gurdjieff international review

8/12/2019 Gurdjieff International Review

1/24

Gurdjieff International Review

Peter Brook and Traditional Thought

by Basarab Nicolescu Translated by David Willias

Tradition itself, in times of dogmatism and dogmatic revolution, is a revolutionaryforce which must be safeguarded.

Peter Brook

! " !

Theatre and Tradition

The continuous investigation of the eaning of theatre# which under$ins all of Peter

Brook%s work# has inevitably led hi to an investigation of Tradition& If theatre s$rings

fro life# then life itself ust be 'uestioned& (nderstanding theatrical reality also entailsunderstanding the agents of that reality# the $artici$ants in any theatrical event actors#

director# s$ectators& )or a an who rejects all doga and closed systes of thought#Tradition offers the ideal characteristic of unity in contradiction& *lthough it asserts its

iutable nature# nevertheless it a$$ears in fors of an iense heterogeneity while

devoting itself to the understanding of unity# it does so by focusing its concerns on theinfinite diversity of reality& )inally# Tradition conceives of understanding as being

soething originally engendered by e+$erience# beyond all e+$lanation and theoretical

generalisation& Isn%t the theatrical event itself ,e+$erience#% above all else-

.ven on the ost su$erficial of levels# Brook%s interest in Tradition is self/evident one

thinks of his theatre ada$tation of one of the jewels of 0ufi art# *ttar%s 1onference of theBirds# of his fil taken fro Gurdjieff%s book 2eetings with Rearkable 2en# and ofthe subse'uent work on The 2ahabharata& 1learly an investigation of the $oints of

convergence between Brook%s theatre work and traditional thought is not devoid of

$ur$ose&

*n i$ortant $oint needs to be ade at the very outset the word ,tradition% 3fro the

4atin ,tradere#% eaning ,to restore#% ,to transit%5 carries within it a contradiction

charged with re$ercussions& In its $riary failiar usage# the word ,tradition% signifies,a way of thinking or acting inherited fro the $ast%6 it is therefore linked with the

words ,custo% and ,habit&% In this sense# one ight refer to ,acadeic tradition#% to a

,1o7die )ran8aise tradition% or to ,0hakes$earean tradition&% In theatre# traditionre$resents an atte$t at uification# the $reservation of e+ternal fors at all costs9

inevitably concealing a cor$se within# for any vital corres$ondence with the $resent

oent is entirely absent& Therefore# according to this first use of ,tradition#% Brook%stheatre work sees to be anti/traditional# or# to be ore $recise# a/traditional& Brook

hiself has said


2/24

.ven if it%s ancient# by its very nature theatre is always an art of odernity& * $hoeni+

that has to be constantly brought back to life& Because the iage that counicates in

the world in which we live# the right effect which creates a direct link between$erforance and audience# dies very 'uickly& In five years a $roduction is out of date& 0o

we ust entirely abandon any notion of theatrical tradition:;

* second# less failiar eaning of ,Tradition%9and one that will be used throughout

this essay9is ,a set of doctrines and religious or oral $ractices# transitted fro

century to century# originally by word of outh or by e+a$le% or ,a body of ore orless legendary inforation# related to the $ast# $riarily transitted orally fro

generation to generation&%< *ccording to this definition# ,Tradition% enca$sulates

different ,traditions%91hristian# =ewish# Islaic# Buddhist# 0ufi etc& 3To avoid any

confusion between these two acce$ted uses of the sae word# a ca$ital letter will bee$loyed throughout when referring to this latter use5&

0o in essence Tradition is concerned with the transission of a body of knowledge on

the s$iritual evolution of an# his $osition in different ,worlds#% his relationshi$ withdifferent ,cososes&% This body of knowledge is therefore unvarying# stable# $eranent#

des$ite the ulti$licity of fors assued in its transission# and des$ite thosedistortions brought about by history and the $assage of tie& *lthough its transission is

usually oral# Tradition can also be conveyed by eans of the science of sybols# by

various writings and works of art# as well as by yths and rituals&

Traditional knowledge was established in ancient ties# but it would be futile to look for

a ,source% of Tradition& *s far as its dee$est roots are concerned# Tradition could be

conceived to be outside both s$ace 3geogra$hical5 and tie 3historical5& It is eternally$resent# here and now# in every huan being# a constant and vital wells$ring& The

,source% of Tradition can only be eta$hysical& By addressing itself to what is essential

in ankind# Tradition reains very uch alive in our ties& The work of Ren7 Gu7nonor 2ircea .liade have shown the e+tent to which traditional thought can be of burning

interest for our own era& In addition# increasingly detailed studies deonstrate the $oints

of convergence in structural ters between conte$orary science and Tradition&

>ne can find a $recise $oint of contact between Tradition and theatre in Tradition%s

'uality of vital iediacy9a 'uality reflected in its oral transission# in its constant

reference to the $resent oent and to e+$erience in the $resent oent& Brook hiselfrefers to just this# ore or less directly# when he writes

Theatre e+ists in the here and now& It is what ha$$ens at that $recise oent whenyou $erfor# that oent at which the world of the actors and the world of the audience

eet& * society in iniature# a icrocos brought together every evening within a

s$ace& Theatre%s role is to give this icrocos a burning and fleeting taste of anotherworld# and thereby interest it# transfor it# integrate it&?

