Julya Mirro Oberg 1

1999
Morals. Values. Ethics. These are things often found lacking in today’s youth society, yet they are necessary for human survival. In a world where computers run corporations, schools, and leisure, the distinguishing characteristics of humans are slowly being forgotten.
Theatre has been and is now, a form of entertainment, information and a self-realization tool. Through theatre, modern society becomes more aware of themselves, their values, their world. Theatre “derives equal sustenance from theory and practice, common sense and judgment, everyday life and the specialization and techniques of expression.” 1
But there are more possibilities for theater than entertainment and information. There is a form of theatre based upon theories proposed by educators, philosophers, politicos, and scientists. This is “Living Theatre”. Based upon what is sacred to society, enhanced by psychodramatic therapy and incorporating principles as variant as the Japanese Naikan to
Julian Beck's “Paradise Now”; from social work and innovation in Children’s Theater to experimentalism and healing processes. “Living Theatre” comes from a place and people who want to understand multiculturalism, society at large and each other; understanding which can only come from education and experience. It seeks all forms of theatre which is determined to:
Stimulate debate and pleasure;
Provoke reaction;
Provide reasons for living;
Engage emotions and intellect;
Confound expectations
[and not Theatre which agrees to]
Deny discussion and feeling;
Reinforce passivity;
Belittle belief;
Disengage emotion and intellect;
Confirm expectations.
2
1
1
Alan Read, Theatre and Everyday Life/ An Ethics of Performance (New York: Routledge,
1992), 1.
2
2
Ibid., 60.
Julya Mirro Oberg 2

“Living Theatre” is “a personal attitude” 3 and may be “the art form of the future.” 4
To understand what “Living Theater” is actually about, one must consider the sources, the philosophies, and theories which are the foundation of such an art form. Adolphe Appia claims that “the touchstone for such an art form is experience which stems from interrelationships with those people around you and their selves.” 5 However true that statement might be, we must first contemplate what the theatre is, so that we may understand its use within these ideals. Theatre, though an art form, has had many applications in its function within society, throughout history. As mentioned previously, it serves to educate, inform, and reflect society. Thus, theatre is a great source for philosophers and educators to use when considering the application of theories to the general public.
Theatre began in ancient times, with barbaric cave dances and primitive rituals. The trials and tribulations of war, the passage into adulthood, each of these were part of life for those cultures which existed long before the time of written word. These were rituals sacred to the people; they were the reincarnation, or re-creation of reality. Acting out the bear kill gave pride to the warrior, information to the tribe, and excitement to the children. Feathers and masks, skins and paint, costumes like modern society could never even fathom, these were the early seeds of theatre. The idea to present something to others, to explain, to educate, to excite- this is where theatre originates.
Alan Read explains that the word ‘theatre’, “itself carries with it the suggestion of a theory within a practice.” 6 He goes on to define the Greek origins of the word which relate to theory and an ‘outward look’, rather than inward contemplation.
7 This application of theory is precisely why philosophers and experimentalists use theatre to explore avenues of expressing their ideology. Ben Halm, a scholar of theatre ideology, explains that theatre can be:
...an activity whose affinity to the constitutive and formative elements of everyday life makes it a powerful metaphor and via indirecta to the understanding of human experience.
8
3
3
H. D. Albright, trans., Adolphe Appia's "The Work of Living Art" and "Man is the Measure of all Things," trans. Bernard Hewitt (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1960), 81.
4
4
Ibid., 5.
5
5
Albright, 75.
6
6
Read, 11.
7 7 Ibid.
8
8
Ben Halm, Theatre and Ideology (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1995), 93.
Julya Mirro Oberg 3

It is because theatre can be so powerful, can use its symbolism and metaphors to engage the audience, that “Living Theatre” was born. Is this not what we strive for? As theatre professionals, do we not work everyday to produce something that has an affect on the public? The audience allows us to show them something-and they agree to believe it while it lasts. This is what makes theatre so powerful; an opportunity as an audience member to forget your personal issues and let your mind and spirit become a part of something more fantastic than your self. And much like the primitive people who watch the dance around the fire in feathered masks, modern society goes to the theatre to be a part of something bigger than themselves. Perhaps it is just other than themselves.
Just as the hunter experiences his kill, the audience members feel and explore the situation in their own selves, as if they were there, and a part of the experience. We see how theatre establishes this circumstance through Halm’s explanation of theatre:
Of all art forms, Theatre comes closer to capturing and duplicating the essential character of human experience. The basic material of Theatre is humanlike beings acting and interacting in line with deep-seated desires and dreams of self-fulfillment.
These beings come into conflict with others or even with other parts of themselves and they resolve or fail to resolve these conflicts.
9
It is obvious that the reason theatre exists, in both primitive and modern societies, is due to this essential character of human beings. Humans, by their very nature, want to belong. By witnessing, and both emotionally and intellectually exploring some other experience; the being is able to create and sustain a reality other than their own. In this fashion, the theatre educates and informs, entertains and arouses.
Theatre is usually coined in two terms: ‘good’ theatre and ‘bad’ theatre. Read provides an accurate and succinct definition of ‘good’ theatre versus ‘bad’ theatre. “Good theatre stands face to face with its audience. Where theatre has been able to do this, it has changed lives and histories.” 10 He goes on to say, “where it hasn’t it has imaginatively impoverished itself and its audience.” 11 This appears to be an acceptable explanation of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’, for it agrees that theatre should be honest with the audience, and that if it is, if it can not only
9
9
Halm, 96.
10 10 Read, 6.
11
11
Ibid.
Julya Mirro Oberg 4

