Emily Grindrod

• Firstly, Schafer wrote this article in order to clarify his thoughts about the theory of the “Theatre of Confluence”, and exploring theatre before he wrote his work “Patria”.
• He states that he wants to create a piece of work where there is more than one area where the action takes place at one time in the theatre. Schafer understands though that this is difficult.
• Schafer speaks not of mixing the arts, but engaging the senses simultaneously through experiencing more than one of the arts at the same time. He sees this form of theatre as unprecedented and therefore pure.
• He rejects both total and absolute theatre in his defining of Theatre of Confluence. Absolute theatre being a style of cultural theatre that is studied (he gives examples of Greek, Shakespearian and Wagnerian theatre). Total theatre is described as messy because it is jam packed of mixed media which provides too much information for the form to be appreciated.
• In order for there not to be a sensory overload, which would diminish the effect of the art, Schafer suggests that the very basics of each art form be carefully studied and refined. Think of an extended study of an elementary stance in dance, a tone in music or the pronunciation of vowels in acting. After these studies have been accomplished a set of skills will be accumulated where the artist appreciates each sense of the actions.
• Schafer also embraces the idea of chance that could help inspire artists. Not only will it inspire them but it could also be part of their creation. He suggests using the basic elements that are carefully studied and also revelling in the opportunities, emotions and reactions that chance may bring. However Schafer rejects that chance is the driving force behind Theatre of Confluence.
• He then goes on to discuss the audiences’ part in the piece of art. They are either involved in the piece and they become part of the drama. Or they are simply the audience as requested and are reflected in the work. There is another option, where the audience is not present at all and the performers take fulfillment in not presenting the art, but making it. Schafer concludes this thought with the first option. That the audience should be expected to participate and influence, but not be expected to run the show or change it drastically.
• In the next section of the discussion Schafer ponders over which way to present the Theatre of Confluence. Either in proscenium or in Greek style amphitheatre. It would depend on the piece written and where the director thinks is a suitable space for the action, for the actors’ relationship to the audience and the audiences’ relation to each other.
• Another aspect of the performance is whether it is realism or illusion. Meyerhold said that the audience should never forget they are in a theatre. While Stanislavski said that the illusion of the performance should make the audience forget where they were. Theatre of Confluence is to be realistic and the audience should always remember that they are watching a show.
• Of all the senses to be the baseline in the creation of his Theatre of Confluence piece, Patria, Schafer chooses hearing. He says that is the closest sense to touching and therefore being involved in the work. Schafer intends to use all of the senses in Patria but will keep in mind the auditory sense is to be pressed upon.

Caity Holmes

The Theatre if Confluence, written by Murray Schafer is a discussion that the author seems to be having with himself, toying with ideas and thoughts before he begins his work entitled Patria. Schafer explains The Theatre of Confluence as being a type of theatre which he has not yet been able to produce, hoping that one day, it will be possible. “Ideally what I want is a kind of theatre in which all the arts may meet court and make love.”

Confluence — the flowing together of something that is not forced, but is inevitable.

This type of theatre rejects both absolute and total theatre, absolute- expressions of cultural fulfillment, examples being Shakespearian and Wagnerian productions and total having each art thrown together in an unorganized matter. Schafer claims that there is no other work ever composed that is anything like The Theatre of Confluence. He describes the play to be a large scale production that involves simultaneous productions throughout a large theatre with many happenings going on at the same time.

The senses are not bombarded aimlessly; everything is neatly integrated. Schafer sees rhythm as being the key element holding all the arts together. He believes that one should not focus on a specific art throughout a production but should compose them all together equally.

Chance is a liberating force, it brings forth interest but although it can be exciting by itself it needs to work in conjunction with controlled operations to give works its richness.

When it comes to Schafer’s views of an entertained, he feels that the audience is nothing but an audience but at the same time realizes that the production would not happen without one. Although he feels the participate shouldn’t be allowed, they shouldn’t just be the observers. A middle ground between the two should be found and played upon.

Co-opera — performance being produced by one individual or by a group of individuals.

Schafer says The Theatre of Confluence is a co-opera production.

Depending on what repertoire you are displaying, the background and the form of where the works will be produced will be changed. Ex. If the production revolves around a carnival, a circus will be displayed; outside in a field, the way a real circus would be set up.

Schafer refuses to call his work opera. He does not want it to develop the bad habits that opera has inherited. He wants his work to be interpreted in a different way.

Murray Schafer is the intermediary between Wagner and Thomas and he does not take the extreme approaches of either one and in doing that he creates an art form that is unlike something ever created. The Theatre of Confluence is a conversation that Schafer is having with himself stating a point of what theatre of confluence should be.

