The debate about the precise relationship between theatre and society is an old
and honourable one - whether in terms of the Shakespearean metaphor Oorfles
utilizes (along with a vast range of other writers), or in terms of Aristotle's
Mimesis, Or Johnson's Nature, Coleridge's Truth, and the many other metaphors
used to indicate the representative nature of the arts. The way one perceives
this clearly has a great deal to do with who one is and how one has been socialized
oneself. It is also clear from even the most superficial reading of the many
theorists over the ages, that no-one sees it as a simple, predictable or even
dependable relationship, or even a matter of precise unmeditated imitation of an
external 'reality'.1 It is too dependent on human beings and their complex and
perverse natures to be so. It is also perceived as an 'art' created by an individual'artist'
- and the terms art and artist are themselves concepts of some flexibility.
But all agree, somewhere along the line, that there is a relationship of
some kind between a performance and the socio-cultural context in which it
occurs.Was printed as a book, now out of stock and only available online