present its reality to them, it can change them. If it forgets its purpose, and there are many to choose from, it is weak and fruitless.
The human beings, the audience, are key to theatre. Not only in its purpose, but in its realization. Read justifies the importance of the audience:
Theatre is an expressive practice that involves an audience through the medium of images at the centre of which is the human body. It is the only arts practice that foregrounds the body in this way, and as such includes performance forms from dance to death rites within its parameters.
12
By presenting that one thing which all humans share, the body, theatre sanctions an agreement and understanding of its audience members. Much as the primitive cultures act out death rites for their dead, modern society acts out its rituals on stage. In our American society, there are rituals and rites performed everyday, by every human being. Things as simple as a kiss before bedtime to religious rites, such as bat mitzvahs and confirmations, are interwoven into our lives.
This begs the question, what is the difference between what we see at the theatre and what we experience everyday as we go about our habitual and ritualistic lives? I believe the answer comes from the difference between the sacred and the profane. And because the experience necessary for “Living Theater” comes from interacting with those around you, with society itself, it is important to inspect and reflect on contemporary society. American society revolves around the idea of multiculturalism. America has long been called ‘the melting pot’, terminology used to denote the assimilation of all types of people. Each of these people, and in a larger sense each culture, has their own idea of what is important to them: what is sacred. These ‘sacred’ ideals are important enough to be taught to their children, passed on from generation to generation. By sacred, I mean some vital, intangible, often unattainable ‘thing’ which not only makes a person feel complete, but permits the self to realize its potential and its values.
The opposite of the sacred is the profane. Both of these ideas come from innate human philosophy: sacred is good and profane is evil/ bad. These two abstract ideas, sacred and profane, are extremes or opposites. There is no such thing as a gray area between them when it comes to values and ethics. Something is either ‘good’ or it is ‘bad’; murder is either accepted or it is not. In modern society, the black of the profane and the white of sacred have muddled together to create a hazy gray. This comes partially from the fact that one
12
12
Read, 10.
Julya Mirro Oberg 5

person (or culture) has a specific idea about an issue, and another culture or person disagrees. Thus, metaphorically, one’s black and another’s white together create a 'gray' society. Because this distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is unclear, the morals, ethics, and values in modern society are unclear as well.
It is this notion of the sacred, this intangible positive presence in every human’s life, that permits theatre to touch an audience. Adolphe Appia, who wrote many texts on the theatre, describes the same idea of the sacred this way:
...we feel, with some embarrassment, that there is beyond [the text of the play], whatever it may be, something that is an integral part of dramatic art. It is an element we do not yet fully and exactly understand, and one we are inclined to count unimportant, possibly because we have such difficulty in focusing our attention on it.
13
This ‘thing’ that Appia speaks of, that we have already discussed, is what makes the theatre alive. It creates an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue because the audience knows not why they understand the plight of the character on stage, but that instinctively, they do. In all honesty, much as Appia suggests, human beings do not want to know why.
Understanding would mean that people would have to step out of their reality for a time longer than the duration of the play. In modern society, there is simply no time or energy for that experience. “Representation is part and parcel of an unending process of self-andworld definition and circumscription whose common name is culture.” 14 And this culture exists and survives because the audience allows for that representation to last only as long as the reality holds.
Once the play is over, the audience takes a collective deep breath. As they exhale, their vision clears, and they are back to the reality of their own lives. Therein lies the paradox of theatre:
...the greatest and deepest joy that art can afford us is tragic in its essence; for, while art has the power to make us “live” our life without at the same time undergoing its sufferings, yet art demands in return-if we are to enjoy it profoundly- that we have suffered.
15
13
13
Albright, 4.
14 14 Halm, 9.
15
15
Ibid., 2.
Julya Mirro Oberg 6

While experiencing theatre, the humans in the audience relate to what is being presented before them. What character they relate to, what plot, what sounds and sights, is completely dependent upon the relationship those things presented have with the individual audience member. If there is anything which triggers a memory or acknowledgment in the audience’s own reality, then theatre has accomplished something profound-it has united both realities into one. When the staged reality and the actual reality of the audience mesh, then theatre can change lives and history.
Within Adolphe Appia’s teachings, theories and ideas, he takes this concept of the connection between the theatre and the audience further. “In the framework of Appian living art, the traditional individual artist is merely he catalyst of representation, not the chief agent.” 16 It is this idea of representation which confounds most people. What is represented on stage, or rather before the audience, is merely that: a representation of something else. Just as the hunter-warrior represents his kill to the tribe through reenactment, the actors dramatize some situation or experience for the audience. In the past, theatre was used to present plays which told stories about political and historical figures. The plays were about entertaining the public, or about educating the public-making them aware of some plight or situation in their world.
But now, the idea of “Living Theatre” has matured. Halm states, “Appia’s works conceive theatre as a viable means of presenting and representing experience.” 17 Instead of educating you, or even merely entertaining you, theatre can present an experience-one which the audience member can actually participate in. This participation may take place intellectually, emotionally, or in reality; every rendition is different because every person feels things differently, based upon their personal experiences. Halm accepts the differences thus:
As a mode of representation, Theatre seems to inform and illuminate the basic processes of human self-and- world representation, and yet, in concrete terms, it means different things to different people.
18
Because it can mean so many things, other groups have sought the use of theatre for their own needs.
As previously mentioned, contemporary society is often considered morally deficient; where ten-year-olds beat each other up over a pair of tennis shoes, seventh graders carry guns to
16
16
Halm, 127.
17 17 Ibid., 107.
18
18
Ibid., 84.
Julya Mirro Oberg 7

