The project‘s name is “Theatre Architecture in Central Europe”. Also a symposium about experimental theatre space will be taking place as part of this framework. Isn’t this somewhat of antagonistic: “theatre architecture” is a quite traditional concept while something experimental is taking place as a part of it?

Yes, at first glance it is little bit antagonistic. Our idea was that if we are carrying out research about architecture of theatres, we have to also think about the content of these buildings. Because a theatre building is only a theatre when the performance takes place on stage and the audience actually enters the theatre. One definition of a theatre building is that it is “unfinished architecture”. This means a performance serves to complete this unfinished architectural work.

In the late 19^th century the composer Richard Wagner and the stage designer Adolphe Appia began to think about a different space for theatre. There is a strong movement from Wagner and Appia till the middle of the 20^th century, which wanted to invent a new space for the theatre. Between the Wars Bertolt Brecht and Erwin Piscator in Germany and Vsevolod Meyerhold in Soviet Union understood that the old theatre was outdated and that a new theatre has to be created for new people.

As a part of this, there is an important reason for thinking about the research on experimental space. After World War II in Eastern Europe, in the countries, that were influenced by the Soviet Union, this kind of theatre was a form of subversive art and had an influence on the democratization of society. Similar movements existed, of course, in America as well, e. g. The Living Theatre, but they did not have the same social frame. Socialism or Communism did not invent a new type of theatre; the official theatre was same as it was a hundred years ago. And for this reason we have done research into the places where experimental theatre took place. Consequently, I would like to underline just this: as you mentioned, it is little bit antagonistic, because these places were very strange, but if you find a new space for performances, it becomes a public space.

You said that the experimental theatre was a form of opposition to traditional theatre. What is the future of experimental theatre? Do you think that something like an opposition to the tradition of experimental theatre space will develop?

That is a good question. The student movement in Paris in 1968 was not revolutionary in the sense of the French Revolution or October Revolution. One of the ideas involved long walk to institutions, because they understood that you cannot destroy institutions, but you do have to take them over. During the Cultural Revolution in China the Red Guards wanted to destroy old institutions. The French students were much cleverer, however, and understood that it was time to take over traditional institutions and change them from the inside out.

And that was somehow very similar with the theatre. At that same time, in the late 1960s, there were few experimental theatres in Slovenia. Some directors of experimental performances also began working in institutional theatres. They also wanted to change them. Over a very short time the traditional theatres, the National Theatre and city theatres, truly took over the best from the experimental theatres and changed their work and repertoire at least a little bit. For example, there was a “Small Scene” (“Mala Drama”) in the National Theatre at the end of the 1960s, where very interesting experimental performances took place. I remember one of Fernando Arrabal, the Spanish playwright.  

There was a strong experimental movement in theatre in the 1980s, new dance theatre, non-verbal or post-dramatic theatre were so wide-spread that we actually lost some sharp points. It became very usual; all these new tendencies were in such quantity that we lost the difference between one and another. This means that the future of experimental theatre is a little bit questionable. There are more different poetics but all in one trend, in one direction.

On the one hand we have virtual reality and on the other hand smell and touch, the senses. And I think that this can probably be the future of theatre, which will renew the traditional theatre that has been lasting for centuries. People want to be faced with real life, although it is on the stage. They want to identify with characters, so they can laugh or cry. So if we want to think about experiment in the 21^st century the only possibility is an opposition to virtual reality.

In your opinion is the workshop Visions and Possibilities introducing experimental theatre to institutions? Should it be doing so?

It should in someway or another. This workshop is one of the ways of finding a new theatrical space. It is an experiment in the field of architecture, because we assume that the content, the performances, will be very different. This means that, what will happen in a new space, will also be something new.

The Opera House in Ljubljana has been reconstructed and now when it is nearly done, it is not a good solution. Architects have followed the goal of providing enough room for actors, tailors, the ballet, the chorus, opera singers and so on in this building. All it is today is a big black box behind the small historical building. The idea behind the reconstruction of the old Opera was only to support the theatre facilities. But if we decide to build a new theatre it has to be completely different. We should not start with the question as to “How many rooms we need for actors?” or “Does each actor have his or her own wardrobe?”