.vidently# according to Brook%s vision# although the theatre is on the one hand by its

very nature ,a/traditional#% it could be conceived to be a field of study in which to


3/24

confront and e+$lore Tradition& The reasons for Brook%s interest in the thought of

Gurdjieff are also a$$arent as we know# Brook devoted several years of work to realising

a fil version of one of his books& We believe that significant corres$ondences e+istbetween Brook%s work in theatre and the teachings of Gurdjieff and for that reason

Gurdjieff%s nae will recur throughout this essay&

While resolutely reaining a an of Tradition# Gurdjieff 36@AA6C?C5 anaged to

e+$ress his teachings in conte$orary language& e also succeeded in locating and

forulating# in a scientific anner# laws coon to all levels of reality& These lawsassure a ,unity in diversity#%E a unity beyond the infinite variety of fors associated with

the different levels& These laws e+$lain why ankind need not be a fragented state in a

thousand realities# but in one ulti/faceted reality only&

*esthetic reality# s$iritual reality# scientific reality don%t they all converge on one and the

sae centre# while reaining utterly distinct and different in theselves- asn%t

conte$orary scientific thought itself 3both 'uantu and sub/'uantu5 uncovered

$arado+ical and sur$rising as$ects in nature# forerly entirely unsus$ected9as$ectswhich bring it significantly closer to Tradition-F

Theatre work# traditional thought# scientific thought such a eeting is $erha$s unusual#

but certainly not fortuitous& By Peter Brook%s own adission# what attracted hi to

theatrical for as well as to the study of Tradition was $recisely this a$$arentcontradiction between art and science& 0o it is not at all sur$rising that a book such as

2atila Ghyka%s 4e Nobre d%>r 3a discussion of the relationshi$ between nubers#

$ro$ortions and eotions5 should have ade such a strong i$ression on hi&

The $ossible dialogues between science and Tradition# art and Tradition# science and art#

are rich and fruitful# $otentially offering a eans of understanding a world borne down

by and suberged beneath increasingly alienating co$le+ities&The Theatre as )ield of 0tudy 9 of .nergy# 2oveent and Interrelations

We believe that Brook%s theatre research is structured around three $olar eleentsenergy# oveent and interrelations& ,We know that the world of a$$earance#% writes

Brook# ,is a crust9under the crust is the boiling atter we see if we $eer into a volcano&

ow can we ta$ this energy-%A Theatrical reality will be deterined by the oveent of

energy# a oveent itself only $erceivable by eans of certain relationshi$s theinterrelations of actors# and that between te+t# actors and audience& 2oveent cannot be

the result of an actor%s action the actor does not ,do% a oveent# it oves through

hiher& Brook takes 2erce 1unningha as an e+a$le ,he has trained his body toobey# his techni'ue is his servant# so that instead of being wra$$ed u$ in the aking of a

oveent# he can let the oveent unfold in intiate co$any with the unfolding of

the usic&%@

The siultaneous $resence of energy# oveent and certain interrelations brings the

theatrical event to life& With reference to >rghast# Brook s$oke of ,the fire of the event#%

which is ,that arvelous thing of $erforance in the theatre& Through it# all the things


4/24

that we%d been working on suddenly fell into $lace&%C This ,falling into $lace% indicates

the sudden discovery of a structure hidden beneath the ulti$licity of fors# a$$arently

e+tending in all directions& That is why Brook believes the essence of theatre work to bein ,freeing the dynaic $rocess&%6H It is a 'uestion of ,freeing% and not of ,fi+ing% or

,ca$turing% this $rocess which e+$lains the suddenness of the event& * linear unfolding

would signify a echanistic deterinis# whereas here the event is linked to a structurewhich is clearly not linear at all9but rather one of lateral interrelationshi$s and

interconnections&

.vent is another key word# fre'uently recurring in Brook%s work& 0urely it is not si$ly

coincidence that the sae word covers a central notion in odern scientific theory# since

.instein and 2inkowski- Beyond the infinite ulti$licity of a$$earances# isn%t reality

$erha$s based on one single foundation-

In 6CHH# 2a+ Planck introduced the conce$t of the ,eleentary 'uantu of action#% a

theory in $hysics based on the notion of continuity energy has a discreet# discontinuous

structure& In 6CHE# .instein forulated his s$ecial theory of relativity# revealing a newrelationshi$ between s$ace and tie it would contribute to a radical reevaluation of the

objectenergy hierarchy& Gradually# the notion of an object would be re$laced by that ofan ,event#% a ,relationshi$% and an ,interconnection%9real oveent being that of

energy& uantu echanics as a theory was elaborated uch later# around 6C


5/24

In the first $lace# we believe that it is i$ortant to recognise that# in Peter Brook%s

theatre research# the grou$ing te+t/actor/audience reflects the characteristics of a naturalsyste when a true theatrical ,event% takes $lace# it is greater than the su of its $arts&

