego­vem preizpraševanju obcasno že spominja na kup praznih intelektualisticnih puhlic, ki ne premorejo stika s stvarnostjo), predstavlja glasnika nove dobe, »ki se zanaša na empiricno spoznanje« in »ki se namesto k podatkom zateka k dokazom« (80). V Gan-tarjevi interpretaciji Jourdain ni le bogat, a neizobražen tepcek, temvec predstavnik novega sistema vrednot, ki na sam vrh postavlja cogito. Politicna komedija Prelom s prvim delom zbirke predstavlja esej »Komedija in država« (2007), v katerem avtor izrazito poglobljeno in širokopotezno interpretira odnos med državno ureditvi­jo (diktatura, oligarhija, demokracija, brezvladje) in komedijo. Ta je po Gantarju »na-celoma neideološka«, a s tem, ko je »podvržena preprosti dialektiki vecine« (97), se vedno tudi inherentno izreka v odnosu do družbene in politicne stvarnosti, zato je ne smemo izolirati od njene družbene funkcije. Komedija utrjuje poglede in vrednote dolocene skupine, a v zavedanju, da so vredno­te venomer kodirane binarno, Gantaropozarja, da »ce ideje komediografov odražajo voljo in mnenje vecine, to še ne dokazuje, da so nujno inteligentne ali napredne« (94). Komedija kot zastopnica vecinskih vrednot, na primer, predstavlja izcrpno ideološko orodje prav za avtokratske družbene sisteme, ki se naslanjajo na »tiho podporo rela­tivno velikega deleža prebivalstva« (88). A vendarle ostaja položaj komedije v diktaturi dvoumen: vedno je lahko zatrta, pri podpori pa gre lahko le za rezultat preracunljivosti. Za komedijo je najugodnejše obdobje demokracije. Komedija vedno vsebuje konsenz vecine, kar pa rezonira z nacinom demokraticne državne ureditve. Vdemokraciji lah­ko komedija izpolnjuje državotvorno vlogo, saj »ob gledanju in poslušanju komedije s smehom izkazujemo pripadnost skupini in ne zgolj svoje individualne identitete« (92). Podobno nedvoumna je situacija v oligarhiji, a ta nasprotno od demokracije temelji na »ideološkem elitizmu« (90), ki pa je tako krhek, da jo lahko ogrozi »celo neresno zanicevanje« (90), zato »družbena elita komedijo zaduši« (91). Z brezvladjem pa nastopi vprašanje moralnosti smeha, ki se ga Gantar v nadaljevanju dotakne tudi v eseju »Crni humor in psihopatologija malomešcanskega vsakdana« (oko­mediji Bolje tic v roki kot tat na strehi Matjaža Zupancica, uprizorjeni v MGL leta 2005) terv eseju »Božicna zabava« (o Shakespearovi komediji Kar hocete). Gantar predpo­stavlja, da ce je sistemsko brezvladje mogoce, je mogoce samo, »kadarje družba dosegla doloceno stopnjo zrelosti« (95). Vtakšni, pravicni družbi ni neenakosti ali krivic – pa tudi prostora za smeh ali komedijo ne. Komedija lahko »v osvobojeni družbi obstane samo, ce se odpove svobodi do smešenja, se pravi, ce se samoomeji« (96). Ceprav se zdi, da se družbena zrelost nujno povezuje zzadržanostjo, Gantarv zakljucku eseja klice k strpnosti: »Ceprav nas je komedija sposobna osvoboditi zatiranja, nas pravica do smeha ne osvobaja odgovornosti do drugih« (96). Vsaka svoboda – tudi svoboda do smešenja – se »razteza samo do roba bolecine Drugega« (96). Absurd in njegova parodija Kronološko približevanju 21. stoletju v zbirki esejev zaznamuje trojica esejev, ki se dotikajo gledališca absurda. Esej »Ionesco in Descartes« (2007) se s preizpraševan­jem temeljnih postavk kartezijanske filozofije povezuje v esej »Razsodnost in ra­zuzdanost« (2009), kjer Gantar analizira rabo jezika pri JoejuOrtonu. V casu nastan­ka Ortonove komedijePornoskop ali kaj je videl batler (1969) trend