school for protection and pre-teens are pregnant for the second time. Due to the overwhelming amount of moral neglect, educators and social workers have found a way of influencing children’s morals: Children's Theatre. In fact:
Children’s Theatre has been hailed by educators and community leaders alike as having the greatest potential of all the arts for learning and as a means of bringing beauty into the lives of boys and girls.
19
This beauty includes knowledge and acceptance of the multicultural world in which they live.
The notion of using theatre to relay information to children has been accepted and furthered by social workers. They have found:
...the earliest evidence of Children’s Theatre in the social and educational centers of our larger cities rather than on the professional stage.
20
Unfortunately, both child educators and social workers have come to the conclusion that the idea of representation of morals and ethics through theater has caught the children up in a cyclical fury of “substituting one form of stereotype for another.” 21 In fact, it was becoming increasingly difficult to discern the value of a particular representation from the unintentional slap on the children's defenses.
From the belief that theatre could represent values and morals to children if the presentation could eliminate any defensive responses, came the birth of two types of therapy. They were called psychodramatic therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Both therapies were based upon the idea that kids could not accept all the multicultural lingo, discern the morals and drop their defenses at the same time. Educators and therapists began at the inception, rationalizing the ideology behind the term multicultural. In Brustein’s article "The Use and
Abuse of Multiculturalism", he states that multiculturalism was originated “chiefly in a desire to celebrate many different racial, ethnic, and sexual strains and backgrounds that constitute the quilt of American society.” 22 Once children began to understand this principle, as it was taught in schools, churches, and homes, the two therapies began to emerge in prominence, in society.
19 19 Nellie McCaslin, Theatre for Children in the United States (Oklahoma: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1971), 5.
20
20
McCaslin, 6.
21
21 Robert Brustein, “The Use and Abuse of Multiculturalism,”
New Republic , 16-25 September
1991, 31.
22
22
Ibid.
Julya Mirro Oberg 8

Both therapies use theatre and acting to assess and address children’s behavior and emotions. Realizing that children have a hard time distinguishing between their own reality and their parents', and the chasm between their feelings and rules, educators decided to simplify the theatrical experience. In fact, pychodramatic therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy utilize the art of acting, of presenting and representing the world; reality, if you will.
“Psychodramatic therapy looks inward: it aims at helping the child understand his or her emotions...with clues often presented in symbolic form.” 23 This therapy is like the actor preparing for a character; it delves into what makes the character unique and real to the audience. It also explores the possibilities of symbolism, much like modern directors utilize symbols to enhance the meaning of their plays.
The second therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, is like the actor’s performance.
“Cognitive behavioral therapy looks outward: it trains the child to see the world differently and to change his/her behavioral patterns. It has its roots in experimental psychology.” 24
This is like the director’s presentation of a show; it offers the audience a new way to see something which is based in reality. This theory is about presentation and pedagogy, training the child to think and react differently. Although both therapies are used today, there are problems with the effectiveness of each.
For psychodramatic therapy, the hardship comes in several forms. The first lies with the child him/herself. Honesty is a hard thing to face, brutality and moral deficiency in the world make that doubly true. So requiring a child to acknowledge their emotions is a considerable task in itself. Secondly, trying to empower a child with the ability to discern between emotions such as anger and hate, is difficult at best. This is partially due to the fact that the manifestations of each are often seen as similar to a child's perspective. Teaching that hate is an extreme reaction and anger is what you feel for a short time, is not an easy task for adults, let alone children. Lastly, several therapists have found that the symbols which both therapies use are not as universal as originally thought. In some cultures a bird represents freedom, in others, death. Obviously, it is hard to reconcile the discrepancy, especially to a child. Similarly, with cognitive behavioral therapy, retraining a child anticipates that a child knows the difference between what they are doing and what is being expected. This goes back to the issue of honesty and understanding. Although “the values of Children's Theatre has been a driving force through the years,” 25 it is imperative for both the therapists and the parents to be clear on its limitations in these uses.
23
23
Katherine Davis Fishman, "Therapy for Children," The Atlantic , June 1991, 48.
24 24 Fishman, 48.
25
25
McCaslin, ix.
Julya Mirro Oberg 9

Another component in “Living Theater” comes from two ancient Asian philosophers: Naikan and Lao Tzu. The Japanese have a different idea of psychotherapy which is based upon their philosophy of Naikan which means “looking within,” 26 and is considered “a form of selfreflection.” 27 The Japanese use this psychotherapy to determine for themselves what they have, as individuals, to do with the problematic situation they are faced with, and as a tool to realize what they can honestly do about it. This Naikan idea of self-determination was mutated to work for the theatre: presenting to an audience (usually children) an accurate perception of feelings.
As Naikan is said to offer “profound insight into human existence,” 28 this seems a logical place for “Living Theatre” to probe. Is this not the goal every human being strives for: to understand themselves and their place within society and reality? As “Living Theatre” wishes to increase the awareness of its audience, surely a philosophy which lives in the realm of insight is an intelligent theory to consider. Unfortunately, this is but a piece of the puzzle and trying to create, before an audience, self-realization and insight often comes off as flat and boring to modern society. If the audience cannot experience the realization themselves, then what is the purpose in presenting accurate perceptions of feelings? It is vital to recall that what “Living Theatre” strives for is participation, not explanation.
Another philosophy, derived from Lao Tzu, offers a diverse facet of insight. Just as the
Naikan philosophy looks inward (much like the aforementioned psychodramatic therapy), so does Lao Tzu. However, he believes that knowledge is that unattainable ‘thing’ that we discussed earlier-the sacred. For centuries the plight has been fought to earn respect and attain power. For some cultures this revolves around money and politics, but for Lao Tzu, it is about becoming wise and enlightened. Loa Tzu said, “the further one goes/ the less one knows.” 29 From this statement, we can derive the importance of knowledge, hundreds of years ago and still today. Lao Tzu believed that by accepting the fact that you can not know everything, you begin to know something.
It is because knowledge and understanding have been searched for that the essential, and the idea of the sacred, reappear in this new form of theatre. Appia applied this theory to his works, claiming, “the aim of a work of art is to reveal some essential, salient character, consequently some important idea, more clearly and more completely than can real objects.” 30 This idea can only work once the important and essential things have been discovered and accepted as needed. Consequently, each “Living Theatre” production
26
26
David Reynolds, Naikan Psychotherapy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 1.
27
27
Ibid., 44.
28
28
Reynolds, 1.
29 29 D. C. Lau, Lao Tzu (New York: Penguin Books, 1971), 108.
30
30
Albright, 23.
Julya Mirro Oberg 10