The interactions between te+t and actors# te+t and audience and actors and audience

constitute the new# irreducible eleent& *t the sae tie# te+t# actors and audience aretrue sub/systes# o$ening theselves u$ to each other& In this sense# one can talk of the

life of a te+t& *s Brook has said any ties# a $lay does not have a for which is fi+ed

forever& It evolves 3or involves5 because of actors and audiences& The death of a te+t isconnected to a $rocess of closure# to an absence of e+change& In The .$ty 0$ace# we

read that ,* doctor can tell at once between the trace of life and the useless bag of bones

that life has left& But we are less $ractised in observing how an idea# an attitude or a for

can $ass fro the lively to the oribund&%6?

2ight one not further suggest that the te+t/actor/audience syste $ossesses another of

the i$ortant characteristics of natural systes# that of being ,odules of coordination

in the hierarchy of nature-%6E 1ertainly# in that instance when the s$ectator eergesfro a theatre event enriched with new inforation in the s$here of energy ,I have also

looked for oveent and energy& Bodily energy as uch as that of eotions# in such away that the energy released onstage can unleash within the s$ectator a feeling of vitality

that he would not find in everyday life&%6F *s the bearer of this ,feeling of vitality#% the

s$ectator could $artici$ate in other o$enings and other e+changes# in life&

But what is essential is elsewhere9in the recognition# on its own level# of the action of

those laws coon to all levels& >ne can conceive of the universe 3as in Gurdjieff%s

cosology# or scientific systes theory5 as a great Whole# a vast cosic atri+ withinwhich all is in $er$etual otion in a continuous restructuring of energies& 0uch a unity is

not static# it i$lies differentiation and diversity in the e+istence not of a substance# but

of a coon organisation the deterining laws of the Whole& These laws are only fullyo$erational when systes are utually o$en to each other# in an incessant and universal

e+change of energy&

It is $recisely this e+change that confirs what Gurdjieff called ,the general haronic

oveent of systes#% or ,the harony of reci$rocal aintenance in all cosic

concentrations&%6A The o$ening of a syste $revents its degeneration# and ultiate

death& In/se$arability is the safeguard of life& It is well known that all closed $hysicalsystes are subjected to 1lausius/1arnot%s $rinci$le# which i$lies an inevitable

degeneration of energy# a growing disorder& )or there to be order and stability# there ust

be o$ening and e+change& 0uch an e+change can take $lace between syntheses on onesingle level# or between systes belonging to different levels&

*lost all of the actors% ,e+ercises% and ,i$rovisations% in Brook%s 1entre see to aiat engendering o$ening and e+change& )irst/hand testionies to this effect are nuerous

one thinks of those $ublished accounts of the $re$aratory $rocesses for 1onference of

the Birds# >rghast and 1aren&6@ Brook has e+$licitly said hiself that# by eans of

these e+ercises and i$rovisations# the actors are trying to ,get to what%s essential in


6/24

other words to that $oint at which the i$ulses of one conjoin with the i$ulses of

another to resonate together&%6C 2ichel Rostain describes how# during the $re$aration

for 1aren# one singer would turn hisher back on another# in order to try to recreate thegesture acco$anying the other $erson%s singing without ever having seen it& *ctors

sitting in a circle atte$ted to ,transit% gestures or words and in the end the force and

clarity of internal iages enabled the to be ade ,visible&% This is genuinely $reciseand rigorous research work&

In one e+ercise during the $re$aration for >rghast# each actor re$resented a $art of asingle $erson9including# for e+a$le# ,the voice of the subconscious&%;H In another#

actors took $art in the recitation of a onologue fro a 0hakes$earean te+t# delivering it

as a round for three voices ,suddenly the actor bursts a barrier and e+$eriences how

uch freedo there can be within the tightest disci$line&%;6 *nd that is what it isessentially about9the discovery of freedo by subitting oneself to laws which $erit

an o$ening towards the ,unknown#% towards a relationshi$& ,To be eans to be related

:% was the startling forula of the founder of General 0eantics# *lfred JorKybski&;;

.+ercises and i$rovisations offer the $ossibility of ,interrelating the ost ordinary andthe ost hidden levels of e+$erience#%;< of discovering $otentially $owerful

e'uivalences between gestures# words and sounds& In this way# words# the usual vehicleof signification# can be re$laced by gestures or sounds& ,Going into the unknown is

always frightening& .ach letter is the cause of the letter that follows& ours of work can

coe out of ten letters# in a search to free the word# the sound& We are not trying tocreate a ethod# we want to ake discoveries&%;?

