REVERSING:

CHOFU THEATRE, TOKYO, 1997

I designed a stage for the dancer and choreographer Haruakira Isshū. Except that is not quite true. Designing a demarcated space called the ‘stage’, distinguished from the ‘seats’, seemed to me a limited endeavour. I was more interested in the space of the theatre, the relationship between performers and audience, and rather than confirm the pre-existing relationship, I wanted to reverse it. There are various forms of reversal: this one was topological, involving the reversal of stage and seats. The dancers danced, not on the stage, but in the empty seating area, while the audience sat in the space or ordinarily called the stage.

Reversing stage and seats does not mean much if the two areas are spatially of equal value, but of course in the modern theatre they are not. The stage is a privileged space raised above the level of the seats, like a classical building on a podium. This endows every performer and object on it with a privileged character.

The status of the stage is further elevated by the proscenium arch that frames it. Naturally, the arrangement and effect of that frame are asymmetrical: it appears as a frame only when viewed from the seats, and not from the stage. Thus reversing stage and seats requires careful calculation, as a simple reversal of space does not produce a reversal of effect. In this case I chose to screen the proscenium arch with a vinyl sheet, which intervenes at all times in the relations between the two spaces and makes possible something more than a simple reversal— a relativisation and dissolution of the privileged status of the stage.

The process of separating and elevating the stage above the seats began in antiquity, in the evolution form Greek to Roman theatre．Early Greek theatres were open to the environment．They had rising tiers of seats arranged in concentric circles；the stage was round and occupied the lowest level inside the seating area．Seats and stage were not in opposition, but were literally one space．

That unity was soon destroyed with the addition of a wall at the back of the round stage．Behind the wall was the tent (skene) where the actors dressed．Later this was replaced with a wooden hut and then a permanent masonry structure (which was nevertheless still called a skene). Eventually, the front wall of the skene began to function as the background for the stage，endowing the objects on it with a privileged character. The next step was to shift the focal point from the circular stage at the lowest level to the proskenion in front of the skene．This effectively drew a clear line between stage and seats．The skene was subsequently made larger and acquired an elaborate，palatial facade which became the prototype for the Roman theatre．

The development of the Roman theatre was not simply a matter of spatial change，for a theatre is temporal as well seats from entrances at the highest level．This sequence had a decisive effect on the structure of space，serving to increase the distance between stage and seats．It increase further with the introduction，in early seventeenth-century Italy, of a proscenium arch framing the stage．

The nineteenth-century composer Richard Wagner attempted to go further still and effect a complete separation of seats and stage．With the cooperation of Gottfried Semper,1 he constructed what he believed was the ideal theatre space in Bayreuth．As if to make doubly certain that seats and stage were separated，he built two proscenium arches．He placed the orchestra in a pit between the arches，concealing it from view．The stage became an entirely separate world，its otherworldliness and privileged character only reinforced by the music emanating from a hidden source．Wagner devised a new arrangement for the seating as well．He dispensed with the horseshoe configuration and with the boxes and galleries that were customary at the time and instead arranged the seats in shallow concentric rows around the stage．In addition, he dimmed the lighting in the seating area and kept the ceiling low to ensure the audience would focus on the stage．The lifeblood of opera is spectacle, and to heighten the spectacle，the stage was made to dominate．In Bayreuth, isolated individuals confronted the privileged object, one on one．

In a sense, Wagner's ideal theatre space became a prototype for twentieth-century spatial form，not only in architecture but also in Urban spaces．The spatial form of the suburbs is quite Bayreuthian：house is separated from house by a set distance and a buffer zone of lawns．Just as the ceiling over the seating was kept low in Bayreuth, so everything in the suburbs is kept low, including the buildings．Just as the low seats confront the high stage, so the low suburbs confront the tall, privileged city．Needless to say, the city overwhelms the houses．

If the suburbs are the product of a Bayreuthian vision of the city, then fascism is the product of a Bayreuthian Vision of politics．The masses are isolated into individuals, left, as it were, in low-ceilinged darkness and then suddenly confronted by a transcendent and radiant being．It is no accident that Hitler was a devotee of Wagner．Hitler attempted to translate Bayreuth into cities and buildings．

