Acting: The Quintessence of Theatricality

Within the category of the dramatic arts, is it the immediate experience of the body of a human actor on stage that produces the distinctive feature of theater? Indeed, no other dramatic art, such as cinema, TV drama or puppet theater, equals such an experience. Even if we accept that in employing the body the ultimate aim is to decode the text inscribed on it—an aim shared by all dramatic media—direct experience nonetheless remains typical only of theater. Furthermore, in principle, there is no problem in defining a medium—meanings being the same—by its material carrier. It would appear, therefore, that there is no reason to reject the thesis that the direct experience of the body of the actor is typical of and, to use a somewhat controversial term, perhaps even “essential” to theater. The problem, however, exists nonetheless, and is three-fold: a) in acting, the body on stage fulfils at least two different functions: producing signs and carrying signs; b) a human body on a stage does not necessarily engage in acting; and c) not only human actors are engaged in acting. The question is, therefore, whether the presence of a human body on a stage, or acting itself is the sufficient and necessary condition of theater.