0o e+ercises and i$rovisations have little $articular value in theselves# but they

facilitate a tuning of the theatrical ,instruent% that is the actor%s being# and a circulationof ,living draatic flow%;E in the actors as a grou$& The theatrical ,iracle% is $roduced

afterwards# in the active $resence of the audience# when an o$ening towards the

,unknown% can be obilised ore fully& But what is the nature of this ,unknown-% Is itanother nae for the unity of indefinite links in ,systes of systes#% as 0te$hane

4u$asco would say#;F in a $arado+ical coe+istence of deterinate and indeterinate# of

disci$line and s$ontaneity# of hoogeneity and heterogeneity- ow can we bestunderstand the words of ,*ttar when he wrote in the ,Invocation% to 1onference of the

Birds

To each ato there is a different door# and for each ato there is a different waywhich leads to the ysterious Being of who I s$eak: In this vast oceans# the world is

an ato and the ato a world:-%;A

Traditional thought has always affired that Reality is not linked to s$ace/tie it si$ly

is& When Gurdjieff talked of the ,trogoautoegocratic $rocess% which assures the

,reci$rocal nutrition% of everything that e+ists# he was $ro$osing it as ,our infalliblesaviour fro the action# in confority with the laws# of erciless ero$ass:%;@ >nce

one knows that for hi ,ero$ass% eant ,Tie#% one can understand the sense of his

stateent the unity of indefinite links between systes evades the action of tie9it is#

outside s$ace/tie& Tie# that ,uni'ue ideally subjective $henoenon#% does not e+ist


7/24

$er se& 0o the s$ace/tie continuu# when it is considered in isolation# is a sort of

a$$ro+iation# a subjective $henoenon# linked to a sub/syste& .ach sub/syste#

corres$onding to a certain ,degree of ateriality#% $ossesses its own s$ace/tie&

)inally# in certain recent scientific theories#;C descri$tions of $hysical reality have

necessitated the introduction of diensions other than those of s$ace/tie& The $hysical,event% takes $lace in all diensions at the sae tie& 1onse'uently# one can no longer

talk at that level of linear# continuous tie& There is a law of causality# but the event

occurs in a sudden way& There is neither ,before% nor ,after% in the usual sense of theters there is soething like a discontinuity in the notion of tie itself&

Would it be $ossible to discuss a theatre ,event% without iersing oneself in an

e+$erience of tie- >ne ight argue that the essence of a Peter Brook theatre event is inits suddenness# in its unforeseeable nature 3in the sense of the i$ossibility of $recise

re$roduction at will5& Brook says that ,The s$ecial oents no longer ha$$en by luck&

Let they can%t be re$eated& It%s why s$ontaneous events are so terrifying and arvelous&

They can only be rediscovered&%


8/24

what can ake it ore real than the noral strea of consciousness& This is also what

can ake it so disturbing&%


9/24

1ontradiction is the sine 'ua non of successful theatrical $erforance& Meai 36


10/24

,tricerebral%9a being with three ,centres% or ,brains&% Indeed a huan being could be

re$resented by a triangle9the base re$resenting the eotional centre 3locus of

Reconciliation5# the two other sides the intellectual centre 3locus of *ffiration5 and theinstinctive otor centre 3locus of Negation5& arony stes fro a state of balance

between these three centres&

It is very clear that the conditions of odern life only favour the functioning of the

intellectual centre# $articularly of the ,autoated% $art of that centre# what one could call

,cerebral% activity& This ideational eleent# which is of course a $owerful eans inan%s ada$tation to his environent# has changed fro a ,eans% into an ,end#% ado$ting

the role of oni$otent tyrant& Therefore the triangle re$resenting ankind threatens to

break a$art# on account of the dis$ro$ortionate lengthening of one of its sides& Theatrical

s$ace# in turn# cannot fail to feel the conse'uences of this $rocess&

=ohn eil$ern# who has described the 1&I&R&T& actors% ,e+$edition% to *frica# recalled his

astonishent when he heard Peter Brook talking about the role of cerebral activity ,e

$ointed to the ibalance within us where the golden calf of the intellect is worshi$$ed atthe cost of true feelings and e+$erience& 4ike =ung# he believes that the intellectual9the

intellect alone9$rotects us fro true feeling# stifles and caouflages the s$irit in a blindcollection of facts and conce$ts& Let as Brook talked to e of this I was struck forcibly

by the fact that he# a su$ree intellectual figure# should e+$ress hiself this way&%?@ *s

soeone who had branded ;Hth 1entury an as ,eotionally consti$ated#%?C Brooksheds no tears for the ,deadly theatre#% which he considers to be the $erfect e+$ression of

the cerebral eleent in its atte$t to a$$ro$riate real feelings and e+$eriences

To ake atters worse# there is always a deadly s$ectator# who for s$ecial reasonsenjoys a lack of intensity and even a lack of entertainent# such as the scholar who

