İlksen Gözde Olgun, who completed her master’s thesis in 2011 at the Department of Theater Criticism and Dramaturgy of the Istanbul University Institute of Social Sciences on the ways film and projection were used in 20th-century theater, examined several works by Rimini Protokoll as part of this study. We are sharing a portion of it with you.

The essence of the thesis

This study traces the journey that film, projection and image-producing devices have taken in theater from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day, within the framework of the changing relationship between theatrical practice and reality. The first chapter examines the principles by which Piscator, influenced by the aesthetics of avant-garde art, created Documentary Theater with image-producing devices during the period in which the avant-garde movements emerged. The second and third chapters identify the principles governing the use of image-producing devices within the distinct artistic and aesthetic orientations of the Wooster Group and Rimini Protokoll.

3. FILM AND PROJECTION IN RIMINI PROTOKOLL’S PLAYS OF THE 2000S

“There is no longer any difference between contemporary art and technical, advertising, media or digital operations. There is no longer any artistic transcendence, any difference, any stage that seeks to reflect the contemporary world as it is. In this sense, there is no such thing as contemporary art, because there is no difference between it and the world; the two are one and the same.”[1]

In the plays the Wooster Group staged up until the early 1980s, the use of film and projection to blur the boundary between life and art, and the use of deconstructed texts drawn from performance art, constituted an avant-garde theater movement in its own time. In today’s contemporary theater, alongside the tendency to bring deconstructed texts to the stage, debates about reality and art are also approached in a rather different way. The effort to bring reality/life to the stage has gone very far, and so has the aim of building theatrical aesthetics exactly as they are in life.

Rimini Protokoll, one of the most important companies of the 2000s, stages plays in Germany that claim a significant form of authenticity and reality in contemporary art. This reality is put into practice by moving away from the text and by showing on stage every kind of event and person drawn from the practice of everyday life. In this theater, which has come to be called “new documentary theater” or “reality theater,” the use of elements such as film, video, photographs, diaries and archival records on stage is striking for its similarity to the stage devices of Piscator’s political theater. The company, which uses in its own plays the devices Piscator employed in his, creates its productions in partnership with non-professional actors.

Going even beyond the new documentary style, Rimini Protokoll proposes a new critical reality grounded in an awareness of the present moment for both performer and spectator.[2] The use of technical devices in the plays to show real documents on stage plays an important role in how they approach reality. There is no intervention in reality; reality is simply investigated by showing real materials through a real event. Archival material is used to question social rituals, belief systems or the political situation.[3]

“Rimini Protokoll challenges the blurring that all the binary oppositions of the late ’60s and the ’70s produced in Western art, as well as structuralist discourse. That is why they stand somewhere between dramatic form (in the Hegelian definition) and documentary. The accuracy of the documents or the alteration of the truth is not the focus of their attention. They are more interested in shifting attention by revealing the nature of the document as a fragment of reality.”[4]

Yet why is there an effort to show, and at times even to prove, reality in the productions of a company that is not concerned with the accuracy of documents or with the formal or substantive consequences of showing reality on stage? Although this is a somewhat paradoxical point of view, the disappearance of reality in the age of techno-culture seems to be the condition behind the motivation for this effort. In the abstract of her thesis, Julia Elizabeth Burger says that Rimini’s approach of bringing reality onto the theater stage can be interpreted as a reaction against the overstimulation caused by mediated realities and as an attempt to transform them into our own reality.[5]

The approach of using media devices on stage, also discussed in relation to the Wooster Group, can be seen in almost all of Rimini Protokoll’s work. The way Rimini uses film and projection in its stagings will be examined from a quite different angle. In the plays it makes in the age of techno-culture, Rimini Protokoll uses film and projection, but it also uses everyday information devices such as television, telephones and computers within the scope of their own functions. What meanings do the image-producing devices brought onto the stage by advancing technology generate, both within and beyond their own functions? In what forms is the reality and authenticity that Rimini Protokoll seeks to achieve with images on stage constructed? Whether this reality goes beyond being an imitation of reality from their own point of view must be examined. Because in an age when images have moved away from simply showing reality, the claim to prove reality and the creation of an aesthetic form with this reality seem far removed from objectivity. Just as Burnett points out, the questions of what is depicted, what is real and what is not have become a matter of the viewing position rather than of what is inside the image.[6]

In order to examine this assessment within the context of its own period dynamics, it is first necessary to briefly discuss the developments that shaped the general socio-political and cultural atmosphere of the 2000s.

