Farewell Speech to the Pupils

Jerzy Grotowski
translated by Kris Salata
A question emerges for us: Do you think that training paves the way to creation? Do you believe
that training can find its fulfillment in creation? In my opinion, this is a decisive matter. I think
that if we scatter around like rabbits in a thousand directions and get into a thousand subjects,
we will not find any solution. One cannot constantly avoid taking on the key problem.
If we believe that one shouldnt evaluate and analyze the work of others, then discussion
becomes impossible. Perhaps someone may think that only I have the right to analyze. This
would mean that somebody has a monopoly. First, nobody ever has a monopoly. Second, even
if in some period somebody holds a sort of monopoly, he does not hold it in another period...
And if someone thinks that the work of others should not be evaluated because a seminar such as
this here should remain without a conclusion, that would certainly be pleasant for the participants, but then we would only be like children who have played for a while and now think that
the work is already over.
So, despite everything, I insist that each of us is obliged to be a usurper and to react to
what he sees. Just because we are alive, we were therefore either interested or bored, either
attracted or repulsed. And to some degree we can say why. Either none of us has the right to
speak about it, and then this whole thing makes no sense, or each of us has the same right that I
have, and in a certain sense is obligated to exercise this right. I dont want to say that all I mean
to do is to attack, that what must be said needs to be exclusively unpleasant. Despite the fact that
I myself will be impolite... Well, if we have certain needs, if we seek what is tangible, if we really
arent merely lumps of butter, we can say this repels me, that attracts me.
We all know that we didnt arrive at final results, at products here. However, we can tell
where we felt a seed, some impulses, some nourishment. Or, that there wasnt any air, any fertile
soil. It is not a problem of being faithful to some system. The problem is whether a seed of
truth, a seed of a theatre of truth, was there. That is the only problem. Because system in itself
has no value.
Ms. X asked a funny and interesting question: Does what we have seen have any connection with the work of Mr. Grotowski? This question caught my attention. However, this
question isnt important here. Whats important is, where is the seed? Only afterwards can we
ask whether the barrenness or the fertility was caused by what you have called the Grotowski
system. What puzzles me in this second question, however, is that I dont think I have such
a system...
First, there is no Grotowski system. Second, nobody here was working in the spirit of my
work. Does it matter that no one worked in my spirit? No. I often have greater respect for the
Kris Salata teaches stage directing and performance at Stanford University. He has translated a number
of texts by Jerzy Grotowski and published several essays on the Workcenter. His full biographical note
appears in this issue of TDR with Toward the Non-(Re)presentational Actor.

18

TDR: The Drama Review 52:2 (T198) Summer 2008.

2008 Mario Biagini and Thomas Richards

one who does not work in my spirit. In fact, to work in my spirit means to work in ones own
spirit. Nobody can work the way I do, because everyone is different. Ms. Y mentioned something with which I try from the beginning to infect people, so-to-speak. This is the only thing
in which one could see a method: to work without lying, without imitating the work, without
hiding, without an easy way out; to go towards the actor, to go towards him fully, with all your
being; to go until you forget about yourself, to expect the same from him and to meet him. Did
something like this take place here? This is an important problem for me. I will analyze it.
Why has our discussion been so sad? I have heard a lot about theology, dogmatic arguments,
and training. Some elements of philosophical concepts have emerged as well. I have also heard
about some mysterious and gloomy things. You showed little courage to simply say what you
felt. There have been a few voices, true, but the general tone was: How to avoid a confrontation
with the facts? How to avoid a clash of ideas and facts, aspirations and facts, theory and facts?
And what is respect? I know well that there are certain stereotypes of respect, that it commonly
means to address everyone by their first name, to be charmant, to throw in a few nice words, to
eat at a common table, to say why we are sad (because, for example, my father died, or I have
troubles with my girlfriend), to listen to all this with great interest, to listen when someone
speaks of his illnesses or his work. It all creates an atmosphere. Always, when there is hypocrisy,
there is an atmosphere. Always, when someone talks atmosphere, without a doubt there is
hypocrisy. This lukewarm water in which we immerse ourselves... Dear John, dear Francis,
how nice we are towards each other, how friendly, there is no distance between us... I have
an entirely different notion of respect.
During this seminar, my respect for others is the content of the notebook where everyday I
wrote down my thoughts. I noted them down without intending to tell all of it to you. I used a
very personal language, without hiding what I really thought. Now I have decided to read these
notes to you page by page. I will not touch up anything. I want to give you proof of my respect.
Respect lies in the courage of sincerity. I may be wrong in the domain of truth, but I have an
obligation to be sincere.
It will not be pleasant. But I will be sincere.
I think that 90 percent of you will be against. One can be against in different wayswithout
confronting the facts, for example. One can also be against by finding a counterargument in
the facts. I estimate that 10 percent of you will be against in the latter way. So, then I will be
speaking to about 20 percent of you. Maybe I am exaggerating. But it may also be that these
numbers are smaller. I hope that it will be one-fifth of the participants of the seminar.
It will be a monologue. Not because I dont want to answer your questions. Not because
I dont want to hear opposing voices. I do not want to speak from the point of view of some
system. I do not want to talk from the point of view of my style of work. I only want to
read my thoughts as I wrote them down. According to what I felt. About all this in your work
that made me think about our profession.
It will not be systematic. There have been enough systematic speeches. One very quickly
starts to treat them as some kind of doctrine. It will be notes.
I think I will be here among you as a ghost. As someone seemingly present, but who is no
longer present. It will be a kind of eulogy at ones own funeral. It will be a way of saying goodbye to you. I shall begin.