t. i. »kuhinjske« drame zapoveduje dosledno rabo jezika glede na razredno pripadnost, izobrazbo in poreklo lika, Ortonovi liki pa leporecijo v zbornem jeziku – tudi batlerji in služincad. V Gantarjevi interpretaciji Ortonovo ironiziranje temeljev tradicionalne mešcanske 318 družbene ureditve izhaja iz zavedanja o minljivosti sveta – zakaj vztrajati pri družbe­nih in razrednih konvencijah, »kakršne so, recimo, slovnicna pravila, žanrske katego­rije, nacionalna identiteta, razredna pripadnost in monogamija«, ko pa svet lahko v vsakem trenutku izgine. Tovrstno eksistencialno negotovost, gonilno silo absurdisticne dramatike, parodira tretji obravnavani avtor – Hanoch Levin. V Gantarjevi interpretaciji iz eseja »Paro­diranje absurdnega gledališca« (2021) Levin s parodiranjem samih temeljev absurd-nega gledališca (»abstraktnost njegovih dramskih situacij, iracionalnost karakteriza­cije in nesmiselnost dialoga«) (162) ne cilja na prikaz krize sveta ter subjekta v njem – kot to velja za njegove predhodnike ter nekatere sodobnike – temvec parodira satiro »zato, da prakticno ponazori pomanjkljivosti absurda kot filozofske ideje, s katero poskušajo nekateri avtorji razložiti vzroke za to krizo« (166-7). Nekoc avantgarden, se je absurdizem v kulturi tako reproduciral in udomacil, da je izgubil svojo prvotno prodornost. Moc absurdisticnedramatike je bila v tem, da je delovala provokativno, dandanes pa gledalci absurda (ki je že zdavnaj prepoznan kot prevladujoce stanje sve­ta) ne doživljajovec »kot drznega umetniškega eksperimenta, temvec prej kot ucinko­vito komicno strategijo« (167). Ko je absurd postal sprejemljiv za prevladujoc okus, se je z njim zgodilo to, kar Gantar opisuje na straneh eseja »Komedija in država«: s spremembami družbenega reda (oziroma nacina doživljanja družbene stvarnosti) je poprejšnja subverzivnost postala komfortna, ce ne že konservativna. Gantar slednjo tezo sicer vpeljuje v kontekstu diskurza o odnosu med komedijo in spremembami v družbeni ureditvi: progresivno-subverzivna narava vsebine se s spremembami držav­nega reda – ki nastanejo, ko se del družbe, ki se istoveti s to progresivno-subverzivno vsebino, prebije na družbeni vrh – spremeni v novo prevladujoco, potencialno kmalu konservativno ideologijo. Nekaj podobnega naj bi se po Levinu zgodilo z absurdom. Medbesedilnost Gantarjevih esejev z obujanjem konceptov in miselnih vzorcev bralca nenehno vraca k vsebini prejšnjih esejev, kar dela branje zbirke homogeno, uravno­teženo in na svoj nacin tudi vznemirljivo. To pa gre pripisati tudi natancnemu ured­niškemu delu Petre Pogorevc. Komedija in vrednostne sodbe Komedijo v teatrološko-kriticnem diskurzu venomer spremlja »nacelni literarno­dramaturški predsodek« (181). Nenapisana žanrska hierarhija tragedijo postavlja v sam vrh vrednostne lestvice, burko ali farso kot »nižjo« obliko komedije pa na samo dno. Gre za arhetip evropske kulturne zavesti, ugotavlja avtor spremne besede Vili Ravnjak (269). Naj gre torej za Lojzeta Filipica, ob katerem se Gantar sprašuje, zakaj je cutil takšno potrebo po zagovoru razlogov za uvrstitev bulvarke na repertoar gledališca (171), ali pa za farso Govorice(1988) Neila Simona, ki so jo kritiki ob premieri nacelno zavrnili, leta 1991 pa je avtorju prinesla Pulitzerjevo nagrado – komedijski žanr stereotipno ne prinaša »nobenih pomembnih spoznanj in resnic o življenju« (269), pac pa le veliko »smejalno gostoto« (prav tam), ki obcinstvo zabava. A ceprav zadnji del trditve