Searching for the Avant-Garde?

We just had a discussion in my research methods class that was both provocative and problematic. The presentation and framework for the discussion was wonderful. A trio of students presented an article dealing with the question of a problematic emphasis on the avant-garde of academic theater research. One of the questions that I really wanted to deal with, but didn't seem to have the words to broach, was the idea that the avant-garde becomes popular and the popular avant-garde. We talked about the idea that we can only understand the avant-garde through the lens of popular theater--at least according to the author of the essay, who argued that the avant-garde can only be understood in relationship to/as a reaction to current popular theater of the era. While we discussed the concept that the avant-garde, with come consistency, becomes the popular and vice-versa, we didn't really talk at all about the point of avant-garde-ism. We failed to discuss--and I failed to raise--the question of labels and their affect on theatrical production. Anyone who has seen someone's failed attempt to "go Brechtian" on a particular production can understand that often particular modes of presentation and certain texts or stories simply do not mesh--or, that same someone could at least allow that a director or design team's interpretation of particular modes of presentation does not mesh with certain texts and stories. Our responsibility as artists is to express, or more specifically, to allow expression, to provide the context in which an idea or concept or emotion or point of view can be explored through action, movement, dialogue, and/or imagery. When we set out to "be" avant-garde, or to express something through the techniques of our interpretation of Brecht, we tread on dangerous ground. These production concepts, if left so broad, can destroy our ability to create any sort of realm of expression. I'm not really sure if this all makes sense to me, but it's something I'm trying to sort out right now.

The class also seemed to skirt the issue--and, I would argue, problem--of sociological studies and generalizations made of past audiences of shows. The statement was made something to the effect that we know who goes to see a certain kind of play because those plays, shown in churches across Europe in the centuries preceding the Renaissance, had audiences composed entirely of church-goers. Indeed? For those of us who've been "to church", we know that someone's attendance does not equal an understanding of their personality, religious beliefs, nor, in fact, their affiliation with the particular group with which they are in attendance. Vast generalizations were made and, for an as yet unknown reason, I was fairly silent. I think shock must have set in without my knowing it. Once a production happens, we've missed it. Theater is happenings. Once we miss a happening, we've missed it. We can study it and the society in which it was performed and we can glean much from such study, but we can never truly understand the piece without seeing it as it was presented. At least, I think that's true. No matter how well-recorded and how well-preserved that original text with all its stage directions is, we cannot recreate the production. We cannot re-experience it. It isn't happening anymore.

I guess I left the class with an understanding that the discussions we will have will be generic unless forced to be specific, which is sad. I feel as though my classmates are intelligent and interesting. I guess we all--including me--need to speak louder. In our defense, if the remainder of the presentations are as creative and provocative as the Breakfast Club-inspired presenters of today, I will have new faith that our contributions to theater and the world will be felt. Plus, we'll all have a great time.