eerges fro routine $erforances of the classics siling because nothing has

distracted hi fro trying over and confiring his $et theories to hiself# whist recitinghis favourite lines under his breath& In his heart he sincerely wants a theatre that is

nobler/than/life# and he confuses a sort of intellectual satisfaction with the true

e+$erience for which he craves&EH

arony between the centres facilitates the develo$ent of a new 'uality of $erce$tion#

a ,direct% and iediate $erce$tion which does not $ass through the deforing filter of

cerebral activity& 0o a new intelligence can a$$ear ,along with eotion# there is always arole for a s$ecial intelligence that is not there at the start# but which has to be develo$ed

as a selecting instruent&%E6

* lot of the e+ercises elaborated by Peter Brook have as their $recise ai the

develo$ent of this state of unity between thought# body and feelings by liberating the

actor fro an over/cerebral a$$roach& In this way# the actor can be organically linkedwith hiherself and act as a unified ,whole% being# rather than as a fragented one&

Through such research work# one gradually discovers an i$ortant as$ect of the

functioning of the centres9the great difference in their ,s$eeds&% *ccording to


11/24

Gurdjieff#E; the intellectual centre is the slowest# whereas the eotional centre is the

'uickest9its i$ressions are iediately ade a$$arent to us&

0o it is clear in what way the deands of an e+ercise can enable a discovery of the

coon rule by obilising the intervention of the 'uicker centres& During the 1aren

rehearsals# actors were asked to walk while at the sae tie eitting a sound# then to$ass fro $iano to fortissio without altering the dynaic and bearing of the walk&Ene ight want to establish revelatory $oints of corres$ondence between the twotriangles9that of Brook%s theatre s$ace and that of Gurdjieff%s centres& In $articular# this

,isoor$his% between the two triangles could well enlighten us as to the role of theaudience# in its ca$acity as catalyst for the eotional centre%s i$ressions& But that

would lead us far fro our iediate concerns here and anyway no theoretical analysis

could ever substitute for the richness of a first/hand e+$erience of iersion in Brook%stheatre s$ace&

The ost s$ectacular illustration of the crucial# $riary role of e+$erience in Brook%s

work is $erha$s in the $re$aration for 1onference of the Birds& Instead of $lunging hisactors into a study of ,*ttar%s $oe# or coitting the to an erudite analysis of 0ufi

te+ts# Brook led the off on an e+traordinary e+$edition to *frica& 1onfronted with the

difficulties inherent in a crossing of the 0ahara desert# obliged to i$rovise in front ofthe inhabitants of *frican villages# the actors went ine+orably towards a eeting with

theselves ,.verything we do on this journey is an e+ercise : in heightening

$erce$tion on every conceivable level& Lou ight call the $erforance of a show ,thegrand e+ercise&% But everything feeds the work# and everything surrounding it is $art of a

bigger test of awareness& 1all it ,the su$er/grand e+ercise&E? Indeed self/confrontation

after a long and arduous $rocess of self/initiation is the very keystone to ,*ttar%s $oe&

This kind of e+$eriental# organic a$$roach to a te+t has an infinitely greater value thanany theoretical# ethodical or systeatic study& Its value becoes a$$arent in the

stiulation of a very $articular ,'uality% it constitutes the ost tangible characteristic of

Brook%s work&

is coents on >rghast are as significant and valid for 1onference of the Birds# as

indeed for all of the other $erforances ,The result that we are working towards is not afor# not an iage# but a set of conditions in which a certain 'uality of $erforance can

arise&%EE This 'uality is directly connected to the free circulation of energies# through

$recise and detailed 3one could even call it ,scientific%5 work on $erce$tion& Disci$line is

ine+tricably associated with s$ontaneity# $recision with freedo&


12/24

Theatre# Deterinis and 0$ontaneity

ow can disci$line and s$ontaneity be ade to coe+ist and interact- Where doess$ontaneity coe fro- ow can one distinguish true s$ontaneity fro a si$le

autoatic res$onse# associated with a set of $re/e+isting 3if unconscious5 clich7s- In

other words# how can one differentiate between an association9$erha$s une+$ected# butnonetheless echanical9with its source in what has been seen already# and the

eergence of soething really new-

0$ontaneity introduces an indeterinate eleent into an evolutionary $rocess&

eisenberg%s celebrated ,uncertainty relation#% or ,uncertainty $rinci$le% indicates that

s$ontaneity is effectively active in nature& This $rinci$le tells us that the $roduct of an

increase in 'uantity of a 'uantu event%s oentu through its s$atial e+tension# or the$roduct of an increase in energy through its te$oral e+tension ust be su$erior to a

certain constant re$resenting the eleentary 'uantu of action& 0o if one were to ask#

for e+a$le# for a $recisely $in$ointed s$atial localiKation of the 'uantu event# the

result would be an infinite increase on the level of uncertainty of oentu just as ifone were to ask for a $recisely $in$ointed te$oral localisation# the result would be an

infinite increase in the level of energy& There is no need for a high degree ofso$histication in atheatics or $hysics to understand that this signifies the

i$ossibility of a $recise localisation in s$ace/tie of any 'uantu event& The conce$t

of identity in a classical $article 3identity defined in relation to the $article itself# as a$art se$arate fro the Whole5 is therefore necessarily sashed a$art&

