I've been reading a collection of writings by Edward Gordon Craig titled On the Art of the Theatre. I first picked it up to do some research for my MFA exit questions. Now, I can't put it down. I remember running across Craig in a scenic design class while I was still at Wayland, but I guess I missed everything else he had to say.

Aside from writing an interesting collection of thoughts on theatre, Craig is quite a unique character. He's utterly inflammatory at times. Actors must have hated to work with this man, but to his credit, he's way ahead of his time. A lot of what he had to say in the early part of the 20th century sounds like it's coming from a modern director.

See what you think about this. I found this bit to be an interesting way of clarifying the materials of the theatre. It's from "The Art of the Theatre: The First Dialogue."

Stage-Director: The art of the theatre is neither acting nor the play, it is not scene nor dance, but it onsists of all the elements of which these things are composed: action, which is the very spirit of acting; words, which are the body of the play; line and colour, which are the very heart of the scene; rhythm, which is the very essence of dance.

Stage-Director: One is no more important than the other, no more than one colour is more important to a painter than another, or one note more important than another to a musician.

And also this from "The First Dialogue:"

Stage-Director: When he interprets the plays of the dramatist by means of his actors, his scene-painters, and his other craftsmen, then he is a craftsman–a master craftsman; when he will have mastered the uses of actions, words, line, colour, and rhythm, then he may become an artist. Then we shall no longer need the assistance of the playwright–for our art will then be self-reliant.

How's that for a concise statement of a stage-director's dream?