drži, lahko celotno zbirko Gantarjevih esejev beremo kot posredno polemizacijo s predhodnim delom povedi. Ceprav so nastaliv locenih kontekstih, se Gantarjevi esejiberejo kot nadaljevanje ene misli, s katero Gantar posredno postavlja pod vprašaj stereotipno vrednotenje komedije kot »nizkega« žanra. Ob predstavitvi problematike politicne komedije, obravnavi smeha ter komike z moralnega vidika ter ob analizi sociologije komedije se ne moremo izogniti temu, da komedije ne bi mislili v vsej njeni velicini (ali intelektualni »višini«). Kot pravi Vili Ravnjak, smeh kot odziv ter obenem posledica komicnega ucinkovanja ni socialno inferioren, temvec ima pravzaprav moc preseganja ter nadvladovanja naše razumske logike: ob smehu se je »zlomil nek pomemben clen v verigi smisla, ki smo ga sicer vajeni. Zasmeje se 'prevarani' razum« (269). Navodila za avtorje Amfiteater je znanstvena revija, ki objavlja izvirne clanke s podrocja scenskih umetnosti v širokem razponu od dramskega gledališca, dramatike, plesa, performansa do hibridnih umetnosti. Uredništvo sprejema prispevke v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku ter pricakuje, da oddana besedila še niso bila objavljena in da istocasno niso bila poslana v objavo drugam. Vsi clanki so recenzirani. Priporocena dolžina razprav je 30.000 znakov s presledki (5000 besed). Na prvi strani naj bodo pod naslovom navedeni podatki o avtorstvu (ime in priimek, elektronski naslov in ustanova, kjer avtor deluje). Sledi naj izvlecek (do 1500 znakov s presledki) in kljucne besede (5–8), oboje v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku ter objavi namenjena biografija v obsegu do 550 znakov s presledki (v slovenšcini in anglešcini). Na koncu clanka naj bo daljši povzetek (do 6000 znakov s presledki v anglešcini, ce je clanek v slovenšcini oz. v slovenšcini, ce je clanek v anglešcini). V angleških tekstih naj avtorji uporabljajo britansko crkovanje (npr. -ise, -isation, colour, analyse, travelled, etc.). Clanek naj bo zapisan v programu Microsoft Word ali Open Office, v pisavi Times New Roman z velikostjo crk 12 ter medvrsticnimrazmikom 1,5. Vsak novi odstavek naj bo oznacen z vrinjeno prazno vrstico. Daljši citati (nad pet vrstic) naj bodo samostojni odstavki z velikostjo pisave 10, od preostalega besedila pa naj bodo loceni z izpustom vrstice in zamaknjeni v desno. Okrajšave in prilagoditve citatov naj bodo oznacene z oglatimi oklepaji [...]. Opombe niso namenjene sklicevanju na literaturo in vire. Natisnjene so kot sprotne opombe in zaporedno oštevilcene. CITIRANJE V BESEDILU Kadar navajamo avtorja in citirano delo med besedilom, v oklepaju oznacimo samo strani, npr. (161–66). Kadar avtor citata v stavku ni omenjen, zapišemo njegovo ime in številko strani v oklepaju, med njima pa ne postavimo locila, npr. (Reinelt 161–66). Razlicne bibliografske enote istega avtorja poimenujemo z okrajšanimi naslovi, npr. (Reinelt, Javno 161–66). • Naslove knjig in umetniških del (dramskih besedil, uprizoritev, raznovrstnih umetniških dogodkov, slik itd.) zapisujemo ležece: Cankarjeva Lepa Vida. • Naslovi clankov naj bodo zapisani pokoncno in v narekovajih kot na seznamu literature: Draga Ahacic je v clanku »Blišc in beda teatralnosti: gledališce Tomaža Pandurja« zapisala, da ... • Besedilo v citatu naj bo navedeno z vsemi posebnostmi (arhaizmi, velikimi crkami, kurzi­vami itd.), npr.: ... sta dognala, da »ce rece sodnik: ‘dovolim’, noce ‘govoriti o veršitvi’ dovol­jevanja, temuc