At the bottom of page 55 of “On the Art of Theatre,” Edward Gordon Craig claims that “art arrives only by design.” Though one can see where this attitude comes from (Craig being a designer) we have to wonder what the real logic is behind this statement. If we are to agree with Craig, we have to eliminate the Jackson Pollocks and the Bob Rosses of history (his art was full of “happy accidents,” if I remember correctly), and I don’t believe this to be a productive exercise. Moreover, if we are to consider the actor as medium (an entirely faulty one, according to Craig) then who is the creator? Is it the playwright? If so, then the scenic designer is also guilty of allowing his or her own whims and ideals to sully the true vision of the artist. Craig, by his own logic, should be banished with the rest of them.
What I find ironic about Craig is his own career, having started as an actor himself, and having come from a line of well known thespians. Moreover, his drawings as a scenic designer are riddled with figures – they seem essential to his conception of space and movement, yet when it comes to actual performance, these same figures are considered detrimental to the realization of the piece. In actuality, to create a completely controlled performance, the human element must be removed altogether. If a performer is required to operate his Über-marionette, then the production can be compromised by the same issues one encounters with traditional actors. What Craig really wants, though he doesn’t know it, is robots. He wants machines that can be programmed in anticipation of the event, finely tuned to prevent any potential glitches during run-time, who cannot think or impart any personal bias into the script. Would this not interfere somewhat with Craig’s own aversion to spectacle?
At one point, he turns to a hypothetical origin of performance as a means for arguing its impurity. The scenario he creates, where the author tricks the actor into speaking his words, is completely off base, though I’m not sure how much was known about the origins of Western theatre at the time that Craig was composing his discourse. What we do know, and I use the Greek example, is that theatre was born of performance, and not written language, as Craig suggests. The oral poetic tradition, characterized by the memorization of lines for the purpose of storytelling, predates the playwright. In this way, written scripts are indebted to performers, and not the other way around. This is evident in Shakespeare’s work as well, having never been composed strictly for the page but rather for an audience, despite Craig’s belief (mirrored in his choice of quotations) that characters such as King Lear are too complex for any actor to portray.
Craig also seems to think that the Greeks had some innate appreciation of “control” inherited from their Egyptian counterparts. In fact, Heraclitus states that “the most beautiful kosmos is a pile of things poured out at random.” In this way the most beautiful kosmos is one that is produced naturally. The idea that one must have complete control in order to create true art, as Craig suggests, seems illogical then according to these standards, though he suggests that the ancients somehow conformed to these “laws”. Our emotions too, can be counted in the category of beautiful kosmos, for they reflect our psychological well being and help us to obtain the things we require for prolonged survival. The actor facilitates this to some degree through his or her uncontrolled responses, helping to achieve emotional fulfillment vicariously. Having said this, I do agree that art should seek to capture the spirit of something, rather than slavishly represent, and in this argument he seems to be more critical of bad writing, overacting, and actor veneration than the profession of acting itself. I think we’d all choose to rally against these follies.
Images: Top Left - E.G. Craig's 1903 design for Ibsen's The Vikings at Helgeland, Bottom Right - E.G. Craig's 1912 design for Hamlet, as realized at the Moscow Art Theatre