The 'uantu event is not ade u$ of wave or $article# it is siultaneously wave and

$article& The i$ossibility of $recisely locating a 'uantu event in s$ace/tie can beunderstood as a conse'uence of the in/se$arability of events& Their ,aleatory% or

,$robabilist% character does not reflect the action of ,chance&% The aleatory 'uantu is

constructive# it has a direction9that of the self/organiKation of natural systes& *t thesae tie# the observer ceases to be an ,observer%9she becoes# as Wheeler has said#

,a $artici$ant&% uantu theory has its $lace in the ,Oalley of *stonishent% 3one of the

seven valleys in 1onference of the Birds5 where contradiction and indeterinacy lie inwait for the traveller&

>ne could $ostulate the e+istence of a general $rinci$le of uncertainty# active in any

$rocess in reality& It is also necessarily active in theatrical s$ace# above all in therelationshi$ between audience and $lay& In the ,forula% for theatre suggested by Brook

3,Theatre Rra% ,R7$7tition#% ,re$r7sentation#% ,assistance%5# the $resence

9,assistance%9of an audience $lays an essential role

The only thing that all fors of theatre have in coon is the need for an audience&

This is ore than a truis in the theatre the audience co$letes the ste$s of creation&EF

The audience is $art of a uch greater unity# subject to the $rinci$le of uncertainty QIt is

hard to understand the true function of s$ectator# there and not there# ignored and yet

needed& The actor%s work is never for an audience# yet it always is for one&EA The


13/24

audience akes itself o$en to the actors# in its desire to ,see ore clearly into itself#%E@

and so the $erforance begins to act ore fully on the audience& By o$ening itself u$#

the audience in turn begins to influence the actors# if the 'uality of their $erce$tionallows interaction& That e+$lains why the global vision of a director can be dissolved by

an audience%s $resence the audience e+$oses the non/confority of this vision with the

structure of the theatrical event& The theatrical event is indeterinate# instantaneous#un$redictable# even if it necessitates the reunion of a set of clearly deterined

conditions& The director%s role consists of working at great length and in detail to $re$are

the actors# thus enabling the eergence of the theatrical event& *ll atte$ts to antici$ateor $redeterine the theatrical event are dooed to failure the director cannot substitute

hiherself for the audience& The triangle co$rising ,inner life of the actors9their

relations with their $artners9the audience%s consciousness% can only be engendered at

the actual oent of $erforance& The collective entity that is the audience akes theconciliatory eleent indis$ensable to the birth of the theatrical event ,3*n audience%s5

true activity can be invisible# but also indivisible&%EC

owever invisible it is# this active $artici$ation by the audience is nonetheless aterialand $otent ,When the Royal 0hakes$eare 1o$any%s $roduction of Jing 4ear toured

through .uro$e# the $roduction was steadily i$roving: The 'uality of attention thatthis audience brought e+$ressed itself in silence and concentration a feeling in the house

that affected the actors as though a brilliant light were turned on their work&%FH 0o it is

evident why Brook%s research work tends towards ,: a necessary theatre# one in whichthere is only a $ractical difference between actor and audience# not a fundaental

one&%F6 The s$ace in which the interaction between audience and actors takes $lace is

infinitely ore subtle than that of ideas# conce$ts# $rejudices or $reconditioning& The

'uality of the attention of both audience and actors enables the event to occur as a fullanifestation of s$ontaneity& Ideally this interaction can transcend linguistic and cultural

barriers& The 1&I&R&T& actors can counicate just as well with *frican villagers#

*ustralian aborigines or the inhabitants of BrooklynS ,Theatre isn%t about narrative&Narrative isn%t necessary& .vents will ake the whole&%F;

2any of the confusions concerning the $roble of ,s$ontaneity% a$$ear to have theirsource in a linear# ono/diensional conce$tion of the theatrical event& >ne can easily

believe in the e+istence of laws such as Meai%s johakyu#FA but that is insufficient in

understanding how a theatrical event can take $lace through the transition between the

different eleents of johakyu& If one liits oneself to a strictly horiKontal view of theaction of johakyu 3jo# the beginning ha# the develo$ent kyu# the ending5# it is

i$ossible to understand how one ight arrive# for e+a$le# at the ultiate refineent

of the ha $art of ha# or to a $aro+ystic $eak in the kyu $art of kyu& What can $roduce thedynaic ,shocks% necessary for the oveent not to sto$# not to becoe blocked- ow

can the necessary continuity of a theatrical $erforance be reconciled with the

discontinuity inherent in its different co$onents- ow can one haronise the$rogression of the $lay# the actors% work and the $erce$tion liberated in the audience-

