In this paper, “The Theatre, ” an article written by Architect Adolf Loos (1870–1933), is examined. He wrote this article in 1925 for the International Theatre Exposition held by The Little Review, an American literary magazine, in New York in February 1926. Loos criticized the old type of theater and proposed a radically new type that would have an effect on a person’s “nervous system.” Although many studies on Loos overlooked this article, it is notable because it demonstrates not only Loos’ interest in theater but also his resonance with contemporary avant-garde art movements, such as Dadaism and Surrealism. This paper aims to clarify the content and background of the article and locate it in its appropriate historical context. Further, this paper consists of three sections.
In the first section, the background of the article is examined by focusing on Loos’ relationship with contemporaries such as Tristan Tzara, whose house was designed by Loos, and Frederick Kiesler, who was the director of the exhibition. Moreover, two important events occurred between 1925 and 1926, which may have become a catalyst toward his writing of this article, namely, design and construction of Tzara’s house and planning of the International Theatre Exposition. As Loos, Tzara, Kiesler, and Jane Heap, one of the editors of The Little Review, shared a close relationship with one another, Loos was asked to write an article for the exposition during this process.
In the second section, the content of the article is examined in detail. This article begins with Loos criticizing the desire to return to the age of great playwrights such as Shakespeare and Molière; he was of the viewpoint that “the stage of culture” to which these playwrights belonged had already passed. Thus, he subsequently proposed “untheatrical drama” for modern people. However, this type of drama was unsuitable for theater and contradicted the essence of theater, which should be enjoyed by a collective audience. Consequently, he proposed a new type of theater that would affect the “nervous system” of its audience.
In the third section, the content of the article is compared with Loos’ other articles, including the famous “Ornament and Crime”; Tristan Tzara’s and André Breton’s Dadaist and Surrealist writings, respectively; and Walter Benjamin’s writings, whose arguments were similar to those observed in Loos’ article. These comparisons reveal that while the first half of the article could be regarded as an extension of his previous arguments, the latter half included a new argument that was not observed in his previous articles. To explain his proposition of a new theater, Loos compared it with slightly strange motives such as “a boxing scene,” “a death leap,” “noise,” and “a revolver shot.” These motives were also seen in Tzara and Breton’s writings and could be interpreted as causes of “shock,” which is one of the central concepts in Benjamin’s writings on avantgarde art as well.
In conclusion, it is possible to say that Loos was strongly influenced by contemporary avant-garde art movements. Due to this influence, he upgraded his previous arguments and envisioned a new theory on theater art that resonated with the Dadaist or Surrealist viewpoints of artwork.
抄録全体を表示