Bayreuth's structure is more visual than theatrical．Wagner attempted to effect a complete separation by means of the proscenium，a process that ultimately yields a condition much like film or television，where the image on the screen is the only reality for the spectator．The isolated spectator facing the stage in Bayreuth is not so very different from the solitary viewer in front of a television set．Moreover, if an image on the screen has sufficient reality, then there is little need for performances of the sort produced in Bayreuth，which require elaborate staging and live actors．

The decline of opera as an art form coincided with the advent of the cinema，which offered spectacles that rivalled stage productions，but were generally much more affordable．By the 1920s film had become the most popular form of entertainment in the United States，with Americans seeing on average one movie a week．At the same time, something happened to opera as an art form．Schoenberg's Moses und Aron and Puccini's Turandot were both left unfinished．Opera was unable to compete with the new medium of film，and was weakened further with the invention of television in 1933．Opera was the first form of theatre to suffer a decline precisely because it had demanded the most complete separation of the stage from the seats．However, theatre space did not simply wither away．As staged productions came under increasingly intense competition from visual media such as film，experiments to change the structure of theatre space itself took place throughout the world．Though diverse, these experimental forms curiously shared one thing in common：all of them rejected the proscenium arch．This was quite natural, if one thinks about it．Wagner had doubled the proscenium arch and achieved the separation of the stage from the seats，but that separation had led to the weakening of dramatic theatre and its eventual defeat by screen images．In this light，the reintegration of stage and seats was seen as the only way to revive drama and restore the allure of the theatre．The theatre had to use the power of actual space to fight nonspatial media such as film．The French poet and director Antonin Artaud declared，'We will discard stage and seats and replace them with one place．We will not compartmentalise or obstruct, no matter what we use.'

However, all these experimental spaces ended in failure．They were defeated，not by the traditional theatre form，but by screen images，which proved to be more spatial than the new theatres．What was this spatiality that screen images succeeded in achieving? Screen images made possible both an immersion in space and a comprehension of its overall structure．By means of their frames and the movements within them，by the Way figures entered and exited，they developed a dual character, referred to as spatiality, whereby the audience was able to be inside space and at the same time to stand above it．Conversely, screen images that simply showed a continuous, uncut scene from the viewpoint of a protagonist were not at all spatial and left viewers with only a vague, claustrophobic feeling．

This is similar to a condition described by the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his last，unfinished work.2 He pointed out that in asserting the subjectivity of space, phenomenology is apt to fall into the trap of visual solipsism．To escape that condition，we must see a viewer other than ourselves，in a 'cycle of the seeing and the seen'．This cycle can be said to be the alternation between two positions, one inside space, the other on a metalevel．

For much of the twentieth century, architecture sought to achieve a spatiality comparable to that of film，but was unable to achieve it．The situation only began to change with the emergence of electronic technology．It is an article of faith that the intervention of computers will restore interaction between subject and space, enabling one to 'walkthrough' a place．Such 'interaction' is in fact no better than a camera fixed in a position approximating the subject's eye，no better than visual solipsism．In donning a virtual-reality device，the subject simply falls deeper into a solipsistic，claustrophobic trap．The development of personal computers equipped with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) offers a way out of that trap．Interfaces such as Microsoft Windows allow users freedom of movement between different sessions；they can switch screens at will．The switch takes precedence over any single image on the screen．It allows the subject to control the space projected on the screen，that is, to be on a metalevel of space．The cycle of inside and metalevel comes into play, and image is raised to the status of space．Moreover，the space that arises is a completely interactive space．

Screen images in the twentieth century acquired spatiality through the cycle achieved by the camerawork．Unfortunately, that cycle was produced solely by the creator of the screen images；it was unilateral．Twentieth-century screen images had space but no spontaneity, no capacity for active participation．As long as film was the dominant art form，these constraints placed limits on cultural production as a whole．However, thanks to the intervention of PCs，the subject is now able to alternate spontaneously between metalevel and inside space for the first time．That is the greatest contribution that computers have made to our culture．

I wanted to use the idea of a screen switch to reestablish the direct link between spectator and stage．First of all, I reversed the stage and the seats．This was not in itself my objective, but merely a means and a process．In its preexisting form，the stage is the privileged space and the seats are an adjunct to it．In cyberspace，on the other hand，the subject has precedence，manipulating both switch and space．I wanted to restore the privileged status of the subject on this stage too．To do this，I brought the spectators onto the stage and had them look down on the seats，which became the de facto place of performance． The existing stage was about one metre above the seating．Here, the spectators for the dance performance sat higher up, perched on eight layers of bubble-wrap that were laid directly on the stage．Built-in lighting lent a white glow to the layers of bubble-wrap．The soft, wobbly floor was both tangibly and visually unstable．