I ask you to give me not enigmatic, but concrete answers. All this time you were only circling
around great mysterious matters... Nobody has said whether or not something was necessary,

Farewell Speech

Someone mentioned that relaxation, meaning meditation has been used here. This makes
no sense. It is like saying, I do gymnastics, meaning I write treatises. You either used the
wrong words or you dont relax but do something else instead, or you do not meditate but do
something else instead. After all, words have a defined range of meanings. The word relaxation doesnt have a long tradition, but the word meditation does (Latin meditatio)...

19

fertile; whether the training was training and not a parody of training; whether the performances
were performances and not parodies of performances. I would like to know what you think
about it.
When you speak of a specific thing such as relaxation, at least be precise. Because when I
hear that this group or that group practices relaxation two or three hours per dayrelaxation,
meaning meditation, as it was formulatedI get the feeling I am in a nuthouse.
Now and then I have spoken about Tibet, India, Persia, and mysterious systems. It seems
that I could be accused of having this interest in the East. Not only in regard to my travels, but
also regarding the elements of yoga in the exercises. I propose thatwithout cutting ourselves
off from the cultures of otherswe seek solutions in our own name. Because, if you look for
answers to what is essential elsewhere (and not essential to you), you fall into illusion. It will
always be a search for an alibi. You can study distant systems, you can take elements from them
if you have an adequate knowledge of the subject to give these elements proper sense in your
own context, but you cannot play at searching for miraculous solutions. I repeat: All these
mysterious countries are a mirror in which we can find the reflection of our own sources,
whereas the temptation of miracles is something that, in a certain sense, poisons us.
We dont have enough honesty to go the road ourselves. We seek a refuge, a cage, a hiding
place. That is why in exercises, for example, we either fall into chaos or into gymnastics. It
depends on our tradition, or more precisely, on its weak side. So: either there is only spontaneity, and then magma appears, or there is only dexterity, and then automatism begins. I must say
here that I dont feel responsible for itit wasnt I who inspired people to search for refuge. So,
using the same details, some people hide in magma and others in taming. Because it is easy.

Jerzy Grotowski

One can find many different details in exercises. However, it takes years of searching to sift
and sort out the right set. To find a coherent cycle. And then, one should not stop there. One
should extend this search to the domain of the cycles consistency as well. The point is not that
the details should be the best, but that this coherence should be efficacious. I can think of many
other details that are different from the ones we use, which probably are not the best either. The
important thing is that their sequence is not accidental. What is essential is the search within the
field that has been thus laid out, the field of this conjunction of precision and spontaneity.

20

Another thing: I dont understand why in your exercises the instructor stops the actors and
interferes with what they are doing precisely at the moment when it begins to be true.
Something emerges, some nook or detour, and then the tamers voice sounds off. One should
never do that. The director or instructor has a duty to know when to intervene. If the actor
follows a false path from the beginning, then it is still possible to stop him at the beginning. But
when he is already on the way to some culmination, the director has no right to disturb him. He
must wait until the actor finishes, wait for the culmination, and only then can he say, stop.
There exists a certain gentlemens agreement between the actor and the director. When, during
a rehearsal, the actor is in action and the director gives the actor some indications, then the actor
shouldnt lose the thread of his work, he shouldnt switch to a private mode. He should remain
in the process and at the same time listen. This is why the director should say one sentence, two
at mostjust a few words, so that he doesnt disturb the actor. Then the actor should continue
immediately. Because if in this moment the actor abandons his thread of work, if he completely
abandons his process, if he becomes private, if he answers, Yes, you are right, or asks, What
did you say? then the entire work accomplished up to that point is wasted. When the director
begins to chatter, to talk too much, he can easily stop the actors process. One should say only
what is necessary. Not a description, an instruction, but rather an appeal, a stimulusthats all.
The director shouldnt think up anything for the actor. All of his common sense should tell him
to give the actor the possibility to create, and adequate stimuli as well. Also, the director should
never tolerate a situation when someone only imitates work, neither in the actor, nor in himself.
The same applies to exercises. There is something that can be called directors tact. If the
instructor begins to work himself, if he does exercises together with the others, then he should