Chelsea Keeney

Loving was R. Murray Schafer’s first work for the stage and before embarking on his second work, entitled Patria he was discouraged after no company was willing to take on Loving, therefore pushing the work into the back of his mind. This is what starts his series of thoughts concerning theatre.

Schafer’s Loving was produced on television but was poorly received because the audience thought it did not work, contrary to Schafer thinking that perhaps the audience did not work and goes on to say that art cannot be helped if the audience does not actually have to think about it. The problem with Loving was that it was bilingual, having many people not understand it, as it is essentially plotless and hard to follow. Schafer believes that the work is new and innovative, but until managers allow it to grace the presence of an audience, it remains unstaged.

After completing Loving, Schafer began to work on something bolder, something that would one day transform his vision of theatre to what he would like to one day see. He goes on to explain that he wants a type of theatre where all the arts meet, all fused together as one but do not give up their unique individualities. He calls this the Theatre of Confluence, confluence meaning a flow that is not forced upon, but is inescapable. He refers to Wagner and his thoughts on Gesamtkunstwerk, meaning that he believed that all arts had to undergo an adaptation to become a total work of art. The terms total theatre and absolute theatre come into play as terms that Schafer rejects because they have been made too ambiguous, but goes onto define them.

Absolute theatre was apparent in all of Shakespearian, Wagnerian and Greek theatre and was absolute because it climaxed trending that had already been in progress for awhile. Total theatre has been associated with mixed media and its association to incoherence, the point in which acts of discernment are no longer possible and cause sensory overload.

No works have yet to be composed for the Theatre of Confluence, however Loving being Schafer’s attempt. All art forms are needed to make Confluent Theatre, which was not possible in the past because of the hierarchal nature of combined art forms. Schafer makes very good points when he references that in drama the spoken word takes priority and in opera it is the reverse and the music is the main event which all other things follow. These are known as rank order forms.

Schafer continues to explain that the arts have always been susceptible to fusion such as kinetic sculpture and stereophonic music, but says that too much fusion can bring about confusion rather than an experience. He states that the real meeting place of the arts is rhythm and how the rhythm of one medium may extend to another or pull away from it.

The arts surround everyday life, as Schafer compares this to a Catholic Mass where every part of it is a sensorial experience, also touching on how the artist may use this sort of chance or instead a controlled experience in his/her artwork. However, Schafer then states that we are living in an entr’acte and that our civilization is in trouble. Because of the state of education, young people are being taught art without any craft or métier, as Schafer puts it. He states that all art should lead to a different state of consciousness, but should still demonstrate an understanding of that art.

Referring once again to the audience, Schafer states that there is no reason why an audience should not be prepared to be solely that; an audience, also stating that as long as there are chairs and stages, there will always be distinctions of the performers and the audience and as soon as the do not see themselves reflected in the production at hand, they tend to reject it.

Schafer now beings to explain the form of The Theatre of Confluence posing the question whether or not the desired audience is invited into a drama or instead just observe it which the answer is both. He also addresses the senses Confluent theatre, explaining that art forms are a mixed media which stimulate many of our senses we possess as humans. Senses that had not been brought in before are found in movie audiences, who brought eating and food to the theatre and ladies who bring the sense of smell in with their fancy perfumes. It depends upon which sense is closest to Confluent Theatre, but it really depends on the message the work is trying to express. In Schafer’s case, his sense of choice in his work Loving, is in fact hearing.

The most intimate sense is touch and Schafer takes the next most intimate sense, hearing and explains that it is like touching at a distance, causing vibrations at the lower hearing range which produce almost the same affect as touching, His work Loving is a sound poem and lyrical work. Done with both English and French dialect, Schafer wanted the audience to listen to the sounds of each language as they would listen to music. There were no sets, just lighting effects and had little action, wanting to evoke a mysterious feeling. Instead of naming this and his upcoming work, Patria, that one of opera, Schafer places them in his new genre of the Theatre of Confluence as he believes his works flow together without the feeling that it is being forced.

I personally believe that Schafer makes some very valid points. When first premiered, if an art is too abstract or too out of its time, the audience will reject it. An avant-garde work needs time for people to accept it and that is why I think his works have been perhaps not as popular with some audiences. I also agree with the fact that sometimes an audience can be too particular and not understand a work the way the artist intended it, but if we become better educated in the different ways art can be produced, I think that would help. There is a line that can be crossed when an audience is too involved when a work was only meant to be observed.