In other words# horiKontal oveent is eaningless by itself& It reains on the sae

level forever# no inforation is forthcoing& This oveent only ac'uires a


14/24

significance if it is cobined with an evolutionary dynaic& It is as if each $henoenon

in reality were subject# at every oent# to two contradictory oveents# in two

o$$osing directions one ascending# the other descending& *s if there were two $arallelrivers# flowing with considerable force in two o$$osing directions in order to $ass fro

one river to the other# an e+ternal intervention9a ,shock%9is absolutely essential& This

is where the full richness of the significance of the notion of ,discontinuity% is revealed&

But in order for this ,shock% to be effective# a certain concordance or overla$ ust e+ist

between the ,shock% 3which in itself is subject to the law of johakyu5 and the systeu$on which it is acting& Therefore it becoes clear why each eleent of johakyu ust

be co$osed in turn of the three other eleents9in other words# why there has to be a

jo/ha/kyu se'uence within the jo# the ha and the kyu& These different co$onents enable

interaction between the different systes to take $lace&

Therefore# in order for a haronious oveent to a$$ear# a new diension ust be

$resent johakyu is not only active horiKontally# but also vertically& If each eleent 3jo# ha

and kyu5 is co$osed in turn of three other eleents# therefore we obtain nine eleents#two of which re$resent a sort of ,interval&% >ne of these is filled by the ,shock% enabling

the horiKontal transition to take $lace# the other by the ,shock% enabling the verticaltransition to take $lace& In this way# one ends u$ with a vision of the action of Meai%s

johakyu which is very close to the $recise atheatical forulation Gurdjieff

elaborated for his ,law of 0even% or ,octave law&%Frghast# Brook re$lied that theatre work is

: self destructive within waves: Lou go through lines and $oints& The line that has

gone through >rghast should coe to a $oint# and the $oint should be a work :

obviously there is a necessary crystallising of the work into a concentrated for& It%salways about that9coing to $oints of concentration&A;

>n the Possibility of a (niversal 4anguage

When *&1&& 0ith asked hi about the $ossibility of a ,universal language#% Peter

Brook disissed the 'uestion as being eaningless&A< is res$onse reflects a fear of the

stifling of a vital 'uestion by endless theoretical considerations# by deforing andaiing abstractions& ow any $rejudices and cliches are unleashed autoatically

si$ly by $ronouncing the two words ,universal language%- *nd yet Brook%s entire

work testifies to his search for a new language which endeavours to unite sound# gesture

and word# and in this way to free eanings which could not be e+$ressed in any otherway& But above all this research is e+$eriental soething living eerges into the

theatre s$ace# and it atters little what nae one gives to it& ,What ha$$ens#% Brookasks# ,when gesture and sound turn into word- What is the e+act $lace of the word in

theatrical e+$ression- *s vibration- 1once$t- 2usic- Is any evidence buried in the

structure of certain ancient languages-%A?

The fact that# by theselves# words cannot $rovide total access to reality has been well

known for a long tie& In the final analysis# any definition of words by words is based

on indefinite ters& Where does linguistic deterinis begin# and where does it end-1an it be characterised by a single value# by a finite nuber of values or by an infinite

nuber- *nd if# according to JorKybski%s faous $hrase# ,the a$ is not the

territory#%AE it nevertheless has the considerable advantage of a structure siilar to thatof the territory& ow can this siilarity becoe o$erative- The word is a sall visible

$ortion of a gigantic unseen foration#% writes Brook&AF 0tarting with this ,sall visible

$ortion#% how can one gain access to the ,gigantic foration% of the universe as a whole-* theatrical event# as has already been suggested# deterines the a$$earance of a

laddered structure of different levels of $erce$tion& ow can any single word

enca$sulate the su of these levels-

The relativisation of $erce$tion has enabled us to s$ecify a $henoenon%s $lace in

reality# as well as how it is linked to the rest& * word# a gesture# an action are all linked to

a certain level of $erce$tion# but# in the true theatrical event# they are also linked to otherlevels $resent in the event& Relativity allows us to uncover the invariance concealed

behind the ulti$licity of fors of $henoena in different systes of reference& This

vision of things is close to that i$lied by the ,$rinci$le of relativity% forulated byGurdjieff&AA

Relativity conditions vision without relativity there can be no vision& The $laywright

who takes hisher own reality for reality as a whole $resents an iage of a desiccated


18/24

and dead world# in s$ite of any ,originality% that heshe ight have shown&

,(nfortunately the $laywright rarely searches to relate their detail to any larger structure