do them till the end, particularly when a presentation is involved. Then he has no right to
demand from others: Quickly, do it, quickly while staying outside, and later jump in and work
with them for a few minutes, only to return outside and demand again: Do it, do not pretend,
do it. If the instructor works practically, he should be among the actors. He should toil together
with themuntil he sweats, until hes tired. If he stays outside all the time, he shouldnt even
talk while they are working. He can talk when they finish. I think that if the director takes part
in the exercises, then he shouldnt work less than the others, but rather more. He can work
individually with someone while the others rest, and then with someone else, while the others
rest, and so on.
Here there is a difference between the director and the instructor. The director remains
outside and says what he needs to say once the exercises are over, whereas the role of the
instructor could be taken by one of the actors. When something is lacking in the exercise, the
instructor can interrupt after a few minutes. However, he shouldnt have the people go through
the entire program only to tell them that they did it all wrong and to order them to start again
from the beginning. That would be like punishment.
Also, one shouldnt force a rhythm on those who work. The instructor can try to do it only if
he initiates the work himself and attempts to stimulate someone in it. Then he imposes, so to
speak, on the actor the rhythm of his own work, expecting the answer in the same rhythm. But
in general, the rhythm should flow on its own from each actor in the exercises. The order of
details should emerge on its own. The changes of rhythm. The way of transitioning from one
detail to another. However, there are rhythms the instructor is responsible forthat is, when
managing strengths is necessary. One should know how to create a possibility for people so that
they really work and do not pretend to work, yet without torturing them. If at first someone
does something with great intensity, then later he should be able to find another rhythm.
Because when the actor only pretends to work, when he wants to avoid a true effort, then,
yes, one should work intensely, even mercilessly. But if the instructor asks for authentic work
and the actor responds without sparing himself, it is exactly then that the instructor has the
obligation to look for an appropriate managing of strengths.
Exercises should never serve as a demonstration of the instructors power, not even unintentionally. The director should know that the best solution is the situation in which he himself
doesnt need to be there. The best directors at times went through long periods of not speaking
at all during rehearsals, because it was entirely unnecessary.
What can be explored in depth through exercises? Through exercises that are cut off from
the creative act... It is always about one and the same thing: how to improve.
Someone here said that during work there was no time for discussion. Oh, yes! That I
understand: To get all the pleasure out of appearances, you still need to be granted the honor of
participating in an intellectual exchange of opinions, concepts, and so on. Stanislavsky analyzed
this kind of need in the actor. During the rehearsals of Tartuffe, his last performance, he said:
Notice during the second or third rehearsal that the actor who had expressed the most brilliant
concept will be then the most paralyzed, most barren, and laziest in the work. Why? Because
he verbalized this whole concept just in order to avoid work.

Farewell Speech

When you held a discussion among yourselves after the first few days of work, because it was
late, many of you were lying on the floor. I noticed a few things. You seemed tired. How were
you lying...? I will read exactly from my notes: How are they lying? They are lying to show that
they are relaxed. Their whole attention is directed towards themselves, towards their own belly
buttons. They wonder at the lack of contact. They act contact. They dont have it, because they
are egoistic. They direct their whole attention towards themselves. In what directions are they
lying? As if they were moving away from each other. They are lying in fetal positions. A few are
lying differently. I think that only they are truly tired, and also, only they are not disturbing me
when they are lying. Because they are lying towards me, towards listening. Even though they are
lying down, I feel them.