3.1. The Globalizing World after 1990:

With the fall of the Wall in 1989, the Soviet Union and its empire quietly disappeared. It took with it the international order based on the Cold War. Germany was reunified; the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet periphery gained their independence; the apartheid* regime in South Africa collapsed; countless civil wars in Asia, Africa and Latin America came to an end; Israelis and Palestinians came closer to peace than ever before; the disintegrating Yugoslavia was dragged into war and ethnic cleansing. The war in Afghanistan continued under different conditions and had serious effects both on the region and on the world. The United States, the victorious heir of the collapsed Cold War order, stood alone and unrivaled at the peak of its global power. Perry Anderson describes the outcome of this process as follows:

“(…)By the end of the 1980s the Soviet bloc had collapsed and the ideological offensive of the right had gained momentum. Far from disappearing, grand narratives seemed, for the first time in history, to have brought the entire world under the rule of a single grand narrative: a single, universal narrative of freedom and prosperity—the global triumph of the market(…)”.[7]

It is a fact that with the end of the bipolar political era and the passing of the bourgeois world into history, aesthetic polarization also disappeared. There appears to be no structure for avant-garde art to attack ideologically. The truly striking phenomenon of the 1990s was the general encanaillement (vulgarization) seen among the wealthy classes: star princesses, philandering presidents, rooms put up for sale in the White House and bribes paid for eye-catching advertisements, Disneyfied protocols and Tarantino-esque practices, funerals turned into spectacular shows—this was the environment that formed the social background of the postmodern.[8] The new cultural form, which did not oppose the economic order but accompanied it, constituted the power of the postmodern.

This period was in fact also the beginning of a new era in which globalization accelerated, media culture spread globally, and, with the concept of techno-culture, borders disappeared and gave way to rapid flows of information. The possibilities of computer technologies began to bring people living across oceans closer together, erasing borders and distances. At the same time, the spread of screen images brought with it, after the ’90s, all sorts of debates about the distinction between the “virtual” and “reality.”

“(…)We live in an age in which images are produced independently of meanings and referents in the real world. In modern life, we have come to relate to images and simulacra that are no longer mediators of reality. As Scott Lash says, postmodernism places the problematization of reality at its center. We now express our identity not through reality but through the image. Seemingly self-contained, self-referential image systems are about to assume their own autonomy and authority.”[9]

The acceptance of the dominance of the new techno-culture created by technologies is thought to be closely related to this new postmodern process. While it is said that we are experiencing an “image revolution” of unexpected proportions, it is also argued that this is linked to a historical transition to the postmodern era. [10] Postmodern art’s work with images in the global world, and the explanation of today’s society through the concept of simulation by important theorists such as Baudrillard, have given rise to numerous artistic debates about reality. According to radical postmodern theories, “reality” is not something that can be proven or measured.[11] The fact that people today, who have begun to see everything amid an inflation of images, at the same time see nothing, causes their relationship with authenticity to grow steadily weaker. In its works, Rimini Protokoll seeks to confront its audience or its performers with the direct presentation of authenticity, without creating any illusion. In this new form of the world in which reality has eroded, the anxiety over the loss of reality may have led Rimini Protokoll to pursue what is “real.” This “reality” at times means a provable reality, but what really matters is whether or not it touches the spectator in light of the style and formal features they use.