9it is as though they acce$t without 'uestion their intuition as co$lete# their reality asall of reality&%A@ Death itself can be relativised in an acce$tance of contradiction& Brook

cites the e+a$le of 1hekhov ,In 1hekhov%s work# death is oni$resent: But he learnt

how to balance co$assion with distance: This awareness of death# and of the $reciousoents that could be lived# endow his work with a sense of the relative in other words#

a view$oint fro which the tragic is always a bit absurd&%AC Non/identification is

another word for vision&

Theatre work can be the constant search for a siultaneous $erce$tion# by both actors

and audience# of every level $resent in an event& Brook describes his own research in

this concise forulation

: the si$le relationshi$ of oveent and sound that $asses directly# and the single

eleent which has the abiguity and density that $erits it to be read siultaneously on

a ultitude of levels9those are the two $oints that the research is all about&@H

The $rinci$le of relativity clarifies what an eventual ,universal language% could be& )orGurdjieff# this new# $recise# atheatical language had to be centered around the idea of

evolution ,The fundaental $ro$erty of this new language is that all ideas are

concentrated around one single idea in other words# they are all considered# in ters oftheir utual relationshi$s# fro the $oint of view of a single idea& *nd this idea is that of

evolution& Not at all in the sense of a echanical evolution# naturally# because that does

not e+ist# but in the sense of a conscious and voluntary evolution& It is the only $ossible

kind: The language which $erits understanding is based on the knowledge of its$lace in the evolutionary ladder&%@6 0o the sacred itself could be understood to be

anything that is linked to an evolutionary $rocess&

This new language involves the $artici$ation of body and eotions& uan beings in

their totality# as an iage of reality# could therefore forge a new language& We do not

only live in the world of action and reaction# but also in that of s$ontaneity and of self/conscious thought&

Traditional sybolic language $refigures this new language& When talking about

different systes which convey the idea of unity# Gurdjieff said

* sybol can never be taken in a definitive and e+clusive sense& In so far as it e+$ress

the laws of unity in indefinite diversity# a sybol itself $ossesses an indefinite nuber ofas$ects fro which it can be considered# and it deands fro whoever a$$roaches it the

ca$acity to see it fro different $oints of view& 0ybols that are trans$osed into the

words of ordinary language harden# becoe less clear they can 'uite easily becoe theirown o$$osites# i$risoning eaning within dogatic and narrow frae/works# without

even $eritting the relative freedo of a logical e+aination of the subject& Reason

erely $rovides a literal understanding of sybols# only ever attributing to the a single

eaning&@;


19/24

The fact that a sybol $ossesses an indefinite nuber of as$ects does not ean that it is

i$recise at all& Indeed it is its reading on an indefinite nuber of levels which conferson it its e+tree $recision& 1oenting on the theatre of 0auel Beckett# Brook writes

Beckett%s $lays are sybols in an e+act sense of the word& * false sybol is soft andvague a true sybol is hard and clear& When we say ,sybolic% we often ean

soething drearily obscure a true sybol is s$ecific# it is the only for a certain truth

can take: We get nowhere if we e+$ect to be told what they ean# yet each one has arelation with us we can%t deny& If we acce$t this# the sybol o$ens in us a great

wondering >&@rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit $& ?H&

@A Peter Brook# The .$ty 0$ace# o$& cit $& F?&

@@ Ibid $& ;C&@C Georges Banu# ,4a 1onf7rence des >iseau+# ou le chein vers soi/Xe#% in 4es

Ooies de 4a 1r7ation Th7Vtrale# Ool& # Paris# 1&N&R&0 6C@;# $& ;@E&

CH Peter Brook# The .$ty 0$ace# o$& cit $& FF&C6 Ibid $& 6


24/24

! " !

Prof& Basarab Nicolescu is a 'uantu $hysicist# working in the theory of eleentary

$articles at the 1entre National de la Recherche 0cientifi'ue# (niversity of Paris F& e is

the author of a hundred scientific articles $ublished in any s$ecialiKed internationaljournals# as well as the author of several books of general transdisci$linary interest such

as 0cience# 2eaning and .volution9The 1osology of =acob Boehe 3Parabola

Books# New Lork# 6CC65 and 2anifesto of Transdisci$linarity 30(NL Press# New Lork5&

This essay was originally $ublished in )rench in 4es Ooies de la 1r7ation Th7Vtrale#

Ool& III 31NR0 .ditions# Paris# 6C@E# edited by Georges Banu5& The second half

3starting with the section titled QTheatre# Deterinis and 0$ontaneity5 was first$ublished in .nglish in 1onte$orary Theatre Review# Ool OII# $$& 66;P* 3>verseas Publishers *ssociation5# N&O&

>riginal )rench co$yright Y 6C@E Basarab Nicolescu1NR0.nglish translation co$yright Y 6CCH David Willias

This web$age Y ;HH6 Gurdjieff .lectronic Publishing)eatured 0$ring ;HH6 Issue# Ool& IO 3;5

Revision *$ril C# ;HH6

gurdjieff international review

Documents