21

Quite often I hear the word opening used in discussions about the search for relations
between people. This word sounds familiar enough. In the work there is also the same type of
familiarity, but there is no opening. Because opening begins from sincerity.
Sincerity is opening. Also in life we are open at times when the situation is safe, when we are
with another. Searching for safety in work is very difficult. The paradox lies in the fact that all
this external gesticulation that imitates relations between people does not create this sense of
safety. Besides, this safety in itself is not the goal. We are like a tree that should bear fruit. So
what matters is the kind of meeting that bears fruit. From my experience, I know that safety can
be found when one knows that all members of the group are loyal to each other in the work, that
one can feel safe in sincerity, that what may make us look funny, what could provoke gossip, will
not be commented on or laughed at in private. Such loyalty begins when one honors elementary
rules of working in a group. When these rules do not exist, there is nothing but tension, because
asking someone simply to work when he doesnt feel like it is understood as an attack on that
person. But when there are obligations, then requiring someone to work will not be seen right
away as an attack, because there is a kind of agreement and obligations on both sides. These
rules may seem harsh, but they are not harsh, they create an agreement. An agreement does not
result from repression, because repression does not produce something like that. It is a mutual
choice. There is a decision in it. If you dont want to work, you can leave. This is fundamental.
In the group nobody is imprisoned; the door stays open for everyone. If my colleagues stopped
accepting me, I too would walk through it. Just like my colleagues who are unable to accept the
others and me, they leave our group. It is natural. There is free choice here. However, you
cannot make a choice and then not accept the obligations. That would be dishonest.

Jerzy Grotowski

I would like to return to the countries of wonder that have been spoken of so much. Some
Indian texts say that one of the most important things is to establish a place. It is said: One
has to have a room. If you dont have a room, you need to have a spot not used for any other
purpose. It can be a cave or a place in the woods that offers a sense of isolation. When you
intend to work, you should go there. You must avoid any other activity in that place. In this way,
you save a lot of energy, since in this kind of place our nature brings about a required concentration on its own. This seems to me comprehensible also according to Pavlovit is simply a
conditional reflex. Finally I must say that I fully agree with what Stanislavsky said about the use
of space. He also used to say that not even a prop should be for personal use. For example, you
should not drink coffee during the break out of the cup that has its place in the work, because in
this way something is lost. During Stanislavskys time, theatres were poor and actors performed
wearing their own clothes. So Stanislavsky, who was by no means a mystic, tried to figure out a
way of storing the costumes. The description he gave in his Ethics may seem funny, but from a
practical point of view it is remarkably accurate. When you place your own jacket in the closet
to use it only for work, it will acquire a different value for you. It will cease to be your private
jacket. After all, these are the kinds of details that make up this profession.

22

A question was asked about the relationship between life in the theatre and outside of theatre.
This question presumed that the Living Theatre would be close to the way I view these matters,
because the members of that group live their lives in the theatre; they do not cut their private
lives off from theatre. The Living Theatre is an exceptional case. You cannot accuse them of
not paying for their ideals. They say that one should not possess anything, and indeed they
own nothing; they say that one should be like a wanderer, and indeed they are always on the
road; they say that one should make a revolution the same way one makes love, and they act in
agreement with this. Their words and actions are in harmony, and thats why I respect them. I
dont consider them my colleagues in the profession, because my profession is theatre, and the
profession of the Living Theatre is wandering.
When I say profession, what do I mean? For me it is a bridal chamber, but also a place in
life. And the connection between life in theatre and life outside of it? Polish actors outside of the
Laboratory Theatre, particularly those who are not our friends, who prefer a different type of

