In the forward to the book accompanying the exhibition 'The World as

a Stage' it says this;

"The World as a Stage' presents a key group of artists whose practices
reinvigorate the rich historical relationship between visual art and
theatre. Challanging the negitive associations made between the
notion of 'theatricality' and the realm of visual art in recent decades,
the artists in this exhibition make visable the extent to which a sense
of theatre now permeates one's role as a spectator in the gallery
space and how this is carried through to an experiance of the
contemporary urban enviroment."
The forward goes on to say that theatre has been treated by the
artists in the exhibition "as both an anylitical tool and rich terrian to
be explored, experimented with, and plundered."
It goes on to thank the people involved in the project including of
coures the artists and the gallerys that were involved (as the
exhibition traveled around the globe and some of the work would of
belonged to gallerys). It then goes on to thank Tate Modern for
orgaising and Jessica Morgan and Catherine Wood for the curational
concept.
After the forward there is a list of the 'cast' (artists whos work is
exhibited) and then a brief introduction of each their practices.
Next after the introduction is an eassay by Catherine Wood titled 'Art
Meets Theatre: The Middle Zone'. The essay is split into three parts by
looking and writing about these part I am hoping i will be able to see
the different ideas, kind of language used to describe the work, and
introduce some points that are made.
1: FOUR WALLS / FOURTH WALL
Bertold Breact is quoted proposing that modernism's 'declared
enamies... remained the same throughout the twentith century:
historical narritivity, figural representation, theatrical enactment - in
other words all the conventions of dipicted and figuration that
painting had once shared with the other arts, theatre and literature in
particular.' . Catherine Wood then set out the core of this part which
goes along the lines of, "what is our relationship to representation in a
situation where, due to the survalence and reality-telivision culture in
which we live, the parimeters of 'the represented'and the roles of
actor and spectator do not clearly begin or end?"
The writer goes on to say the although the artwork itself might
include objects or 'pictures', they are automanouse, they have come
from somewhere else, from ritualised relationships between people
that give the objects thier significance. This the writter says is like
theatre which is grounded in narritive and fiction, and also it anb
explicit relieance on co-presense of actor and spectator (which
defines it from art). The writers describes then how it is different to
art and expands on this by saying it intenionally frames relationships
from culture, "hat is to say, it is built upon an anthroplogical basis
rather than making claims for art occupying a fixed and quasi-spritual,
transcendent sphere." Art in the white cube dosnt need the spectator
or at least that the spectator is clumbsy in the white cube with the art
on the floors/walls.
The writter then goes on to quote ideas from theatre that speak about
it being a game for all played by. Peter Brook and that theatre needs
our participation as witnesses.
The writer then writes "the reintroduction of the capacities of the
theatre as a space in which to expand artpractice opens up new
territory not only beyond the immutibillity of high modernism, but
also beyond work made in direct oppostion to that mode", what the
writter is talking about is what work characterised by Nicholase
Bouriaud of 'relation athestics'. what Wood means is the spectator is
delibaratly framed in order to make the piece, to go down a slide, or
eat a meal. The artists in 'The World as a Stage' though have done
something different where they have challanged both the art galleries
four walls and theaters fourth wall at the same time.

II. LIVING OBJECTS, LIVING PICTURES

to be done
III. ART AS A DIMENSION OF ACTION
to be done