It is nearly always idle and unnecessary to speak about theatre, with theoretic terms without reference to the experiences and to the actual theatrical events.
Theatre scenes and universally valid paradigms because it is a typical artistic event. If we respect these, we make good theatre and if we don't respect these we make bad theatre.
It is clear that rules and laws are as precise and scientific in their exactness to the base of the theatrical spectacle; so that they are to the base of the music or of the picture. If we observe those laws, those scenes and those paradigms of the base, we have an appreciable artistic result.
In painting, the problems that go (for example) from the perspective to the mixing of the colors to the composition etc. obey precise laws. It is a scientific datum, but since a painter observes these rules in one of his pictures, he can make the result, in the same way, a dreadful picture.
The knowledge and the observance of such laws in the condition of a necessary base but not sufficient.
The same is for the music, for the sculpture, and for the theatre.
Nobody can tell how a picture so nobody can tell how a theatre “must” be a painter to be a valid spectacle “must” be made to be good.
The “Apples” painted by Caravaggio are quite different from those painted by Cezanne. Both masterpieces. Both artists knew perfectly the rules of the base of the picture and of the design, the absolute and reciprocal values of the colors, the techniques.
It is for the two painters besides having lived in different time, they were above all two different artists even if they observer and passed the same rules. In there, terms theatre does not make exceptions. Being unable 'to define' the artistic look of the theatre, because inexplicable and because of not a priori but posterior. People can decide “this or that” spectacle, it is necessary to the contrary more of a component of the “fixed” laws of the theatre. In conformity with these laws that are defined or used or exceeded in all or in part, can be made a certain type of theatre or another type. Usually, the artistic result is another thing nearly imponderable and above all, in conformity with the use and the observance of these rules, can be made a type of New Theatre or a type of traditional theatre. Excluding the typical technical norms that are characteristic of the theatre or of the stage the clue of the knowledge and definition of new theatre must be looked for another component of the “theatrical fact” for other norms.
As every expressive mean theatre has chiefly an addressee to whom an “agent” wants to reach an artistic expression.
In the primitive forms, too when the Agent is all people ( and not actors), authors, producers), that execute religious rites, God is the addressee.
A public that has a type of problems is the addressee of a theatre that faces those problems. A traditional Theatre has a traditional public and vice-versa.
If we want to make theatre for an especial type of public, it needs to examine before ( for not to be far from reality) the most important problems for that public.
We must find the right prompt copy, the right place, where we can show it, and in the same way, the actors, the producer can give the clearest expression of those problems to that public.
We can define a theatre “A New Theatre” when it chooses for addressee a new politic, that is a public formed by people that have never been at the theatre. Therefore a public formed by a large popular mass of people.
If we recognize to the theatre and to its possibilities a little function, it needs to say: this function is meant to facilitate and to further knowledge on behalf of spectators.
This is its cultural value if it is true that we must give the meaning of cognitive instrument of the reality to the culture and so, an instrument for the change of this reality.
It is clear that the theatre proposes problems already “field to the public formed by large popular masses of the people, or rather it must wake or speed valid problems.
Theatre must perform the action of declaration in the ambit of the great social function, and in the artistic ambit too.
There are many ways to do this: old and contemporary tests, in a satiric, grotesque dramatic manner.
Technical and language must be expressive and above all, they must favor the receptivity of those contents from the public.
We can say many things in question, the most important is the measure of “participation” from the public to the theatrical event; more or less active participation, creative participation that transforms the addressee in “Agent”.in the meantime, if we begin to make something about which we have mentioned before, we shall be able to say: “We make new theatre”.
It will be new in the intents, new in the structures, new in the expressive means for which it needs a search.
It will be new in the organization and in the results too.