Mass culture is the basis of the capital industry. The mentality of the people favours the monopoly system. These concepts are influenced on a global scale, not just in a particular country which might have a utopian way of creating art, but also in our own contemporary society. Theatre has become an “industry” since it became more indoor-orientated. Theatre performances were gradually moving to indoor environments in the 1500s, but not yet to playhouses. Eventually, in 1576, James Burbage built The Theatre in Shoreditch, London. Shakespeare joined this theatre, and subsequently, after Burbage’s death, Shakespeare bought part of the theatre house and it became known as the Globe. At this stage, theatre subtly made its way into the realms of industry and capital. The performance space used a smaller venue compared to open theatres, such as street theatres in Italy, Greece, and Spain. The public was charged to enter and see the indoor performances. Thus, the theatre became more selective of its audience since not everyone had financial conditions to attend theatre performances. Moreover, the price differentiation in the playhouse classified the spectators based on their social class and their financial status.
Considering all the different movements that existed in the course of our global history, such as the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, World War I and II, the introduction of new technological sources and the development of science, the theatre adapted itself accordingly into contemporary culture. My aim is definitely not to generalize that all theatres on Earth accept the conceptual and existent ideologies in such a vast number of societies, and it is not to conclude that all creators try to make theatre a business. Yet, there is a sense of creating theatre art today in order to appeal to the mass audience, which is more convenient for profit-making, in some cases. As a cyclical process, some theatre companies offer the spectators exactly what they want to fulfill their own personal expectations, such as the desire to be entertained. Consequently, the same stories are produced over and over again; what could be called the successful cliché plot. Evidently, the sameness of such productions is easily digested by the mass audience. These productions may not offer an intellectual, philosophical content based on the contemporary society. It also happens in other art forms, such as film and music. Lamentably, among theatre audiences, I have heard that some performances are more important than others since the money income is higher and that some performances are not as incendiary since the income acquisition is lower. The desire to make money is greater than the passion for art. Does capital have a greater value than the pure essence of art?
Connecting dots: the idea of theatre as a money-making-machine, culture industry and the intervention of mass media and technology.
“Culture industry” is a term used by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in their critical theory book, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 1944. They also propose that art is produced with the goal to please the expectations and desires of the mass audience. As a result, the culture industry provides low art material and the spectators are essentially content with it. Some of the art products are also censored by government ideologies, which can influence the society and its moral codes.
Consider the process of “emptying the mind”, of which the culture industry effectively controls the mass audience: the industrialization of culture guides the mass audience into a beautiful and illusionary scenery placing the society into a comfort zone. Nonetheless, our contemporary world has easy access to new sources of communication and popular media. Everything is easily accessible; anyone can buy a camera and other equipment and share videos of themselves on social media. I have watched examples of such videos on YouTube where the creators say they want to be rich and famous. Eventually, some become “well-known”, and achieve their goals by providing superficial content to the entertainment of the mass culture. It is not only based on YouTube channels, but Instagram and other social media are also used as a medium of representation or “acting”of the self. Our society has a technological domination, which influences the concerns of new art production, such as the idea of being “liked” by a large number of spectators. Additionally, films and telenovelas also present the actors or public figures surrounded by fame and high status quo. And these public figures are reported in a vast spectrum of global tabloid media. The illusion of fame influences the new actor and/or theatre practitioner. I have met a lot of people from different countries in theatre and theatre-related courses who expressed that their main concern was becoming rich and famous actors, and public figures. They wanted merely the glamourous concept of being known as “artists”. Conventional beauty helps some to become successful actors, with no intellectual or passionate knowledge about the art form itself. It is possible that these “actors” were once unconsciously influenced by the notion of being famous and so on; they become a puppet or tool for the money-making machine in the art industry.
Culture industry mainly controls the mass audience by means of amusement and entertainment. Richard Wagner, a composer and theatre director, also refers to modern art, the folk theatre and the self-concerning business involved with theatre artwork, which he classifies as egoistic in his ‘Artwork of the Future’ essay in 1895. Theatre business is also mentioned by the theatre practitioner and playwright Bertolt Brecht, in his ‘A Short Organum for the Theatre’, 1948. Brecht interlinks the bourgeoisie with business and theatrical entertainment, as he suggests it is theatre’s business to entertain people and that these means of entertainment are forms of instruction of mass audience by mass communication. This form of theatre provided to the mass audience obtains more money and fame, which are not necessarily crucial for art. There are some recent Dublin productions that are generating a high financial income, such as Riot which is currently touring Australia. Another example of contemporary theatre and business could possibly be linked to pantomime, and how these productions tend to stay in theatres for a longer run with an exuberant and endless amount of performances compared to more sophisticated productions which have far fewer performances, audiences and less financial profit.
The intervention of mass media and the conceptions of fame have affected theatre, as well as film practitioners. This corrupted desire is not only associated with art, but with any other profession. The desire to make money and to achieve a famous status is vaguely constructed. The will to share knowledge and to change social issues is forgotten by some contemporary artists who have greater power upon the mass audience. Playwrights and theatre practitioners undoubtedly have the power to highlight social issues, spread knowledge to both types of audience and make art revolutionary, even though they may be censored in a certain epoch and space. I hope that the will to make change is greater than the will to conform and that entertainment can be intertwined with the intellectual. Eventually, there can be an equilibrium between both forms of art, Apollonian and Dionysian—both Apollonian and Dionysian art are discussed by the cultural critic and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his The Birth of Tragedy, 1872.
Based on my experiences, I think the contemporary theatre atmosphere should be somehow reconditioned. Since some theatres present themselves as businesses and the theatre-goers as loyal consumers. Nevertheless, some advertisements and theatre reviews use persuasive language in order to grab attention of more spectators/consumers. If you follow some critics’ reviews they always mention their own personal idea and they tend to include the following lexis: “book now”, “extraordinary”, “brilliant” and so on. I am not sure to what extent they are being biased or if there is a business between the theatre company and the press, or something alike. Theatre should provide a welcoming and friendly experience for the spectators and not treat them merely as consumers, for art is not superficially a material product to be consumed. Art and all its components are part of human nature and the soul.
