T68 ou la désillusion d’une génération

In 1968, a trio of artists composed of writer Hugo Claus, actor Alex Van Royen and critique Carlos Tindemans, launched their manifesto entitled T68, which Claus will have published and distributed in two hundred copies shortly after. In this manifesto, the three men firmly criticize what they describe as the sclerosis of bourgeois theatre, while at the same time defending the fundamental autonomy of a theatre liberated of all possible political, institutional and moral constraints. They demand a necessary and fundamental renewal of Flemish theatre life putting all their hopes on foundation of... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Karel Vanhaesbrouck
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2018
Reihe/Periodikum: Itinéraires, Vol 2018, Iss 1 (2018)
Verlag/Hrsg.: Pléiade (EA 7338)
Schlagwörter: manifesto / theatre / Flemish theatre / May 1968 / theatrical renewal / indiscipline / Language and Literature / P
Sprache: Französisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29060410
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.4000/itineraires.4317

In 1968, a trio of artists composed of writer Hugo Claus, actor Alex Van Royen and critique Carlos Tindemans, launched their manifesto entitled T68, which Claus will have published and distributed in two hundred copies shortly after. In this manifesto, the three men firmly criticize what they describe as the sclerosis of bourgeois theatre, while at the same time defending the fundamental autonomy of a theatre liberated of all possible political, institutional and moral constraints. They demand a necessary and fundamental renewal of Flemish theatre life putting all their hopes on foundation of a new, so-called national theatre that should equally entail a laboratory for experimental research. This paper defends the hypothesis that this manifesto “in spite of itself” occupies a unique but paradoxical position within the recent historiography of Dutch-speaking theatre in Belgium. Both revolutionary and profoundly conservative, this text seemed out of joint with the then anti-authoritarian currents and saw itself (too?) quickly reduced to the status of historical curiosity.