Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:58:41.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Theatre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2022

R. Buckminster Fuller and
Shoji Sadao
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Theatre, at mid-twentieth century, finds itself in a position of “change or die.” The rapid development of television and cinema have been to it what photography was to representational painting: they can do many of the same things better and more simply. The only means of survival clearly lies in making the very most of the unique quality of theatre—the relationship between a live audience and live performers.

Traditional theatre, with its reliance on “real” props and staging, contributes to audience-performer separation by constantly defining physical limits of size, scale, and distance. The theatre of the future will have to provide an environment which permits the spectator to do more than merely look. He should experience a direct and, as nearly as possible, total involvement, both individually and in relation to the actors.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Drama Review , Volume 12 , Issue 3: Architecture/Environment , Spring 1968, pp. 117 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Drama Review 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

1. The replacement cycle (10 years, 20 years, 40 years?) is dependent on original cost of the building as compared to rebuilding in the future. Our intent was to design a low cost “disposable” theatre. Whether we have done so or not can only be determined by detailed study and analysis which is beyond the scope of our present investigation.

2. We should have liked to develop the project in more detail but found it financially impossible. To take the design to significantly greater detail would require at least 35% of the normal professional fee charged for an architectural commission. For a project of this magnitude, this would be the equivalent of $100,000.

3. As designed, this theatre is meant to be a free standing structure, but it could be adapted to fit into another structure (e.g., a skyscraper) provided that its dimensions are compatible with the maximum clearspan dimension required for our design.