theatre, generally say that our Institute is a family, or that it is a monastery. If we ask why it is a
family, the usual answer is: Because you are always together, because you are all friends. If we
ask why a monastery, the usual answer is: Because you close yourselves off in your work. If
we were to ask further whether this means that we do not participate in life and its conflicts,
the answer would be that it is rather the opposite, only that all our attention is consumed by
our performances.
This is all untrue. In order to come closer, you need to move away. In order to meet, you
must have a few steps of distance. When we moved to Wrocaw, the city offered us apartments
in the same building, but I asked the mayor for apartments in different buildings. One cannot
be together all the time. You lose all sensitivity that way. Then next-door-neighbor conflicts and
private matters begin to mix with the work. It is true, however, that we visit each other a lot.
When someone invites me, I can visit him, and then it is a meeting. But if we were neighbors all
the time and were obliged to meet at work, it would lead to barrenness. He knocks on my door, I
knock on hisalways together. Almost everyone in our group has a family, a wife, and children.
Everyone has problems, sometimes quite difficult. When I have problems I dont look for just
anyone, for someone without a name, but for a colleague, a particular colleague. Rehearsal is
something different. Already Stanislavsky spoke about this in his Ethics: When you come to
the theatre, you are obliged to leave the galoshes of your private life outside the door. Because
if someone who has problemsand we all have them, and everyday someone else could have
difficult problemspulls everyone into this kitchen of his private life, he wont be able to free
himself from his problems. He will only infect others with his nervousness. It will only promote
general nervousness. But if the opposite happens, if you come to the theatre, where different
obligations await you, where nobody will disturb you, where the others will be in solidarity with
you, where you are expecting sincerity from yourself, where you come to workthen your
anxiety will go away. Perhaps it will return after the rehearsal, but perhaps this rehearsal will
bear fruit also here: you might gain a different perspective, you might return with a different
heart. To give ones whole life where one is, where one is... I am here, at the rehearsal, and here
I must give my life. And now I am here, with my family, and here I must give my life. Because
if I am at work but my head is at home, then an awful confusion takes place. If at work I give
myself wholly, my daily life will recede. And later I will be able to fathom, to rediscover it in a
better way. Schiller said that what is to live in art should die in reality. I have my own interpretation of these words: What one gives in the creative act cannot be something petty, ordinary,
from daily life. For example, if you work on a love scene in an tude, your whole experience
of love will emerge in it, all these moments, the most important moments in your life. But if,
lets say, you fell in love two weeks ago and right away you want to build a scene based on it, it
will not be creative. First, you will degrade and deform your love; you will start to exploit it
creatively. Second, you will create an ambiguity in your work, because presumably you really
love that person, and yet you want to corroborate it in an tude. Its a dangerous turn. I dont
mean that one has no right to reveal living experiences only because they are still happening.
But I want to give an example: Lets say that the end of the world comes today, and you are
working on a performance about the end of the world. It is the theme of your performance.
But if the end of the world is a reality for you, you will not be able to make this performance.
However, if the end of the world has not come yet, then you will be able to make such a
performance if you just turn to your own experiences.

Life presents powerful facts: the death of someone close, or a birth. Such facts shake our
whole existence. Then undoubtedly for some time the social mask is destroyed, surpassed, if

Farewell Speech

Probably, to Stanislavskys view concerning the relationship between life in theatre and
private life, one can always put forward the counterargument that in classical Oriental theatre
actors are always surrounded by their families, and that during rehearsals they are accompanied
by their children and hens. It is true. Something similar happens in a circus. These are special
situations when a troupe is a family. However, it does not play a family, it is a family. These are
real children, real brothers, and real sisters.

23

we are truly open. It is the same when one loves. Later, however, one picks up the gesticulation
again. Quite often facts of this kind are shown through gesticulation. I am not attacking this,
because without the social mask it is impossible to survive. It is somehow natural. Still, I want
to say that this sinceritywhich I believe one must seekopens the doors to human possibilities. This sincerity is as complete as the powerful facts in our life. Because if all the time we
remain nothing but a mask, then we will torture ourselves and suffer until the end, until death,
until madness. In these short momentsoften in the most intimate relationships with others,
those chosen ones, and not always, and not with everybodyin those exceptional moments, we
find the air to live. Thanks to these moments of sincerity, moments of completeness, thanks to
the decisions to which we remain faithful, the path of our life may prove righteous. If we are
able to find it in the work, if we are able to find it also when we are alone, or when we face
someone else in life, even if we can just say to somebody what we really thinkit makes us
somehow better.

Jerzy Grotowski

You were doing here some tudes related to the theme of a cage. I had an impression of a
huge lie, hypocrisy coming from the actors. A cage is associated with a situation of imprisonment, with a situation of experiencing evil. So I was observing how the actors sought the
expression of suffering as something exceptional, extraordinary. As if life never gave them a
chance to experience suffering. When I see an actor who, with pride, looks for an expression of
sadness in his eyes, humiliation, misery, I get a completely different feeling from what he might
expectI get a feeling that unfortunately life has never put him through the mill, and then I
honestly wish for him that it would, because what he is doing is buffoonery. It is very easy to
tickle yourself this way. You look for an atmosphere of sadness, pain, depression, reflection upon
the human lot. In such cases, I always think about the proverbial poor virgin who waited every
day for someone to come to ravage her at last. Its true that she would tell him, No, I dont want
it, I refuse, never, but in fact, she would desire it. After all, someone really locked in a cage
looks for ways to forget about it. He wants to adapt to it, tries to discover how it is possible to
find joy in the cage. He who looks for sadness in the cage is lying. Someone is singing with a
painful face, another has a stone face, yet another breathing difficulties, or nervous twitches, or
mournful eyes. Its clear it is all untrue. It is as if you are trying to confirm your attractiveness
by persuading others that you are suffering. Certainly, many performances have been made this
way. And the audiences were very pleased because they were able to prove their nobility by
releasing their pity in front of such situations. It doesnt cost the actors anything, it doesnt cost
the spectators anything: an exchange of psychological dodging, because nothing in their lives
changed. Tomorrow all of them will do the same dirty tricks as today. Well, but this evening,
they were able to show their nobility.

