The Death of the Theatre?

We had a debate today. Team Affirmative, as I decided to call us(one "witty" guy wanted to call us "Team Dan", but I suspected that was an ego thing of sorts), was arguing that theatre is dead. So...is it?

We argued that theatre, as defined by Aristotle some 2000 plus years ago, is not alive. Performance, on the other hand, we believe is very alive. See, theatre, with a linear narrative and fourth wall, only appeals to a small percentage of todays society. Performance is everywhere (and if you read the work of someone like Schechner, everything).

Team Negative argued this was just an evolution of theatre and could still be called "theatre" as such, but I tend to disagree. If, as scientific theory compelling suggests, humans evolved from some form of ape, why then are we not still called apes? Because we have evolved so much that we could hardly be called apes? Isn't that the same as with contemporary "theatre"/performance? I would argue yes, but feel free to rebut.

You might have also noticed my headline for today is alluding to Roland Barthes' essay The Author is Dead, which states that authors are no more than the people writing, and the readers are the ones creating meaning. In his essay, Barthes suggests "death" is a metaphor for a power exhange, or an evolution of sorts. If we apply that same "death" metaphor to the changing face of "theatre", it could easily be seen as dead.

Either way, it was a very interesting discussion and a number of Team Negative attacked me in their rebuttal. I'll admit one of them had a very good reason to do this (I got my theories mixed and my words muddled), but I like to think I got the most notice because what I was saying made them think. And, for me, that is the important thing about debates.