The practice in art of expressing an object through a phenomenal form other than its meaning had a breakthrough at the beginning of the century when Marcel Duchamp turned a urinal upside down and named it Fountain. Duchamp’s found objects (ready-mades) are not works of art but demonstrations.[12] The idea of placing found objects at the center of art later became a source of inspiration for leading figures of pop art such as Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons. The idea of overturning all the values of art that had turned into religious doctrine made it possible for every object and every ordinary situation of daily life to be used as the material of art. In his 1980 work, Jeff Koons placed neon lamps beneath a vacuum cleaner, giving it a brand-new, illuminated and absurd appearance. When this work by Koons was first exhibited in the window of the New Museum in New York, it not only attracted the attention of passersby, exactly as expected; those who came into the gallery space to look at the vacuum cleaner more closely asked whether they could buy the product, as if they were in a home appliance store.[13]It is possible to give many other examples of artworks in which found objects brought into the artistic realm openly insist on their own function without concealing it.

The reason for mentioning the introduction of found objects into art is that it is a fundamental orientation that nourishes Rimini Protokoll’s understanding of theater. The collective selects its performers from the universe of found objects and puts them on stage without asking anything of them other than to play themselves. The objects, things and events used on stage conceal nothing of their own accord. Thus, through the use of found objects in art, Rimini Protokoll distances itself from any claim to individual creativity and finds the chance to capture the form of authenticity it wishes to approach. However, what kind of aesthetic form this authenticity creates, how image-producing devices contribute to it, and whether the resulting artistic form has an aura remain open to debate.

3.2. Rimini Protokoll: A Brief History:

Rimini Protokoll, made up of three friends from the University of Giessen—Helgard Haug, Stefan Kaegi and Daniel Wetzel—is an important theater movement of the 2000s. Known as the “Reality Trend” (Theater der Zeit), this movement has brought about an influential shift in alternative theater. Each of the group’s projects begins in a specific place, from a concrete situation, which they develop through an intensive research process. In the works they call “Theater of Experts” (theater of experts), they cast non-professional performers on stage or anywhere in the city. The performers’ expertise or experience in life is conveyed or shown within the plays from their own perspective. The place where the group stands between reality and fiction defines its decisive position across all of its works. Bringing the coexistence of life and art to the stage through an event once again brings to the surface, in the 2000s, the aesthetic and artistic debates this produces.

The company produces projects not only in theater but also with the materials of various visual arts such as radio, film and exhibitions. To briefly introduce the members of the company:

After studying applied theater at the University of Giessen, Helgard Haug has, since 1996, been working at the intersections of theater, documentary, radio drama and the applied arts. After her 1998 work “Ungunstraum- Alles zu seiner Zeit” (Ungunstraum – there is a time for everything) came under the umbrella of Rimini Protokoll, the Ungunstraum series began. With this series, the discussion on stage of the real-life experiences of people unfamiliar with theater productions came to the fore. Just like actors, they too present their own expertise. They are ready-made presenters for the stage.

Born in Zurich in 1972, Stefan Kaegi studied visual arts in Zurich and drama, theater and media at the University of Giessen. He creates a wide variety of live/live works in urban contexts with local performers, such as motorcycle tours and bus trips stretching from Argentina to Lithuania and from Cairo to Vancouver. His Argentinian work “Torero Portero” toured Europe and South America, and the miniature train world he created, “Mnemopark,” received an award from the jury of the “Festival Politik im freien Theater.” In 2006, his work “Cargo Sofia,” featuring two Bulgarian truck drivers and an audience transported in a mobile viewing room, toured Europe. In 2007, working with the Argentinian writer and theater director Lola Arias, Kaegi presented Argentinian police officers and their biographies in São Paulo, Munich and Berlin. In 2008, again with Lola Arias, they staged “Airport Kids,” a play performed with the participation of immigrant children aged 6 to 13 in Lausanne that questions the third-culture identity of immigrant children. In 2009, he staged “Radio Muezzin,” a work in which five Egyptians perform their prayers on stage.