contains “a new knowledge,” 31 which generally comes from the same place within each of us: the emotions. That universal emotion ordinarily is suffering. All genders, races and ages have experienced some degree or instance of suffering in their lives.
The idea of humanistic suffering gave birth to the idea of “Living Art”. For “living art is social,” 32 and can be related to by people of all walks, and cultures, of life. Furthermore, since dramatic art is directed to “our eyes, our ears, our understanding- in short, to our whole being,” 33 it is the logical choice to begin perpetuating this theory of “Living Art”.
Finding a point of relation is simple-every person can relate to society; if they exist, then they are a part of that society in one fashion or another. “Living Theatre” revolves around the idea of presenting society with what it claims to be sacred and creating nuances within that reality. Thus, whether it be founded in Naikan psychotherapy or Lao Tzu’s teachings, there is a goal to marry inner thoughts and emotions with the reality of the outside world.
Other philosophers who contribute to “Living Theater's” premise include ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Nietzsche. As presented here in this discussion, “Living
Theater” is exacting to define and even to describe. Aristotle created one way to decipher the thing we call 'theatre':
Perhaps the most immediate way to approach Theatre is through the description of its constitutive or formative elements and the conventions that underwrite their organization. This is the basic approach in Aristotle's
Poetics...Plot, in his definitions , is the caused or deliberate arrangements of actions, events, and/or situations that constitute the play; it is to him the most primary and important element of drama and Theatre.
34
From this theory, put forth by Aristotle so many years ago, the “Living Theatre” proponents have discovered that he is correct: it is the plot that is of most importance. For the story which is being told is what makes the audience relate, understand and eventually participate. “Living Theatre”, however, throws out almost everything else Aristotle stood for and taught. Gone are the rules about time and place, about words and acting style. What
“Living Theatre” resolves to do is represent a plot which all can relate to; the belief is that if the actors comprehend the plot and its significance, then the audience will also.
31
31
Ibid., 57.
32
32
Ibid., 59.
33 33 Ibid., 6.
34
34
Halm, 84.
Julya Mirro Oberg 11

Nietzsche’s beliefs also offer some insight into the premise of “Living Theatre”. Although
Nietzsche rejected theater as an art form, he did offer us the first taste of the human will to live.
To Nietzsche...Socratic philosophy, art, religion, metaphysics, as well as the “more powerful illusions” created by means of mythology all serve culture, acculturation, and the human will to life.
35
From Niezsche, “Living Theatre” understands the importance of the human will. The position that a human’s will is stronger than its capacity for reason, its intellectual ability or even its emotional stamina, is profound. “Living Theatre” takes that idea and creates performances which challenge the audience to participate, dare them to strip away their intellect, reason and barriers, allowing only for the emotional response and the experience to take place. Once felt, the human’s will remains intact, but their barriers and perceptions may be altered.
Combining the influence of Taoist teachings and experimentalism come the team Julian
Beck and Judith Malina, who created the actual troupe Living Theatre. Experimentalism is the theory that engages the concept of trying something repeatedly until it works. Allowing for the process to be alive, and the catalysts to acknowledge their influence, the process creates something organic and basic. Using the example of the hunter-warrior, he experimented over and over again until he could create a representation of the bear that the tribe understood. Once he found the action or sound which related ‘bear’ to them, he knew what behavior to exhibit the next time. The Taoists believe that everything is Nothing and that basic naked truth is the most glorious thing one can have. Halm brings this idea into modern terms:
What we human beings call culture is essentially a veneer of civility and sociability we create at great cost to veil our basic animality in much the same way that clothes cover our nakedness.
36
Two artists who believed in Halm’s assessment of culture, Beck and Malina, created The
Living Theatre. Utilizing nakedness and primitive, orgy-like movements, 37 they created performances like no one had ever conceived, let alone witnessed. It started with Beck’s understanding of the visual art world:
35
35
Ibid., 89.
36 36 Halm, 106.
37
37
Renfreu Neff, The Living Theatre:USA (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1970), 7.
Julya Mirro Oberg 12