24

During one of the previous seminars, a young man arrived who wanted to show a monologue
full of compassion for black people. This man had compassion, but it did not help the black
people. It was really a cheap donation in order to have a clean conscience. He found himself
among people who ate very well, dressed very well, and if they dressed poorly, it was because
they wanted to dress poorly. And in such a situation, he put himself in the position of a martyred
manwithout any shame, like a hyena, like a vulture. He was here, in this room. He had a
trembling voice; he was very satisfied with himself. Later, I began to work with him. I simply
forced him into a real effortnot even sufferingjust a real effort, somewhat analogous, but in
a much more comfortable situation. He began to struggle. Not with suffering, but simply with
fatigue. Only then did the text he had prepared start to have a tiny seed of truth, because in
misfortune one struggles against misfortune. In such a situation nobody brags about how noble
his sadness is. Perhaps he had no way of helping these people, but why be like a vulture that
gorges on someone elses misfortune? Rather, I should muster the minimum of courage and
reveal what touches me directly: what humbles me, what I hide from others. Then at least it
wont be dishonorable...
Today, people cut themselves off from their true roots and look for roots that are illusory,
like all these illusory things that they do. Roots of a different culture are also illusory: one takes

archaic, classical themes. I dont mean that one shouldnt take them up. They may function as a
springboard towards finding our own roots, but they cannot fill the emptiness in us. I wrote in
my notes: There is an attempt to cut oneself off from all roots in this, but in fact it is an attempt
to cut oneself off from all obligations. What kind of ideal is this? Something easy, something
accepted in ones milieu as natural. It is in such situations that one speaks of social context, but
one is not really thinking about society. One thinks of ones own surroundings.
In what Ms. X spoke aboutwhich was very clearI did not understand one thing: Why
must elitism and creation be mutually exclusive? Certainly, from the social point of view, one can
be against so-called elitist creation, but can we say that for example Rilkes poemswhich are no
doubt for an eliteare not creation? On the other hand, the Folies Bergre is certainly not an
elite theatre, but it would be an exaggeration to say that there is any sort of creation there. Thus
I dont really understand the connection between elitism and creation. But I think there is a
problem of terminology, because when you speak of subjectivism you seem to imply elitism.
But in reality they are two different things. Neither T.S. Eliots The Waste Land nor Joyces
Ulysses are purely subjective works, and that is why creation can exist in them. If something is
solely subjective, it excludes the possibility of creation, because there is no communication at all.
The phenomenon of elitism is very complex. As you rightly pointed out, it depends on the
times and the circumstances. What today is considered to be a marginal phenomenon due to the
number of recipientsreaders, or viewerstomorrow may be understood by millions. What
today is understood by millions, tomorrow may die very fast as an artistic phenomenon, only to
begin to function like Coca-Cola. There also exists a differentand not so simplepossibility.
For instance, Joyce himself may still be accessible only to a quite limited circle, but because he
forced open certain doors now others can easily pass through them and be understood by millions. It is often the case that phenomena we consider to be of a narrow scope in fact exert a
much wider influence than we think. But the opposite is also true. Nowadays many artists think
that their works enjoy an unlimited social resonance, that their works are for everyone, but in
fact nobody is really interested in them...
I would like to return to the problem of subjectivism. It is a very delicate problem. I think,
for example, that it is very dangerous to play for the audience. I also think that if in the actors
creation there is no absolute subjectivity, then it is not vital. But if in the presence of the
audience, when spectators are already there, this subjectivity does not transform itself into an
objective fact, then there is no creation at all. I dont meanI repeatthat one should play for
the audience. The point is that if we dont lie to ourselves, then it is objective. But it is a delicate
matter. Not for the spectators, but in their presence. Not without subjectivity, but objectively as
a human fact. It is simply a matter of whether we truly worked or only lied to ourselves.