Born in Konstanz in 1969, Daniel Wetzel studied applied theater and performance at the University of Giessen, then wrote his doctoral dissertation on taking pictures performatively, and works on performance, theater and related disciplines. In the works he has made since 1997, Wetzel has brought to the stage people with their own fields of expertise or experience whose identities are far removed from the theatrical discipline, such as pilots, children, engineers, salespeople, guesthouse owners or street sweepers, and since 1999 he has carried out numerous theater and radio projects.

In all of its work, the company has sought to establish a new relationship with reality and an original theatrical language under the conditions of the “present moment.” To give some examples of the plays the three directors have made together: “Kreuzwortratsel Boxenstopp,” which they directed in 2001, is a work in which 80-year-old women in Lucerne confront Formula 1 racing.

“Shooting Bourbaki” from 2002, again in Lucerne, is a work showing a few young boys encountering and confronting firearms.

The 2003 radio play “Deadline” was performed by funeral service directors, funeral musicians, medical students and gravestone makers. The play contains information about the death of an average European.

“Call Cutta” from 2005 is an experience in which a call center in Kolkata and audience members in Berlin communicate with each other by mobile phone for one hour.

Another interesting work of theirs, from 2006, is “Blaiberg and Sweetheart 19” at the Schauspielhaus in Zurich, which brings together heart transplant specialists, people who have undergone heart transplants and online speed-dating experts. The play explores what those searching for a soulmate in the virtual world have in common with those waiting for a suitable heart for a transplant. In “Wallenstein- a documentary play,” which they made in 2005, they start from the story of Ralf Kirsten, who, after being dismissed from the police, became Weimar’s police chief following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and of Dr. Sven-Joachim Otto, who was driven into political exile while serving as an elected mayor. They bring together on stage people living in cities such as Weimar and Mannheim, which in the past symbolized two opposing ideologies. Accompanied by Schiller’s verse, people present on stage with their own personal biographies try to answer a number of barely remembered questions about the past.

As can be seen from these examples, the two fundamental points in the artistic approach of the group, which tends to create performance and theater out of the experience of a current issue, are the use of the universe of found objects and the introduction of what is most authentic into the realm of art, without any attempt whatsoever to create illusion. Within this artistic choice, it is necessary to take a close look at the use of film and projection and of other image-producing information devices. Film and projection have been used to produce images on stage since the beginning of the 20th century; in Rimini Protokoll’s works, alongside which new image devices are they used, and what kind of aesthetic and content do they create? It would be more accurate to examine this by evaluating a few of the plays.

[1]Jean Baudrillard, Şeytana Satılan Ruh, p.103
[2] Katia Arfara, “Aspect of a New Dramaturgy of the Spectator Rimini Protocoll’s ‘Breaking News’” Performance Research on Dramaturgy, Volume. 14, September 2009, p.112
[3] Ibid.,p.112
[4] Ibid., p.113
[5]Julia Elizabeth Burger, “Rekonstruction im Theater von Rimini Protokol”, (online) http://othes.univie.ac.at/2063/, 2008
[6] Collective volume, Sanatlar ve Toplumsal Etkileşim, p.97 * The system of racial segregation enforced in the Republic of South Africa.
[7]Perry Anderson, Postmodernitenin Kökenleri p. 50
[8] Ibid., p.122
[9] Kevin Robbins, İmaj, trans. Nurçay Türkoğlu, Istanbul, Ayrıntı Yayınları, 1999, p.82
[10] Ibid., p.22
[11] Rıfat Şahiner, Sanatta Postmodern Kırılmalar Ya Da Modernin Yapıbozumu, p.108,
[12] Peter Bürger, Avangard Kuramı, p.108
[13] Rıfat Şahiner, Sanatta Postmodern Kırılmalar Ya Da Modernin Yapıbozumu, p.114