In Bavreuth，Wagner made the seats dark and hard in order to amplify the radiance and dynamism of the stage and assert its privileged status．In this project, however，I amplified the freedom and the instability of the subject by means of a softly cushioned and brightly lit material．I amplified the privileged character of the subject almost to excess．Seats and stage were divided by a transparent screen, a vinyl membrane 15 metres high，in the place where the proscenium arch would normally be．I thought of the screen as an oversized CRT. Water trickled down the screen and the relationship between the two spaces could be determined by changing the volume of water and the lighting.．The screen thus functioned as a kind of spatial switch．

Water trickled down the screen and was collected in a stainless steel box, from where it was pumped back up to the top．A computer controlled the volume of water and degree of illumination．The screen was made of sheets of polyvinyl chloride，a material widely used in plastic hothouses．I thought of using glass，but a single sheet of glass can be manufactured only up to a certain size and I wanted to avoid any joints．There was also a danger that the structure necessary to support the weight of the glass Would be more conspicuous than the glass itself．The polyvinyl chloride sheets were simply overlapped．Neither the overlaps nor the sheets themselves were discernible because of the continuously trickling water．The spectators were aware only of the switch．

I used water because it is both material and immaterial．It has substance，yet is image-like in character．We think of the water that flows out of countless different taps as being the same everywhere, just as we think of the images on countless television screens or computer monitors as all being the same．Water thus occupies a halfway point between substance and image, the material and the immaterial．That was why the switch had to be water．

I first used water as a switch in a collaboration with the theatre group Et in terra pax，when they performed an experimental piece, The Humidity of Transmission，in 'Water/Glass'．A video of a previous performance3 was filmed by the director Jun Kurosawa and the video was projected onto a white wall as a backdrop for the live performance．A 'water switch' was installed between that performance and the audience．Layer upon layer of reality and image, the material and the immaterial，were thus overlapped．The boundary between reality and image was extremely ambiguous, because each was as rarefied and fluid as the other．The switch in this case was not made of vinyl but was a single, enormous sheet of acrylic with water trickling down it．The subject, that is，the audience，used the device to switch on or off the multiple layers arranged before it．By manipulating the switch，the audience could call up, erase or overlap specific spaces．They could do this quietly and instantaneously with an almost mathematical precision because all the layers, including the switch，were made of the same materials — the bodies of the performers and water．The body swimming in water A was instantaneously transmitted to water B or suddenly began to swim，live，on the other side of the water switch．

With the water switch，an audience can occupy a metalevel over the stage．The next goal is to create multiple theatrical spaces where each spectator will be able to


manipulate the switch separately and spontaneously．This is not something I want to do simply in theatrical space but for each individual in real space．This does not call for the creation of a battery of special devices or spaces. We are already moving through real space surrounded by and equipped with many electronic devices— the fusion of real space and cyberspace has already been achieved to a remarkable degree．With the support of diverse technologies, we are repeatedly and instantaneously shifting between spaces of entirely different modes．However, urban design，architectural design and theatre design scarcely acknowledge that fusion．Planning continues to adopt a Wagnerian approach based on separation：the stage is cut off from the seats and made autonomous；space and architecture are also cut off from the audience (i.e. the subject) and made into autonomous objects．The subject and space must be connected once more．To that end，the object must be stripped of its privileged status, stage and architecture must be stripped of their privileged status；everything must be reduced and restored to a state of wilderness．Then grass will grow, roads will form．rain will fall and streams flow．These are all switches，that is, symbols．These switches will connect the subject to the wilderness．Only then will the audience be connected to the stage, and the subject to space and the world as a whole.


NOTES

1. Gottfried Semper (1803-1879)，German neoclassical architect. The most radical theorist among nineteenth-century architects．Semper Laid the theoretical foundation for the modern architectural movement.

2．Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Le visible et L'invisible, 1964; trans. Alphonso Lingts, The Visible and the invisible (Evanston：Northwestern University Press, 1969).

3. Koya Arimura put on an unbelievable performance，swimming in a pool of water only is centimetres deep. With her slender physique，Arimura seemed as fluid and rarefied as water．