9. “The State National Theater” Following the eponymous essay by Dr. Hans Oberländer

The idea of nationalizing human institutions,¹ which have so far developed in free competition, today finds sympathy in wide circles. Many shy away from the radical goals of social democracy, which aims to transform the whole of human coexistence into a firmly established state organization. On the other hand, there are repeated efforts to incorporate individual branches of material and spiritual culture, which currently still owe their existence to private enterprise, into the state.

The authors of such endeavors are of the opinion that the shortcomings that free competition and the ruthless struggle of forces entail will be remedied by state supervision.

Dissatisfaction with the existing conditions is the source of all longing for the nationalization of individual living conditions or the entire culture of mankind. This dissatisfaction is also the basis of the essay in No. 1 of the "Dramaturgische Blätter": "Das staatliche Nationaltheater".

The author finds that only confused concepts of the nature of dramatic art exist among the general public, and that the artistic devaluation of the stage results from this ignorance on the part of the public. He demands that the state set the art of the stage more serious tasks and thereby force the public to expect more from the theater than the satisfaction of a subordinate need for entertainment. The public should no longer go to the theater to spend a few hours pleasantly according to their inclination, but should be told by the state how to spend their time in the theater. The stage directors should no longer be forced to act according to the tastes of the audience, but should conduct their office according to ideal points of view, over which the state keeps watch.

The author believes that the theatrical misery will end when no director has to fear that his theater will remain empty if he serves true art because another director serves a shallower taste and lures the audience away from him. The state will - in the author's opinion - make all theaters equal instruments of true art, and all sordid competition will cease.

This is all very well thought out. But it is thought without regard to the relationship between art and the state. Such thoughts always presuppose a state, which cannot exist anywhere where a state is formed by the community of people. The state must, by its very nature, be based on the suppression of the individual. If everything is to be regulated according to rigid formulas, the individual must suppress his independence. The general organization is immediately interrupted if the individual personality wants to assert itself. Art, however, is based on the free development of the personality. And what is not based on this free development must remain in the realm of mediocrity, of the average. One must of course agree with the author of the above-mentioned essay when he says: "It is certainly true that natural talent is the main thing for the actor, but to insist on it alone is the nonsense that has created the intellectual proletariat of the class." But one must reply to him: "The great actor can only owe his existence to natural talent, and the small talent cannot be helped to more than - perhaps useful - mediocrity by the best state institution." The state will always have a tendency to promote this mediocrity. It will perhaps prevent an untalented person from lazily exchanging the art of acting for any other profession; but at the same time it will have the tendency to expel from its sphere the brilliant person who does not want to conform to the fixed norm.

Free competition makes it possible for the genius personality to seek out the area in which it can develop. The omnipotence of the state will simply deprive this personality of its living conditions. The question is quite justified as to whether it is not better if, in the struggle for existence, numerous untalented people are forced into the proletariat so that the few talented people have the freedom to develop, than if everything is pushed down to the average level.

If the theater is nationalized, every artist will be a civil servant. The state will not prefer the greater artist, it will prefer the better civil servant. Those who disagree are not talking about real states, but about an ideal state that leads its existence in cloud cuckoo land. Anyone who has an understanding of the nature and conditions of existence of art would have to admit that a higher branch of culture cannot be better served than by keeping it as free as possible from the influence of the state.

It will be the same with the theater as with many other things. It will heal the damage it has caused on its own.

Turning artists into civil servants will not have the effect of turning artistically flabby and unideal stage managers into art-loving men and actors who have fallen into the "common routine" into highly ambitious people; it will only result in rigid uniformity taking the place of free development, which must necessarily combine its shortcomings with its advantages.

The social regeneration of the acting profession cannot be brought about by turning it into a civil service profession. This class would have gained nothing if the "heroic father" had the rank of a first-class councillor and the "youthful lover" that of an adjunct. That is perhaps a grotesque way of putting it. But it is certain that all suggestions of the kind made by the author of the above-mentioned essay will always appear grotesque if they are measured against ideas taken from reality. Only those who move in such general ideas as those of the author can make such proposals as he does.

The view that the public can be elevated to a higher level of artistic taste by the state seems completely unjustified. Taste can neither be raised nor lowered artificially. If the state creates theaters that do not cater to the taste of the public, the result will not be that the public will acquire a different taste - but the theaters will all remain empty.

Is it an axiom that state power will always cultivate the best possible taste? Only those who answer this question in the affirmative can hope for the salvation of dramatic art from the nationalization of the theater. It takes little practical experience to answer this question in the negative. If free competition prevails, there will always be people with a sense of art and taste who will take up the fight against the crudity of taste and the lack of artistic sense. Once a state decrees from on high that art should be unintelligent, long periods of time will not suffice to repair the damage caused by such a measure.

How does the author of the essay "Das staatliche Nationaltheater" envision the development of dramatic art as such? Imagine a time in which only plays that have been accepted for performance by a state official are performed! Imagine a parliament in which interpellations are tabled because plays have not been accepted! Furthermore, imagine a parliament in which the direction of dramatic art is determined by a party that looks like our Catholic center! The consequences of nationalization are unforeseeable. One must realize that countless things in our dramatic art are only possible because they are wrested from the state. This wresting would have to stop the moment the will of the state became omnipotent in theater matters. Dramatic art itself has to fear even worse from the nationalization of the theater than the art of acting, which cannot exactly become dangerous to the state.

"The actor of the state theater becomes ... from a different point of view to the public" than the acting profession of today, which, "because it lacks the legal benefits enjoyed by the citizen", regards "the often self-created freedoms as its right" and "has the moral concepts of a "free" profession". It may be that the mediocre actor wins if he is clothed with the nimbus of "official honor"; whether art gains anything from this is another question.

Of particular importance, however, is the author's assertion: "As soon as the public's insight into the nature of the art of acting has deepened, the demands on its performance will one day be such that the artistic regeneration of the stage will be conceivable in quiet work. Its realization would of course have to be in the hands of a professional authority appointed by the state, so that there would be no fear of the state stage becoming ossified. It will certainly never develop an outward splendor, but it will only gain by exchanging tawdriness for order and solidity." Yes, order and solidity! In reality, this order and solidity would be a system similar to our police economy. Pedantry and bureaucracy would take the place of "splendor and finery". But this "ostentation and tinsel" are the breeding ground of genuine art. It is true that no real art is possible without luxury and the superfluous in the philistine sense.

The author admits to himself: "It is certainly possible that this version could be accused of exaggerated idealism. It can only be countered with the answer: Either we want a stage art in the true sense of the word, or we renounce its possession; but if we are serious about it, then no demand should be too high." The author thus pronounces his own judgment. "Exaggerated idealism" is the word that must be used to describe his aspirations. He reckons with things that can never be realized; and that is fortunate for art. For it would be a ruin to dramatic and dramatic art if they were realized.

These things are created by dissatisfaction. It always knows what should not be. Basically, it doesn't know what should be. It puts a blue haze in the place of what it does not know. And in doing so, it deceives itself about its inability to create something really useful. Something useful can only be created out of the given circumstances. Those who cannot create something useful set themselves vague goals and resign themselves to empty hopes.