Schafer’s vision of Confluent Theatre is one that is not yet reached but I hope to see it appear someday as it would broaden our horizons about art in general. There is a very good chance that if a great composer like Wagner, and Schafer both thought of the central idea of Confluent Theatre, decades apart, perhaps there is some truth in it?

Sam Linton

• The Theater of Confluence is the theater of the senses, where all sense corroborate and counterpoint one another. They flow easily together and are not forced, and all are represented equally.
• This form of theater provides some challenges, because sometimes with mixed forms of art there is a confusion of the senses; which can cause a sensory overload. The article states that we do not currently know how to handle such problems, but goes on to suggest that we might gradually acclimate to these complex relationships and will eventually be able to experience them better.
• The goal with Theater of Confluence is to have everything really neatly integrated, the work must have structure and rhythm. However, the artists are allowed to use chance to give their works versatility. The article goes on to say that being able to allow chance to influence a work will stop when academics destroy this possibility with restrictions and rules.
• Theater of Confluence should lead to altered states of consciousness, and allow the audience to explore their own awareness.
• Future works will not follow a rank-order, they will be conceived simultaneously the article notes that Wagner had the right idea and implemented this in some of his own work, for example; Opera and Drama.
• Participation in this kind of theater like the audience coming on stage or the audience pushing buttons in order to shape the ending of the performance reflect our modern need for feedback. The Theater of Confluence condones this and is not closed to the possibility of participation from the audience. I agree with this because there is something very powerful about getting rid of the wall between the spectator and the spectacle.
• Meyerhold felt that the audience should never forget that they were in a theater during a performance. This idea was adopted by the Theater of Confluence.
• It is noted that this kind of theater should not be performed outside or in a mobile theater, because its important for the audience to be quiet and people are more quiet when they are comfortably sited and in a more controlled environment.
• Lastly, when an artist had put their ideas into form and has the work written, it is important to find an appropriate theater that will fulfill the full potential of the piece.

Question: In the article it discussed that we are already currency headed in the direction of this art form, because we already have mixed media (music in space), and kinetic sculpture (art in time). Do you feel that his this a good thing, and would enjoy a performance that stimulates all your senses?

Amanda Mistele

In Murray Schafter’s article he explains a personal vision for a new style of theatre contradictory to that of Wagner’s opera yet inspired by its structure. His main objective is to push for a movement of stage realism discoursing all opera that claims to be realistic despite its musical dramatics. The Theatre of Confluence as Schafter addresses the style, differentiates itself from other forms of theatre by its ability for the arts to meet and flow together inevitably thus the name. Schafter developed his thought by examining rank-order creations. For example, in traditional theatre music is added as a final installment to a production for effect in comparison to opera where a script is written and then smothered with music. The Theatre of Confluence does not contain such a hierarchical nature when combing the art forms.

Schafter notes that the true meeting place of all the arts is rhythm which an audience experiences though the senses. It was at one time believed that by bringing all of the arts together in parallel motion the experience would be all that much more powerful. Therefore, the activity that occurred in one art was to be copied by all the others in the same moment. This technique however has proven that it does not supply the experience it intends. Rather, moving the arts in contrapuntal motion so that they may extend or contravene each other is much more effective. Having concern for this rhythmic relationship produces a greater experience. This method is to be the base from which the Theatre of Confluence is established.

The use of the audience, architecture and chance also play large roles in the creation of this style of theatre. Schafter explains that an artist must call upon chance and the pleasures brought by the unexpected to create. Only then can the mind be liberated to the arrangement of the arts without preconceived notions. The audience and the architecture are just as important as how the arts are arranged in a Theatre of Confluence production. Schafter prefers that the audience members be invited into the drama just as they are to attend their seats in a traditional theatre sense.

The very architecture of a theatre comments upon the type of people who are to attend. Since the Theatre of Confluence is to encourage the audience to experience the production from both inside and outside of the drama itself, the stage perspective scenery is preferably used opposed to traditional stage and audience separation.

Traditional theatre is most appealing on a personal level reason being the key word tradition. This form of theatre is most comforting and satisfies the senses from one shared perspective and experience. Though the experience may prove different from one audience member to the next, the experience is still though.

Discussion Question: Do you prefer the Theatre of Confluence over traditional theatre?

Breanne Ritchie

This text was written by Murray R. Schafer who is a playwright, Canadian composer, and theatre enthusiast. The Theatre of Confluence was originally written in 1966, but Schafer revisits this text in January of 1972.