Farewell Speech

When one plays facing the spectator, one accepts the spectator as an organic part. When
an actor wants to play for the spectator, he expects laughter and applause; then he falsifies
the process, he no longer struggles to discover something in himself, but only struggles to be
accepted. In all creationas well as in the work of the actorthe medium is ones own life. So
one cannot create in somebody elses name. One can only expose ones own life, and thats why
creation can only be subjective. But one can also believe very strongly in ones own sincerity
while fooling oneself. When spectators come, the center of acting becomes objective, it is difficult to fool oneself. In the presence of the spectators, that which is your life begins to function as
something objective. What is this objective fact? The point is not whether the spectator likes it.
The point is that it touches him. Most often spectators react against great creations. But this
means that they are not indifferent. This is what I call an objective fact: that this, which came
into being facing the spectator, wasnt without meaning; that it really came into being as a fact of
life. The spectator may like it or may be against it. Yet it has become a fact. In this sense, creation does not exist without objectivity. It is very important not to confuse two things: playing
facing and playing for the spectator. A spectator may accept something not because it is a work
of art, but for other reasons, as is the case with Folies Bergre, where the female dancers are

25

accepted, not because what they do reveals life, only because it is, as they say, interesting. After
all, it also happens that spectators applaud something silly and flat that doesnt reveal anything in
people, which doesnt reveal anything about life, which merely repeats certain stereotypes. It is
like dessert in a restaurant, like getting your apartment ready for a one-night stand with a girl.
Like a trivial, funny thing. Today we clap, tomorrow we forget. It is not an objective fact;
nobody will think of it tomorrow. It did not enter someones life. It wasnt a fact of life.
For sure, there are great works not created by (or for) an elite, as certain totemic structures,
for example. But then let us ask this question: Is it possible today to create without an elite or
not for an elite, without taking into consideration that the times are different? So then the next
question emerges: What is this elite? If you are thinking of the financial elite, or of the educated
elite, then of course none of them is an elite able to create. If you are thinking of an elite of
people who have greater talent, then I think we are already closer to creation. If additionally
you mean people who possess a higher level of creative technique, then I also prefer creation
on a higher technical levelI simply dont like dilettantism. Henri Rousseau had no education
but was an artist of high technique. But on the whole, I consider the question of elitist creation illusory.
What does it mean: creation for an elite? What elite? People with a lot of money? I think
that to create for them is not true work. With a few exceptions, they look for other things in
life than artistic perception. Maybe then for people with education? For those with a college
degree, or even a PhD? Among the spectators in my theatre I met workers who had great sensitivity and university professors dumb as a doorknob. I also met professors of great sensitivity
and people without education dumb as a doorknob. For what elite? Perhaps for an elite means
not for everyone... Because, excuse me, why should I create for everyone? Why should some
other artist be obliged to create for me? What is hidden here is a postulate that everyone should
eat the same soup. It is tyranny: every artistic creation for everyone. But this also means that
everyone should be for every artistic creation. People are different. They have different needs.
Art should rather seek out those who need it. If it is not indispensable, it will disappear by itself.
A work of art doesnt have to be for everyone. It must look for those for whom it is indispensable. Every person on the street should be able to choose the very kind of creation that he needs.
In this domain, I envision democracy in the way that everyone can find his own theatre, that
every theatre has its spectators, that theatres are as varied as people. Nobody should be forced
to be for everyone, because then all that one does will be ridden with doctrine. Life is richer; its
paths are unknown. Today a certain work of art may be needed by 100 people, tomorrow by 100
million. It is right to say, however, that a work of art cannot be for nobody. In order to exist, it
must be needed.
I must add here that there were times in previous centuries when only a certain social class
reserved for itself the right to choose. But what in the past was a privilege of only a certain group
should be available to all. When you take away the right to choose, you limit human rights.

Jerzy Grotowski

Someone said here that if in this entire two-week period of work there was at least one
tiniest, one very little thing that could prove fertile, then these two weeks wouldnt be wasted.
You cannot believe that there wasnt one such thing. Well, OK: We might say that there was this
completely small, this tiniest thing; that you can be happy because you did not waste your time,
because you did this totally small, tiniest thing. But why didnt you do something great? This
prattling about the tiniest thing, this requiring from yourself only something minimal during
the course of two entire weeksisnt that what I called a path to perfectionism? There is this
belief that one will do something very, very small, step by step, and that perhaps one day it will
give some result.

26

One of you said that a dog would react to actors who lie. I dont quite believe it. But what
really interested me in this story about the dog was this recurring belief in means that can take
over for us. If not Grotowski, then maybe a dog. But neither Grotowski nor a dog can do it.
Nobody will guarantee another persons sincerity.