[Beck] saw the work of Pollack, Motherwell, Rothko,
Kline and deKooning and realized that these artists were implying a life that the Theatre didn’t know existed.
38
So he asked his partner to help him create a theatre where the art was alive. It began with a combination of Japanese Noh Theatre, medieval miracle plays, and Ibsen works, 39 which were performed because they touched people’s sense of reality and reason. Rejecting anything purely entertainment, 40 they decided this type of theatre could only exist if there was no separation between art and life.
41 Biner states, “it was to be a “living” Theatre, one that would emphasize contemporary plays performed in such a manner as to move the spectators.” 42
Soon, Beck and Malina’s work took on the beliefs of a whole sect of society. Schechner claims that they “were the bright hope of a group who wanted to see the theatre restored to poetry, sensibility, social consciousness, and art.” 43 Famous actors and directors were involved in this theatrical movement within society; people such as Martin Sheen, Francis
Ford Coppola, and Bob Dylan.
44 It is important, before we go any further, that we understand the philosophy of the Theatre Beck and Malina wanted to create.
Beck’s philosophy comes from the idea that “we choose life, but are swallowed up, unwillingly, by death.” 45 Beck believed that “life is being dreamed. We are dreaming one another,” 46 and because life is all one great intangible thing, peace can be found in the altered reality of theatre. Theatre is as close to reality, according to this philosophy, as reality gets. For if it is all a dream, then the art of theatre-the true pretending to be-is as real as anything life can make. Once an actor tries to be something other than their self, they are creating a reality through their performance of some alternative self. And if each of us is merely participating in a dream, then one reality of self is as viable and real as another.
38
38
Richard Schechner, The Living Book of the Living Theatre (Greenwich: New York Graphic
Society Limited, 1971), 1.
39 39 Pierre Biner, The Living Theatre (New York: Horizon Press, 1972), 21.
40
40
Biner, 27.
41
41
John Tytell, The Living Theatre/ Art, Exile, and Outrage (New York: Grove Press, 1995), xi.
42 42 Biner, 21.
43
43
Schechner, 1.
44
44
Schechner, passim.
45
45
Julian Beck, The Life of the Theatre/ The Relation of the Artist to the Struggle of the People
(New York: Limelight Editions, 1986), ix.
46
46
Beck, The Life of the Theatre , 4.
Julya Mirro Oberg 13

Theatre usually requires a text, a text which is “entrusted to human beings...as they bring it to life on the stage.” 47 As mentioned earlier, Beck’s philosophy concerning theatre incorporates the importance of plot, but perhaps the term 'text' may be an overstatement.
Beck believed that the text should be full of realistic situations. By realistic, I mean situations which reflect the society in which the play is being produced. Thus, Beck created outlines for plays, both original and published, which revolved around everyday topics.
Keeping with experimentalist practices, when Beck’s group performed these outlines/texts, they were done differently each time, depending upon the audience, the cast, the place. As each “Living Theatre” performance stemmed from the actor’s personal emotions and relation to the text, each show was not only different by means of the actual words spoken, but also by the mood and tone set by the ensemble of cast and audience. And as the emotions are also experienced by people in modern society, Beck felt that this would make it easy for the audience to relate, no matter the actual performance’s words, tone or mood.
Relating to the play was Beck’s chief concern. Each time a play was witnessed, the audience and the cast participated in it, some say to the same degree. Therefore, new experiences were taking place at every performance for both the cast and the audience.
For the audience, “Living Theatre” is more of an experience than a witnessing of a show, just as killing the bear is more of an experience than watching someone reenact it. The audience is figuratively and literally drawn into the play; connecting their personal emotions to the experience being had by the actor. For the actor, the audience involvement is what determines the emotional course of the performance. Thus, for both the actors and the audience, there is an experience of emotions and situations without having to engage in the actual, physical situation.
Beck created a play in the seventies, or rather an outline, entitled Paradise Now. This script reflects the Taoist ideal of Nothing, and their idea of teaching, “the teaching that uses no words.” 48 Beck generated a type of theatre which utilized these teachings through use of symbols, people representing objects, and society as his mirror and reflection. He believed that all people come from one origin and thus, can relate to each other if they can get back to that place of genesis. He did this by breaking down the barriers society puts up, using words, images and bodies in ways that are often confrontational, political, animalistic and timely. An example of text from this performance:
A is for Alice
N is for new
A is for another or also
R is for reefers rebirth and repose
47 47 Albright, 4.
48
48
Lau, 104.
Julya Mirro Oberg 14

C is for cock c is for cunt
H is for harvest
Y is for you 49
Clearly, the references are antiestablishment and possibly even inciteful in nature. The
‘Alice’ reference is to a character of a book who kills herself because she is disillusioned by life and society. ‘Reefers’ refers to the drug marijuana which was outlawed and yet consumed by immense numbers of society. This is a clear example of showing society what is actually going on. Using words such as ‘cock’ and ‘cunt’ provoke the audience.
Not only are these words considered vulgar, but they refer to sexual body parts which are rarely discussed in private, and never in public. The ‘harvest’ term refers to two items.
Harvest symbolizes the creation and disposal of children, termed by abortion clinic adversaries: harvesting the babies. It also refers to the harvesting of the land for others;
Beck and Malina supported the Farmers Aid programs and they, with their cast and crew, lived a communal life. In their world, they harvested their own land (when they had it), and shared their harvests. Lastly, the ‘you’ refers to the audience, and in the bigger picture, to all of us who ever read, hear about or experience his work. It is this type of tactic, the in your face, ‘I am talking to YOU’ attitude, that made Beck’s works so controversial.
Beck also used the components of theatre to symbolize his beliefs and interpretations of
Taoist and experimentalist principles. All of Beck’s shows were performed on a blank stage, which symbolize the emptiness of the world before humans inhabited it, and also the
Nothing principle of Taoism. Once he began to use sets, they were abstract, usually consisting of trash or debris, and he used the cast as the mountains, the creatures. Many of Beck’s first presentations were performed in the nude, for nudity symbolizes the denial of possessions and rebirth.
50 Beck and Malina also claim that nudity represents the inner soul, and thus, life. This, of course, led to extreme criticism and his original theatre was shut down because the police felt it was a front for a whorehouse.
Undeterred, Beck required his cast to wear only loincloths, as this covered the only distinction between man and woman-the genitals and sexual organs. Beck believed that by employing the cast as the actors and the set, there would be less distraction on the stage; the audience could relate to the human form and would accept it in whatever position or manifestation. Beck and Malina were concerned with representing the real life of humans, not the daily trials and tribulations experienced, but the soul’s reality. Although water is the essence of life to the Taoists, Beck innovated the idea of the human being as the essence.
Thus, good art, and theatre, comes from within the human being’s soul. And so Beck and
Malina used their minds, bodies and selves to represent “Living Theater”.
49 49 Schechner, 7.
50
50
Julian Beck and Judith Malina, Paradise Now (New York: Vintage Books, 1971), passim.
Julya Mirro Oberg 15

