The ephemeral nature of theatrical experience makes it resistant to simplistic evaluations, unlike literature or music. While we can readily share our appreciation for a beloved novel or symphony across generations, referencing a specific theatrical performance elicits blank stares or polite disinterest. The immediacy and transience of live performance, coupled with the complex interplay of actors, directors, set design, and audience reactions, create a unique and unrepeatable event. Trying to convey the impact of a particular performance, like the nuanced brilliance of legendary actors in iconic roles, often falls flat. Theater memories become personal, almost private, lacking the shared cultural currency of other art forms. This inherent subjectivity complicates any attempt at objective evaluation, making the assignment of numerical ratings a futile exercise.
The author recounts struggling with the common post-performance question, ”What did you think? Was it good?” Simple queries that demand complex answers, highlighting the inadequacy of reductive assessments. While one might appreciate aspects of a production, like the innovative set design of a comedic farce, other elements, such as an unsuitable director or inconsistent acting, can detract from the overall experience. Unlike the solitary act of reading, theater involves a multitude of contributing factors, rendering a holistic judgment challenging. The author points to the inherent difficulty in quantifying the artistic merit of a theatrical production, contrasting it with the relative ease of critiquing literature. This difficulty stems from the transient nature of theater, where performances vanish into memory, leaving behind only fragmented impressions rather than concrete artifacts like books or recordings.
Literary critic Olof Lagercrantz, known for his precise and analytical writing, found himself grappling with the elusive nature of theater. His discomfort with its subjective qualities underscores the challenges of applying traditional critical frameworks to the performing arts. Lagercrantz’s preference for the concrete and analyzable nature of literature highlights the inherent difficulty of capturing the ephemeral essence of a theatrical performance. His struggle exemplifies the tension between the critic’s desire for objective evaluation and the inherently subjective nature of the theatrical experience. This difficulty in pinning down the essence of a performance contributes to the lower status often attributed to theatrical memories. They lack the permanence and shareability of literary or musical experiences, making them feel less substantial and therefore less worthy of critical attention.
The author draws parallels between this struggle for control and the experience of an actress in Tove Jansson’s short story ”Huvudrollen” (”The Main Role”). The actress, Maria, attempts to meticulously study her character by mirroring the mannerisms of her cousin. This approach, however, proves futile, as she ultimately fails to grasp the inner life of the character. This mirrors the critic’s dilemma, where an overemphasis on quantifiable elements can obscure the more nuanced and intangible aspects of the art form. Maria’s failure underscores the importance of allowing for spontaneity and surprise, which are crucial elements of both acting and appreciating art. Just as Maria’s attempt to control her performance stifles creativity, so too does a rigid adherence to critical criteria limit the potential for genuine aesthetic experience.
The story serves as a parable for the limitations of a purely analytical approach to art. The desire to quantify and categorize, symbolized by Maria’s mimicry, ultimately prevents her from truly understanding and embodying her role. Similarly, the critic who focuses solely on measurable aspects of a performance risks missing the emotional and intuitive core of the theatrical experience. The pursuit of absolute control, whether by the actor or the critic, ultimately undermines the capacity for wonder and genuine appreciation. The most profound aesthetic experiences often arise from the unexpected, the unpredictable moments that defy analysis and categorization.
The pressure to assign numerical ratings to theater, therefore, contradicts its inherent nature. The demand for easily digestible judgments ignores the multifaceted complexity of live performance, ultimately diminishing the potential for surprise and genuine engagement. The author argues that embracing the ephemeral and subjective nature of theater allows for a deeper, more meaningful connection with the art form. By resisting the urge to quantify and categorize, we open ourselves to the transformative power of the theatrical experience, a power that lies beyond the reach of numerical scores and reductive critiques. Ultimately, the author advocates for a more nuanced and open-minded approach to engaging with theater, one that prioritizes personal experience and embraces the inherent ambiguity of art.