Schafer’s position in this article is started very clearly, “The danger of uncontrolled synaesthetic exercises is that an overindulgent piling up of resources merely brings about a confusion of the senses rather than an acuity of sensorial experience.” (Schafer, 30). Schafer wants his new work, the Theatre of Confluence, to fuse all art forms together without having one art form outweigh the other. He states that confluence is the inevitable, yet natural coming together of art forms. It will not be Absolute or Total Theatre, because Absolute theatre implies that it is the climax of how theatre can grow, and Total theatre is too messy because of its affiliation with mixed media.

In order to make Confluent theatre possible, each art form must be equal and work in partnership coevally. By working in parallel motion, the total experience will be strengthened. Schafer feels that the element of chance is very important in theatre, but in moderation. By using chance to stimulate ideas and then honing these ideas into well planned and compete ideas, a rich and versatile type of theatre can be created.

The article is somewhat dated when Schafer talks about how our civilization is being attacked and we are surrendering to mindless art. I believe we are becoming less original and idealistic as a civilization, but there are still people who contribute to the art scene and make others reflect and see unique art forms and styles. It is important to keep an open mind as art develops, but we must not lose our brains in the process.

Schafer plays with the idea of having the audience participate in his Theatre of Confluence, but states that he does not want his work to become an amusement park, nor does he want to complicate the divide between the giving and receiving of art. According to Schafer, art would still be successful without an audience because the “satisfaction of art was in the making of it” (Schafer, 36). Schafer’s Theatre of Confluence must be done so that the audience is always aware they are in a theatre as opposed to getting lost in the story and forgetting their surroundings.

The space that Schafer’s Theatre of Confluence would take place in would also have to be unique and add to the overall feel of the piece. He didn’t want to hide the actor’s feelings and vulnerabilities with walls and shadows, but instead have an open stage in which the actor can be displayed. The stage would be dominated by the actor.

The senses seem to be very important to Schafer in regards to his Theatre of Confluence. In order to make his piece stand out, Schafer wants to focus on hearing instead of the common senses of physical, aural and visual that are seen in most shows. Because touching is the strongest sense and “hearing is like touching at a distance” (Schafer 42), the sense of sound will be a major theme in the Theatre of Confluence.

The question I would like to pose to my tutorial group is: What differences do you see between Wagnerian opera with the style of Gesamtkunstwerk and Schafer’s ideal production of the Theatre of Confluence with art forms being used in parallel and contrapuntal motion?

Paolo Velasco

• R. Murray Schafer decides to embark on a decision to create The Theatre of Confluence

• Schafer says, ‘Ideally what I want is a kind of theatre in which all the arts may meet, court and make love…to fashion a theatre in which all arts are fused together, but without negating the strong and healthy character of each.’

• Schafer decides to call it The Theatre of Confluence for the reason that confluence means ‘a flowing together that is not forced, but is nevertheless inevitable’

• In choosing such a name, Schafer rejects two other titles, Total Theatre and Absolute Theatre, believing both have been made too ambiguous to be acceptable

• Absolute Theatre is rejected because of its apocalyptic quality; Schafer concludes that ‘who are we to presume that the apocalypse should come in our time?’

• Total Theatre, is rejected for the reason that as it is used today, it has become associated with ‘…the messy excretions of mixed media.’

• Schafer dislikes mixed media, because of the incoherence that mixed media interjects on the mind, making people unable to distinguish the arts found within, the opposite of what Schafer strives for

• Makes a statement saying that art is hierarchical in nature, meaning that when creating something like drama, the spoken word comes first, and then everything after that such as action, décor and music must be centered on it. Schafer calls these Rank-Order Creations

• Deems that the real meeting place of the all arts is Rhythm

• States that a fatal mistake is made when one believes that the total experience can be strengthened if all the arts were to proceed in parallel motion, whatever one art does, another must imitate. Believes that this results in an art form that ‘crushes more then it exults’

• ‘Life itself is the original multi-media experience’ – for example, a catholic church play on all the; senses, hearing, touching, smelling, seeing, and tasting. However it is not all preformed at the same time as in mixed media

• Continues to come up with ideas for how to create the The Theatre of Confluence, deciding if it should be a moving production, as done in the olden days, and is written about how Shafer pictured the play, with only the protagonist speaking in a language known to the audience

Schafer wants to fuse the arts into something more, and in a way that the arts are still discernable and different. Unlike the idea of Wagner’s Gesumtkunstwerk, this was that the arts would meld completely and not be able to be discernable.

Which would achieve the purpose of enticing the senses, Wagner’s ideals, or Schafer’s, (in which both have similar goals, but decide on different routes to take)?