Beck’s co-author, partner, and wife, believed that Beck was not only a genius, but misunderstood by the very society which he strove to represent. She also felt that they were revolutionaries and the truest theatrical artists of all time. Malina had this to say:
Julian affirmed that the highest art shall be best understood by the most oppressed, because of their need. And with the means of art, as writer, poet, activist, man of the Theatre, street performer, painter, actor, anarchist spokesman, playwright, rebel lover and pacifist agitator, with all the means of art he roused us from the torpor of our fear. He made the Theatre the matrix, the model, the prophetic vision of revolutionary action that could be liberatory without being destructive.
51
The opposition to this type of work, was immense.
The public was forever shutting down and banning Beck/Malina performances. As previously mentioned, their first theater/ performance space was shut down because the public and the police believed that it was a front for a whorehouse; there were all these naked people running about. Their organization and works were wrought with problems:
Before one upheaval could be absorbed and resolved, another one set in, making it almost impossible to keep them separate, the conclusion of one tending to precipitate the next crisis.
52
They were eventually closed down permanently, once they had paid the proverbial dues and attained an actual theater space, by the IRS. As Neff states it plainly in his text, the
“Living Theater” was closed down, officially, because Beck and Malina failed to pay federal excise and payroll taxes.
53 Unofficially, it was banned due to its vulgarity, nudity, orgy-like primitive physicality, and political commentary.
Interestingly, once The Living Theatre was banned, they toured Europe with great success and eventually came back to America with a one year tour which was met with great enthusiasm. Apparently, it was a wonderful concept, but American society wanted it to belong somewhere else. Recently, I had the opportunity to experience what I can only think of as a Beck/Malina creation. A performance group from Spain, called Visa Visa, is
51
51
Beck, The Life of the Theatre , x.
52 52 Neff, 161.
53
53
Ibid., 7.
Julya Mirro Oberg 16

currently performing in a dingy space off of New York’s Circle. This performance had all the trappings of a Living Theatre performance; there was sexual, primitive dance, audience interaction (both physically and verbally), symbolism and very vague sets created from painter’s scaffolding, bungee chords, and walls. Unlike Beck’s cast, the actors were clothed, yet the audience was exposed to their underwear for most of the performance, and there was one completely naked actor who grabbed audience members and took them for a ride on the bungee chord system. Although it was an exciting and intriguing performance, I can see why critics dissent with it being called 'theater'. There is little distinction between the audience and the actors, the costumes are provocative, and there appears to be no plot, although symbolism runs rampant if one chooses to look for meaning within the performance.
This brings us to the issue of plot in general. If “cataloguing events is one of the ways to shut out life, to dispose of something bothersome,” 54 then it makes sense that Beck chose not to ‘catalogue’ his performances. As “Living Theater” wants only to expose humans to life, it is clearly within their philosophy’s parameters to avoid anything that shuts out life, when all they want to do is let it in. Appia’s works agree on this point, as “all thought reduces and simplifies the quintessential complexity of phenomenal experience.” 55 An experience, therefore, is had by not thinking, and just allowing the experience to happen.
Surely this is what happened at Visa Visa, and can only be assumed to have occurred with
Beck’s performances. However, there are other theorists who pursued this same idea through other methods.
Bertholdt Brecht, a German playwright, would have agreed with Beck's notion of experiencing theatre rather than simply witnessing it. Brecht believed that “every art contributes the greatest art of all, the art of living.” 56 Perhaps coined in different words, is this not the same thing that Beck and Malina believed? That through theatre, people could contribute to each other’s lives, learning and understanding their selves within that reality called life? Although Brecht was never a part of the “Living Theater” movement, as an educator, social worker or performance creator, he did agree with the concept of using theatre to represent reality and change. Halm described Brecht in these terms:
Brecht’s quest to change the world by making the theatrical representation of human experience scientific enough to suit the scientific-technological times bespeaks his belief in the acculturative force of Theatre in its nature as the most human,
54
54
Biner, xvii.
55 55 Halm, 105.
56
56
Ibid., 159.
Julya Mirro Oberg 17

