Intervention as a means to make a political theatre

This article focuses on the political aspects of interventions in modern Russian theatre, as well as some examples of deconstruction of neoliberal means of producing and transmitting knowledge in current theatre theory. Intervention is the tool or the method of how to work with reality and how to penetrate socially constructed frames and problematize hot button issues in society. The most important aspects of intervention were described and fixed by the British art historian and theatre researcher Claire Bishop in her public online lecture at the Festival “Access Point” (St. Petersburg, 2020). In particular, Bishop defined intervention as the most democratic and productive way to make political actions visible and accessible for citizens. Intervention is described by her on the basis of South America performances of the 1960–1970s, where the protest against imperialistic politics of USA and against local totalitarian systems was transformed into actions by contemporary artists. Intervention makes it possible for the artist to be critical toward authority and, indeed, to be political. For Russian artists this is also a way to ignore theatre as a hierarchical system and to create the project out of theatre as a genre. In spite of this strong willingness, these projects often are based on theatrical tools and methods. The conclusion drawn by the author is that activism contains the roots of the theatre and it makes it possible to speak of them as of ‘a performance’. It gives the theatre the resource for self-development. 

1. Baudrillard, J. (1972). Requiem pour les media. In J. Baudrillard. Pour une critique de l’economie politique du signe (pp. 200–228). Gallimard. (In French).

2. Bolotian, I. (2019). Teatr kak pytka: “Gruz 300” i ego protivorechiia [Theater as torture: “Cargo 300” and its contradictions]. Teatr, 38, 98–105. (In Russian).

3. Chukhrov, K. (2021). Demokraticheskie zlokliucheniia postdramaticheskogo teatra [Democratic misadventures of postdramatic theater]. Teatr, 43, 87–95. (In Russian).

4. Mazin, V. (2018). I eshche raz o novom bes-poriadke, tom i etom [Once again about the new dis-order, this and that]. Khudozhestvennyi zhurnal, 107, 6–13. (In Russian).

5. Morozov, V., & Budraitskis, I. (2018). Khaos kak izbytok miroporiadka [Chaos as an excess of world order]. Khudozhestvennyi zhurnal, 107, 14–23. (In Russian).

6. Shapoka, K. (2018). Kontseptsiia “novogo besporiadka” v povsednevnykh situatsiiakh v segodniashnikh avangardnykh praktikakh [The concept of “new disorder” in everyday situations in today’s avant-garde practices. Khudozhestvennyi zhurnal, 107, 124–131. (In Russian).

7. Shomova, S. A. (2016). Ot misterii do strit-arta: Ocherki ob arkhetipakh kul’tury v politicheskoi kommunikatsii [From mystery to street art: Essays on the archetypes of culture in political communication]. Izdatel’skii dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki. (In Russian).

8. Steyerl, H. (2015). The terror of total Dasein economies of presence in the art field. DIS Magazine. http://dismagazine.com/discussion/78352/the-terror-of-total-dasein-hito-steyerl.

9. Zelenskaia, V. (2019, March 27). “Kvartira” kak osoboe mesto [“Kvartira” as a particular place]. sigma. https://syg.ma/@vita-zelenska/kvartira-kak-osoboie-miesto. (In Russian).

10. Ziemilski, W. (2016). Participation, and some discontent. In A. R. Burzyńska, & F. Malzacher (Eds.). Joined forces: Audience participation in theatre (pp. 168–179).