Visuality in Peter Scherhaufer’s European Events

From Firenze University Press Journal: **Studi Slavistici**

Dagmar Inštitorisová, Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra

Within the framework of Czech and Slovak theater culture in the second half of the 20th century in the then Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (hereinafter Czechoslova-kia), the theatrical projects — especially in the public space — were first carried out from a theoretical and practical perspective by the Goose on a String Theater (1967; hereafter gost)1 in Brno (today’s Czech Republic, hereinafter cz). This was caused by the fact that the basic poetics of theater was based on different principles than the aesthetics of the time — it was based on irregularity. The members of the creative team expressed its essence from the very beginning of the foundation of gost in various formal documents, which related not only to the creation of the theater, but also to its programmatic principles. In 1971, for example, they declared that “dnp wants to be primarily an environment for experimental theater productions, and is therefore looking for new theater possibilities both in the field of dramaturg y and stage design as well as in the field of organization of theater work” (Oslzlý et al. 2017: 10). In the same year, a new version of the Programmatic Principles was published, in which the concept of irregularity was out-lined more deeply in the form of irregular dramaturg y. Since then, it has been constantly elaborated both on the theoretical and practical level, but also in the area of directing, scenographic, acting and organizational work of the theater (Scherhaufer 1996f: 4). First of all, it was focused on establishing the theater and cultural center as a free association of professionals who are interested in other forms of theatrical expression. However, it was also important to understand the dramaturgical shifts as “the use of regular and ir-regular texts, adaptations, literary works, scenarios, montages and dramatizations” (Oslzlý 1999). For example, in 1981 Petr Oslzlý, the gost dramaturgist, justified the legit-imacy of irregularity by the need for a montage, which allows us to work with a variety of materials, a laboratory to borderline experimental approach to the topic, variability of spatial composition (Oslzlý 1982: 2–6), an endeavor to achieve the so-called borderline shapes (Oslzlý 2007: 105–112) and the fact that “its meaning is the shifting values, which place the topic in the center of a creative theatrical search” (Oslzlý 1982: 2). For example, in 1996 the director of the theater P. Scherhaufer added that the logic of a creative theater was naturally directed towards the creation of joint projects not only with several directors within the same theater, but also with other theater groups with similar views and theatrical expressions (Scherhaufer 1996f: 4).

The Basics of Symbolism of the ‘Different’ Theatrical Visuality

From the point of view of how visuality is performed and its possible symbolism with-in the chosen scenographic and staging concepts, Scherhaufer’s statement that:

theatrical creations are aimed to productions — street and outdoor events, events and meetings of borderline theatrical (para-theatrical) nature, scenic creations that con-nect the individual types of art in a novel way, borderline scenic forms, open staging projects, open rehearsals, etc., acting and directing internships and workshops etc. (Scherhaufer 1996: 4).

The above indicates that the staged shapes were programmatically open to the se-mantics of public spaces, other art forms and their particular way of creative creation. In addition to the language of theater art, the shapes deliberately used the means from other artistic or aesthetic forms of expression.Scherhaufer and his colleagues also saw the “different type of visual means”, i.e. theatrical visual communication within the stage design, for example, in the prepara-tory phases of the productions and projects. It was very often based on the visuality of materials of various types — as he stated together with Oslzlý in 1985 when defining the essence of a theater project: on the study of pictorial and literary materials, historical artifacts and sources, on the surveys or personal meetings and discussions with both the spectators and experts in various issues, on the trainings/rehearsals, etc. with the inten-tion of their new structuring in the resulting shape and meaning (Scherhaufer, Oslzlý 1985)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/Studi_Slavis-13797

Read Full Text: https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/ss/article/view/13797