Theatre, theatre pedagogy or theatre therapy…
Names are just smoke and mirrors. Or not?

I am convinced of the personality-building, healing and community-building effects of acting and performing. Whether theatre is used consciously for healing processes, as in theatre therapy, or whether these effects arise “incidentally” in artistically motivated processes is only one possible criterion for differentiation. When I look at the fields of theatre, theatre education and theatre therapy, I see their main difference not in the approach, but in the attributions to which theatre makers, theatre therapists or theatre educators are exposed.

I have attempted to describe what is expected of (theatre) educators in the chapter “Art and play – versus education”. Their work is measured by the process, not the product: in this country (unlike in England or Holland, for example), their plays are rarely viewed through the lens of aesthetics. “The main thing is that everyone had fun!”. Old beliefs and truths such as “the journey is the destination” reinforce this position. Theatre educators are generally expected to teach something that lies outside their art, such as social behaviour. Participants in theatre education projects therefore often come from forced communities of more or less unwilling pupils whose attitude expresses protest and consumerism: “Show us what you’ve got, and then we’ll decide whether to join in”. Freed from the pressure of school grades, they can finally turn the tables and feel powerful towards the theatre educator, whom they also make into a teacher (if he allows himself to be made one) and who often provides an ideal projection surface for this.

But voluntariness is the basis for personally meaningful learning processes.

Whether the theatre educator defines himself more as an educator or as an artist will have a major influence on his work. Does he mainly want his participants to “have fun” or does he aspire to artistic expression? This is often seen as a contradiction, but I would argue that both are possible. Some groups have no desire to “just play around”. It is not uncommon for a play to be developed to give the process the necessary traction, and even young people who are considered “difficult to motivate” are then often “fully engaged”.

If art is not seen as something completely detached from the individual, it is important for both the director and the theatre educator to work towards establishing a personal connection between the participants and the chosen play or theme.

The actor must engage with the role and relate it to themselves; this becomes particularly clear when working with sensual or emotional memory (Stanislavski, Strasberg). I see no difference here between theatre and theatre education.

In the artistic process, the actor, supported by the director or theatre educator, searches for his own path, his own expression, his own form. It is a search that requires a high degree of personal responsibility, and the more advanced someone is, the more approaches and techniques he will have at his disposal to work on himself. In my view, a good director has a symmetrical relationship with their actors; both define themselves as artists in search of individual and collective expression. Problems and crises in the creative process are considered normal and show that one is on the right track. A good director recognises this and knows how to help the actor by artistically implementing their problem, which is referred to here as the theme.

The result is important: what comes out in the end, what is published? A successful artistic process only finds its completion in the presentation – in both senses of the word: it is a clear conclusion and at the same time its climax.

In theatre, the process is very much determined by the product; in theatre therapy, it is usually the other way around.

When I reflect on the artistic process at the end or even in between – what am I playing, how am I normally, etc. – I can learn a lot from playing or encountering a role that seemed foreign to me. In my opinion, this is one of the positive functions that theatre therapy offers and that almost never occurs in theatre, but sometimes in theatre education.

If someone experiences such a severe crisis that they can no longer play a role, they drop out of the theatre group and have to seek support elsewhere. In the therapeutic group, this can be tolerated more easily, as they do not have to perform as long as there is no performance scheduled. In theatre work, regression only occurs to the extent that someone can remain present and express their situation at the same time. The deep processes that can be triggered by theatre are certainly fascinating – but just as fascinating is the aesthetics of theatre: form and content are related and are not opposites.

Theatre often has a therapeutic effect – for the actors and sometimes also for the audience. However, if we do not want to rob theatre of its original artistic power, we should be wary of misusing it for “treatment” purposes. Because what can be experienced and learned in physical theatre, ritual play or even role work usually happens by chance, unintentionally. Acting can mean community, enchantment, magic, but above all the fascination with chance – viewing everything we encounter in the play as a welcome impulse that demands a response. Following a trail, allowing ourselves to be surprised, making use of chance and giving it form, trusting in the path. And don’t forget:

A play is a play. (Peter Brook)