A Few Comments on the History of (Mis)Understanding Between (Post-)Semiotic Performance Theory and Practice

Abstract

This paper discusses the transformation of semiotic approaches to drama and performance practice and theory, two closely related fields, that both underwent major changes following the performative turn during the 1960s. It also examines which strategies of representation and theorization proved to be fruitful. The tools and field of examination are semiotic theories (Ubersfeld, Eco, and Fischer-Lichte), semiotics of culture (Lotman), and post-semiotic highlights (Patrice Pavis and Fischer-Lichte) on the one hand, and (post-)dramatic and performative practices (Rudi Šeligo, Janez Janša, Betontanc and Jongholandia, Elfriede Jelinek, Dušan Jovanović, Anja Hilling, Simon Semenič, and others) on the other. It is asked whether it is possible for a theory of signs that originated in Saussure, Peirce, and the Russian and Czech formalist schools with a structural analysis of narrative that is applicable to a wide range of phenomena from literature, comics, film, painting, and theater to a specific form of cybernetics and information to avoid becoming “a slave to a linear model of communication” (Pavis). How can this (post-)post-semiotic theory escape the naiveté of vulgar interpretation of the cybernetic machine of the theater event as a process of coded information, which originates in the theatre director and slowly but gradually makes its way to the receiver (i.e., the audience) with a minimal loss of information?