dovoljenje v resnici dati, s to besedo dejanje zveršiti« (Škrabec 81). • Pri zaporednem citiranju iste bibliografske enote (clanka, knjige) v besedilu uporabljamo besedno zvezo: (prav tam 20). • Pri posrednem navajanju uporabimo: (nav. po Reinelt 10). BIBLIOGRAFIJA Seznam literature in virov sestavimo po standardih MLA (8. izdaja). • Za zbornik z vec uredniki: Sušec Michieli, Barbara, Blaž Lukan in Maja Šorli, ur. Dinamika sprememb v slovenskem gle­dališcu 20. stoletja. Akademija za gledališce, radio, film in televizijo/Maska, 2010. • Za knjigo: Reinellt, Janelle. Javno uprizarjanje. Eseji o gledališcu našega casa. Mestno gledališce ljubl­jansko, 2006. Knjižnica MGL, 143. • Za del knjige: Auslander, Philip. »‘Just Be Your Self’: Logocentrism and difference in performance theory.« Acting (Re)Considered: Theories and Practices, ur. Phillip B. Zarrilli, Routledge, 1995, str. 59–67. • Za clanek v reviji: Bank, Rosemarie. »Recurrence, Duration, and Ceremonies of Naming.« Amfiteater, letn. 1, št. 2, 2008, str. 13–30. • Za clanek v gledališkem listu: Kermauner, Taras. »Nova Sizifova viža.« Gledališki list SNG Drama Ljubljana, letn. 76, št. 5, 1996/97, str. 10–15. • Za clanek v casopisu: Ahacic, Draga. »Blišc in beda teatralnosti: gledališce Tomaža Pandurja.« Delo, 6. jul. 1996, str. 37. • Za clanek na internetu: Cicigoj, Katja. »Zakaj še vedno kar oponirati s kladivom?« SiGledal, 17. maj 2011, veza. sigle-dal.org/prispevki/zakaj-se-vedno-kar-oponirati-s-kladivom. Dostop 23. jul. 2013. • Za ustne vire oz. intervju: Korda, Neven. »Intervju.« Intervjuvala Tereza Gregoric. Ljubljana, 28. apr. 2011. Zvocni zapis pri T. Gregoric. Submission Guidelines The journal Amfiteater publishes articles in field of performing arts in the context of different media, cultures, social sciences and arts. Articles are accepted in Slovenian or English language. It is expected that any manuscript submitted has not been previously published and has not been simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. All submissions are peer reviewed. The recommended length of articles is 30,000 characters including spaces. After the title please write the author’s name, postal address and e-mail address as well as professional affiliation. A short Abstract of up to 1,500 characters (including spaces) and a list of keywords (5–8) should follow together with a short biography of the author that should not exceed 550 characters including spaces. At the end of the article is a longer Abstract (6000 characters with spaces) that will be translated into Slovenian. Submit articles as an attachment file in Microsoft Word or Open Office format, in the Times New Roman font, 12 point, with 1.5 line spacing. Each new paragraph is marked with an empty line. Quotations longer than five lines are placed in separate paragraphs, in 10 point size, without quotation marks. Abbreviations and adaptations of quotations are marked in square brackets. Notes are not meant for quoting literature; they should appear as footnotes marked with consecutive numbers. Amifiteater uses British spelling (-ise, -isation, colour, analyse, travelled, etc.) in English texts. IN-TEXT CITATIONS When quoting an author and related work within the text, state only the page numbers in brackets, e.g., (161–66). When the author of the quoted work is not mentioned in the sentence, state the author’s name and the page numbers in brackets without punctuation between them, e.g., (Reinelt 