The theatre is a space for self-experimentation, self-reflection, and social critique. It can be a tool for understanding the self and others, and for exploring different social contexts. It creates and shapes characters so that these characters can be interpreted and understood. The origin of theatre is widely believed by scholars around the world to be rooted in improvisational performances within sacrificial rituals. This view appeared in Aristotle’s work “Poetics.” He wrote that tragedy originated from the improvisational recitation of the leader of the dithyrambic choir, while comedy originated from the improvisational chants of the leader of the phallic procession, an activity that still exists in many cities.

It raises interesting questions about the role of culture in human behaviour and the value of self-reflection.

Kant in “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View” wrote that “In general, the more civilised people become, the more they act like actors.” The sentence can be understood as follows: humans evolved from the primitive states, and the more they evolve, the farther they move away from their original nature towards “civilisation,” and the more they become “actors.” In this evolution, one important characteristic as a driven factor is the consciousness of playing roles. Since humans have a distinct characteristic of sociability, based on common beliefs and needs, humans will consciously gather together in a hypothetical time and space to self-experimentation of their roles.

We are all actors in the theatre of life. And we benefit from acting because, by observing ourselves in our actions, we can change our behaviour. This is a possibility why culture may emerge, because humans can see themselves in their behaviour. Culture does not refer to what we do, but rather how we do it. It is only humans who have the ability to observe themselves in their actions and improve their behaviour.

But as civilisation continues to evolve, acting as a « casual » actor becomes more demanding or perhaps even more dangerous. The self-experimentation in the theatre is compared to a kind of “self-experiment” done by the protagonist Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment.” In the play, Raskolnikov published a paper titled “On Crime” in which he argued that people could roughly be divided into two types according to the laws of nature. The first type, which he calls “ordinary” people, are conservative and conformist, and they exist only to reproduce. The second type, the “extraordinary” people, are gifted and talented and can offer new insights into society. Raskolnikov believed that the second type of people were the future rulers of society and that they had to break the law to achieve their goals. Raskolnikov believed that it was necessary to conduct experiments to accurately distinguish between these two types of people. He believed that the rules of birth and classification must be determined according to the laws of nature, and such laws were objective and were the production of extraordinary people coming from a mysterious and inexplicable process involving “mysterious mating,” a natural scientific experimentation, in his opinion, that determines the rules of classification. Raskolnikov saw himself as a subject in this experiment by placing himself in the “distillation flask” to determine his own classification. He took a terrible step and murdered an old woman, a usurer.

Such a theatrical performance demonstrates humanity’s desire and effort to conduct self-experiments through art. As a “ritual,” the theatre has symbolic significance, and in modern industrial society, such a symbolic action can connect to a social sacrificial function, having the ambiguity of being ceremonial or criminal. This relates to the spiritual experience.

Of course, the significance of theatre lies in the exploration of uncharted territory within the limited space of the theatre: playing “less dangerous” games. For example, after watching « Crime and Punishment » in the theatre, a consciousness may come up, allowing for the completion of the game without having to kill an old woman, while also gaining new insights into oneself and others. After experiencing theatre, people may have a new understanding of themselves and others. Theatre is a “truly severe test”, where the humorous moments, intense emotions, and great arguments in performance may be forgotten over time. However, after several years, a deeply impressionable play may reveal a kernel of memory that can be reconstructed to form new meanings, fulfilling a purpose. Within a few hours, theatre can change one’s perspective on life, something that is almost impossible to achieve through other modes of thought.

It is necessary to focus on the study of each piece of the images of the whole drama. In a “self-experiment” mentioned above, different perspectives and methods result in the creation of different ends. Some have distinct personality traits and complex psychological activities, making them living typical images that can lead to further analyses on the corresponding symbolic actions. Others are only the embodiment of certain well-understood abstract concepts such as “happiness.”

In this case, for representing the essential art form of the act, it is better to focus on specific scenes or moments in a play rather than trying to take in the entire performance at once. By distilling the play down to its most powerful and impactful moments, viewers can gain a deeper understanding of the themes and ideas being presented.

I would consider the modern ritual to be presented with a sequence of stilled-type images instead of a drama, for these still images give the viewers an opportunity to form a cohesive narrative in their own perspective. Each individual image is also a self-contained unit with its own meaning and significance. By breaking down a drama into its component images, one can analyse each one in isolation and explore how it contributes to the overall narrative. When one has the courage to break down a drama into many pieces of images, one will have the chance to see that each of these images will ultimately lead to a logical conclusion. By examining the individual images that make up a drama, one can gain a deeper understanding of how the drama as a whole functions and how its meaning is constructed.

I believe that no matter how we slice a drama into individual images, the meaning and logical conclusion of the drama as a whole will remain consistent. However, for the sliced pieces, each image may offer a different perspective on the story, but ultimately they all contribute to the narrative arc and thematic message belonging to the viewer.

Each image is also a means of self-examination and self-study, as well as a possibility for salvation. The content in the image is an experiment; it is a form of escape; it may also contain some “truths.” When the viewers are convinced and believe in the truth of the image, image and life become one.

If the purpose of theatre is a system of the entire society, a selected image of the drama is a sub-system. In this sub-system, each image provides a symbolic and utopian experimental space and collective laboratory. Should we consider theatre as a combination of various human groups and the image as a place for resting collective self-experimentation! Through stillness, the image allows us to observe better the actors who shape various character images on stage; on the other hand, more importantly, the still moment creates different situations on stage, virtually producing various “miniature societies”.