No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Texting the Fugitive Performance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2009
Extract
Theatre historians have always lamented the scarcity of documentary material with which to recreate the theatrical milieu that by definition lives in time and perishes. What we know of yesterday's stage art comes down to us in fragments, pieced together with the skills of the detective, virtually never whole, never complete. If only, we ask, if only theatre persons had the foresight to leave behind some coherent record of the marvels of their time, some busy notebooks, some hard facts, some interpretations, some organized recapitulation of the events themselves.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1981
References
1 See Croydon, Margaret, Lunatics, Lovers & Poets: The Contemporary Experimental Theatre (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974)Google Scholar; Chaikin, Joseph, The Presence of the Actor (New York: Atheneum, 1972)Google Scholar; Biner, Pierre, The Living Theatre (New York: Horizon, 1972)Google Scholar; Schechner, Richard, Environmental Theater (New York: Hawthorn, 1973)Google Scholar; and the “Rehearsal Procedures” issue of TDR (T–62), June 1974Google Scholar, for discussions of the generative process.
2 Schechner, Richard, “Decline and Fall of (American) Avant-Garde,” PAJ, #14 (March 1981), 48–63Google Scholar.
3 Malpede, Karen, Three Works by the Open Theater (New York: Drama Book Specialists, 1974), p. 38Google Scholar.
4 Kostelanetz, Richard, The Theatre of Mixed Means (New York: Dial, 1968), p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.
5 Wittig, Susan, “A Semiological Approach to Dramatic Criticism,” ETJ (December 1974), 441–454Google Scholar; Burns, Elizabeth, Theatricality (New York: Harper & Row, 1972)Google Scholar; Beckerman, Bernard, Dynamics of Drama (New York: Knopf, 1970)Google Scholar; Searle, John, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.