161–66). For different bibliographical entries by the same author, include a shortened title ofthe work, e.g., (Reinelt, Javno 161–66). The in-text citations and bibliography is structured according to MLA style, 8th edition. Titles of books, productions, performances etc. are written in italic: e.g., Storm Still by Peter Handke. Titles of articles are written in normal font and in quotation marks: As Rosemarie Banks argues in her article "Recurrence, Duration, and Ceremonies of Naming”. When the same bibliographical entry is quoted in succession the author should use (Ibid.). BIBLIOGRAPHY • Book with editors: Jones, Amelia, and Adrian Heathfield, editors. Perform, Repeat, Record: Live Art in History. Intellect, 2012. • Book: Reinellt, Janelle. Javno uprizarjanje. Eseji o gledališcu našega casa. Mestno gledališce ljubljansko, 2006. Knjižnica MGL, 143. • Book Article or Chapter: Auslander, Philip. “‘Just Be Your Self ’: Logocentrism and difference in performance theory.” Acting (Re)Considered: Theories and Practices, edited by Phillip B. Zarrilli, Routledge, 1995, pp. 59–67. • Article in a journal: Bank, Rosemarie. “Recurrence, Duration, and Ceremonies of Naming.” Amfiteater, vol.1, no. 2, 2008, pp. 13–30. • Newspaper or Magazine Article: Ahacic, Draga. “Blišc in beda teatralnosti: gledališce Tomaža Pandurja.” Delo, 6 July 1996, p. 37. • Article with URL: Cicigoj, Katja. “Zakaj še vedno kar oponirati s kladivom?” SiGledal, 17 May 2011, veza. sigledal.org/prispevki/zakaj-se-vedno-kar-oponirati-s-kladivom. Accessed 23 July 2013. Vabilo k razpravam Amfiteater je znanstvena revija, ki objavlja izvirne clanke s podrocja scenskih umetnosti v širokem razponu od dramskega gledališca, dramatike, plesa, performansa do hibridnih umetnosti. Avtorji in avtorice lahko analizirajo oblike in vsebine umetnin in umetnostnih pojavov s podrocja scenskih umetnosti, njihovo zgodovino, sedanjost in prihodnost ter razmerje do drugih umetnostnih podrocij in širšega (družbenega, kulturnega, politicnega...) konteksta. Uredništvo sprejema prispevke v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku ter pricakuje, da oddana besedila še niso bila objavljena in da istocasno niso bila poslana v objavo drugam. Vsi clanki so recenzirani. Pri navajanju virov in seznamu sledimo standardom MLA (8. izdaja, The Modern Language Association). Prosimo, da pred oddajo prispevka natancno preberete Izjavo o spoštovanju založniških in akademskih eticnih standardov na spletni strani revije. Call for Papers Amfiteater – Journal of Performing Arts Theory publishes articles in the field of the performing arts ranging from dramatic theatre, playwriting, dance and performance art to the hybrid arts. Authors may analyse the format and content of art and art events in the field of performing arts, discuss the history, present or future of performing arts or examine its relationship with other fields of art and a broader (social, cultural, political ...) context. Articles are accepted in Slovenian and English languages. It is expected that any manuscript submitted has not been published before and has not been submitted at the same time for publication elsewhere. All submissions are peer reviewed. The in-text citation and bibliography is structured according to MLA style, 8th edition. Please carefully read the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement on the Amfiteater webpage before submitting a manuscript. ISSN 1855-4539 9 771855 453006 Cena: 10 €