universal or naive form of representation.
57
Brecht used theatre as a means of reaching the technological society of which the audiences of his play were comprised. It was his belief, as Beck’s and the educators’, that theatre itself is a universal form of representation.
The emotion most often represented, as we discussed earlier, is often termed ‘suffering’.
As all of society has suffered, in some way or another, it is the easiest emotion with which to relate. Add to that the fact that it is one of the most internalized emotions within the realm of human feeling, and there is adequate evidence to see the value of presenting suffering.
There has developed another type of therapy based upon the ideas presented by psychodramatic therapists, Beck and the belief in universal suffering. This is called
Dramatherapy. Phil Jones, the author of a Dramatic Therapy textbook, states, “...drama and theater are ways of actively participating in the world and are not merely animation of it...within drama there is a profound potential for healing.” 58 This practice relies on the theory of healing a suffering person by helping them to experience a reality other than their own, thereby causing the person to see outside of their reality and create a safer, more comfortable alternative world.
In simplistic terms, “Dramatherapy is involvement in drama with a healing intention.” 59 This is considered innovative and creative by its supporters, and experimental and worthy of caution by its adversaries. Because so little is known about how Dramatherapy works for individuals, and what kind of long term ramifications the work has, the jury is still out on this type of “Living Theatre”. Borrowing from Beck the idea of outlines rather than scripts, and from educators and social workers the idea of healing children, Dramatherapy has a specific ideology and some definite theories to process. Children’s rights activists and psychologists are looking to this type of therapy to remedy some of the moral destruction in this country’s children.
Another example of using theatre to heal belongs to history: the Federal Theatre Project of the 1930’s. Its birth lying in the Living Newspaper, a Central European based novelty, this was an institution created by the government to try to heal the Depression Era theatrerelated souls. Stuart Cosgrove, in the introduction to Liberty Deferred describes the origins of the Living Newspaper:
The origins of the Living Newspaper are located in the twentieth-century Bolshevik revolutionary government’s
57
57
Ibid., 169.
58 58 Phil Jones, Drama as Therapy/ Theatre as Living (New York: Routledge, 1996), 1.
59
59
Jones, 6.
Julya Mirro Oberg 18

attempt to establish a vast apparatus of information, news, education, and propaganda. From these early beginnings, the Living Newspaper had to be flexible in ways that the conventional play could not...It’s flexibility, brevity, and mobility made the Living Newspaper the most appropriate dramatic form for...the revolution, and its responsiveness to all kinds of political subjects allowed disparate issues, such as collectivization, personal hygiene and international affairs, to be contained within one theatrical bulletin.
60
Out of work, and refusing aid in many cases, the actors, designers, directors of America were losing hope with their world. “Living Newspaper” referred to the idea of animating a newspaper 61 and its information. The Federal Theater Project had many facets: the
“Experimental Theatre”, the “Negro Drama” and the “Children’s Theatre.” 62 These varying avenues of performance allowed black actors, young actors, and innovators to perform and create theatre for the public. Intended to help a group out of poverty and inform the public while entertaining them, the government projected it would begin to heal the nation’s cultural deficiencies and suffering.
A member of the Federal Theatre Project, John Houseman, writes of its importance:
The miracle of the Federal Theater Project lies precisely in this-that from the drab and painful relief project there sprang the liveliest, most innovative, and most original Theatre of its era.
63
Unfortunately, even with the government's creation of this program, there was dissent among the ranks. Some politicians, knowing how the Living Newspaper was being used in
Europe, feared that American politicos were using this project to perpetuate their own agendas. While using the theory of “Living Theatre”, with outlines for scripts, symbolism, messages to heal the suffering of its audiences, there was a great deal of concern about the plot of the shows. Eventually, the government shut the project down claiming that it was being used for subversive purposes against the very people who created it.
64 The theatre
60
60
Lorraine Brown, ed., Liberty Deferred and Other Living Newspapers of the 1930's (Fairfax:
George Mason University Press, 19889), ix.
61 61 Brown, xi.
62
62
John O'Conner and Lorraine Brown, eds., Free, Adult, Uncensored/ The Living History of the Federal Theatre Program (Washington, D.C.: New Republic Books, 1978), passim.
63 63 O'Conner and Brown, ix.
64
64
Brown, vx-xxi.
Julya Mirro Oberg 19

world was then recreated into the original theater spaces, with management, auditions, and scripts. Only recently, through shows like “Paradise Now” and “Visa Visa”, have we seen this idea come back to the forefront of theatrical performances.
One of the most important facets of “Living Theatre”, is the idea of being alive. For the mass society, that means for the actors to live their lives. For advocates of “Living Theatre”, it means the theatre, the performance, the whole experience, needs to exist where it can breathe. Every moment of every day is an experience. It is a moment which cannot be returned to you. “It is theatre's prerogative to exist in a place for a unique, unrepeatable moment and then to perpetuate in the memory.” 65 All theatre is a process, a project that begins before it starts and ends only with the cessation of the mind’s memory.
As a matter of policy, all advocates of “Living Theatre” believe that theatre is necessary to living; it holds some true and otherwise unattainable knowledge. Jones says that even
“Dramatherapy originates from these beliefs which see theatre as being necessary to living.” 66 Therefore, from the school of thought modern society politely calls multiculturalism, understanding and the avant-garde principles of Beck’s art come together to conceive the child: “Living Theatre”. This is proclaimed as the most intense ideal for
Children’s Theatre and therapy. Unfortunately, there are few who understand or wish to help the child develop. Right now, it is still a baby, barely crawling. There are troupes, however, who perform from outlines centered around issues presented in the newspaper such as AIDS, rape, incest, drug abuse, bullying, verbal abuse and domestic violence.
Because “Living Theatre” has been hailed as an educational tool, we can, as Appia states,
“learn to live art in common with others; let us learn to free ourselves, to experience in common the deep emotions that tie us together.” 67
This deep emotional pool is the thing, the intangible that we all search for in our lives. It is the one obsession that all humans have in common, though not all humans know how to access or even define it. It is an inexplicable thought and an emotional ideal all rolled into one creating the sacred- the goal we strive for in our lives. “Living Theatre” came out of a desire to teach, to educate, to understand both children and adults; hoping to better understand our selves in the process. The educators and social workers see theatre as a means of expressing varying cultures to increase awareness and tolerance. Beck saw the theatre as a way of expressing humanistic feelings in a simplistic, albeit confrontational, way that all of society could relate to. Every theorist, philosopher and theatrical soul provide, in their contribution, a space for values, ethics, and morals. It is the application of these principles and theories which present the variation. To quote Appia:
65
65
Read, 12.
66 66 Jones, 4.
67
67
Albright, 73.
Julya Mirro Oberg 20

Specifically and practically speaking, how are we going to express the desire; how are we going to share it with others, concretely and convincingly, so as to inspire them to unite with us in realizing the Great Work?
68
It seems to me that even by reading this, processing it, allowing it to breathe inside your mind, if not your soul, makes that question moot. But I press on, for it seems to me that there is so much left to be said and discussed. What of the idea of scripts? What about the notion of healing? How can we incorporate every philosophy and theory and still create a uniform being called “Living Theatre”? Appia sums up my personal belief:
We who know living art and its possibilities bear a torch of life, which must light up the innermost recesses of our public and especially our artistic life...In our search for the flame of aesthetic truth, we had to extinguish, one after the other, the false torches of a false artistic culture. Now our own fire-yours and mine-can relight those torches.
69
What else can be said? It is up to us, you and I, to bear Appia's torch, to tell the story of the bear kill.
Albright, H.D., trans. Adolphe Appia’s “The Work of Living Art” and “Man is the Measure of
All Things” , trans. Barnard Hewitt. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1960.
Wonderful translation of an important essay on this subject; Appia’s ideas are revolutionary and specific.
The Atlantic. June 1991. “Therapy for Children” p.47-9. By Katherine Davis Fishman.
Fabulous essay describing the need and use of children’s therapy in various forms.
Beck, Julian. The Life of the Theatre/ The Relation of the Artist to the Struggle of the
People.
New York: Limelight Editions, 1986.
68 68 Ibid., 80.
69
69
Albright, 80-81.
Julya Mirro Oberg 21

Includes multiple essays by Beck and an important forward by Malina; gives insight into what Beck and Malina were striving to create.
Beck, Julian and Judith Malina. Paradise Now. New York: Vintage Books, 1971 .
A clear example of their work together, the ensemble spirit, and the ‘script’ of
Paradise Now.
Biner, Pierre. The Living Theatre. New York: Horizon Press, 1972.
More details about Beck and Malina’s life, theories and work; chronological and written with a sense of humor.
Free, Adult, Uncensored/ The Living History of the Federal Theatre Program. John
O’Conner and Lorraine Brown, eds. Washington, D.C.: New Republic Books, 1978.
A great source for pictures, quotes and names of those involved in the F.T.P.
Halm, Ben B. Theatre and Ideology. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1995.
Various essays concerning different ideologies concerning the importance, use and theory of theater.
Jones, Phil. Drama as Therapy/ Theatre as Living. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Wonderful text for understanding the concepts and applications of Dramatic Therapy.
Lau, D.C. Lao Tzu. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Provides insight into the philosophy of Lau Tzu.
Liberty Deferred and Other Living Newspapers of the 1930’s. Lorraine Brown, ed.
Fairfax: George Mason University Press, 1989.
Wonderful source to understand the Living Newspaper idea; actual scripts are extant.
McCaslin, Nellie. Theatre for Children in the United States. Oklahoma: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1971.
Julya Mirro Oberg 22

Text does as it advertises: various applications and importance of theater for children.
Neff, Renfreu. The Living Theatre: USA. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1970.
A more conservative view of the Beck/Malina world and theories.
New Republic. September 16-25, 1991. “The Use and Abuse of Multiculturalism,” pp. 31-
34.
By Robert Brustein.
Read, Alan. Theatre and Everyday Life/ An Ethics of Performance. New York: Routledge,
An article which provides information concerning the idea of multiculturalism and its use in modern society.
1992.
Great introduction discerning between good and bad theater, what theater is, and a text full of ideology for modern society and theater professionals alike.
Reynolds, David. Naikan Psychotherapy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Text delves into what Naikan Psychotherapy is and why it is relevant to society,
Schechner, Richard. The Living Book of the Living Theatre. Greenwich: New York Graphic
Society Limited, 1971.
This text is composed of a forward by Schechner and a mass compilation of pictures with no page numbers or text (other than a few script notes).
Tytell, John. The Living Theatre/ Art, Exile, and Outrage. New York: Grove Press, 1995.
A much less objective view of the Beck/Malina work, arranged chronologically.
Julya Mirro Oberg 23

Beacham, Richard C. Adolphe Appia/ Texts on Theatre. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Bruch, Hilde. Learning Psychotherapy. Cambridge: University of Harvard Press, 1974.
Harpers. September 1991. pp. 24-5.
Hobgood, Burnet. Master Teachers of Theatre. Southern Illinois: University Press, 1988.
Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 76, May 1979. “Could Our Beliefs be Representations in Our
Brains?” pp. 225+. By Collins.
Julya Mirro Oberg 24

Journal of Popular Culture. Vol. 16, Summer 1982. “Elite, Popular, and Mass Literature:
What People Really Read” pp. 99+. By Peter Nagorney.
Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 34, 1978. “Beliefs About Males” pp. 5+. By Cicone and
Ruble.
Murdock, Maureen. Spinning Inward: Using Guided Imagery with Children for Learning,
Creativity, and Relaxation. Boston: Shambhala, 1987.
Starr, Anthony. The Art of Psychotherapy. New York: Methum, 1980.
Julya Mirro Oberg 25