I return to the problem of LSD. It is true that drugs also, in some way, unmask. However, as
it has been observed, it has nothing to do with creating. This is an important point. One could
invoke humanism here. But what are we looking for in such situations? How to take something
for myself and give nothing. One can call it freedom. Surely there have been people who used
drugs and still gave a lot. The same with alcoholics. However, this is a particular situationclose
to an illness. Like Dostoyevskys epilepsy, like Van Goghs madness. Thomas Mann analyzed it
and noticed two things: They both created while struggling with illnessdespite illnessand
so, thanks to this struggle, their illness could start to become a great experience. Mann said that
thanks to these great sick men who paid with their whole lives, with all their mighty sufferings,
we, the others, were able to explore regions that are normally forbidden. Of course there are
thousands of epileptics, and only one Dostoyevsky. Thus only when there are fruits does all this
begin to have value.
There was an actor in Poland before the Second World War, known to be an alcoholic.
Later, many Polish actors took this as an excuse for themselves: After all, Jaracz drank too.
But Jaracz struggled with it. He used to ask Osterwa to lock him up in a room with bars on the
windows. At night, he would try to escape. He would call down to people on the street. If they
released him, he would, as he used to say, go on a tour of Polandhe would get drunk. Upon
returning, he would ask Osterwa to lock him up again. There was something heroic in this
struggle. Jaracz produced wonderful fruits. Entire herds of drunk or hung-over actors produce
no fruits during rehearsals. After all, many things function like drugs. For example, what I called
illusions can ultimately lead to suicideman kills himself with poor substitutes. What is
dangerous in drugs is the samea poor substitute for a great experience.
Today in theatre one comes across sexual themes. I dont think it is wrong. Quite the opposite, I think it is natural. No truth in theatre is possible without touching the external intimacy
in man. However, there is also the problem of calling the wolf. If you do the same thing
during exercises and improvisations, if you do the same thing in culminating tudes and in less
important sketches, if you do the same thing in physical, plastique and voice exercisesif you
look everywhere for sexual themes, meaning you want to demonstrate, to underline themthen
the only effect will be an awful degradation of this whole sphere. All this will quickly turn into
convention. In this way you will block your own sincerity. And when you will really need to be
sincere to the endand if one wants to be sincere to the end, one must also be sincere in this
spherethen, when you will face a real challenge, you will be like sheep who call the wolf, but
the wolf wont come anymore, because you have already degraded the whole thing.
I see yet another problem everywhere. It is the need to sell what you have right away. I was
shocked when I noticed that some people who have visited us and trained in certain kinds of
exercises, now that they are doing their own performances, they show the exercises to the
spectators as an overture. There is something embarrassing when an actor wishes to turn his
personal hygiene, the field of his personal struggle, immediately into a form, so that he can
show it to others. And anyway by then these exercises have no sense; they are barren and dead.
It is shameless. Not to mention that in most cases, these exercises are done in a pathetic way.
The biggest threat is that everything has to be sold right away. Even if we look at it not from
some moral perspective but in terms of efficacy, if we want to be wise as a snake and shrewd
as a fox, we should know that selling everything is the best path to losing ourselves.

Farewell Speech

Extravaganza of names. In the case of young artists, it is somehow justifiable, because

generally there is some human reality in it. At the beginning when you meet them, if they
have overcome falsehood and inertia in their work, you can see their faces as if illuminated.
When you meet them two, three years later, you can see that their faces are closed off. What
happened? I know what happened. Some artistic phenomenon begins to function with force,
to pull peoples attention to itself. It is authentic at first. There is the strong resonance of the
work. Something like a whirlwind begins to form. But the world also needs a sensation. It is
waiting. And then the mass media enters the game, beginning with the press, then television,

27

and so on. The work becomes well known, more than it should. It is no longer the resonance
of the work, but the resonance of the resonance... I have read descriptions of my productions
written by people in Uruguay or India who never saw my work. It is as if two mirrors were
set face to face giving an impression of a very wide impact, but it is only an illusion. Another
important trait of the media is the fact that they always expect new sensations. First an idol
is created and then knocked down, because a new one has to be created.
I think that our work, as some kind of idol, will be attacked in just a few months. If not this
year then the next, because the world expects a new sensation. A different prophet of the media
is needed. He will sit here and become the focus of attention.
Usually in such moments the person who is currently in the spotlight begins to fear for his
throne. He thinks about how to keep drawing attention to himself, how to attract more press
and television, how to create a new sensation, how to be more modern than the modern times.
At that moment, he begins to do something that doesnt come from a real need. Its only a clown
dancing before the media. All this gesticulation only to hold ones spot. It is the beginning of
poisoning oneself, of murdering what is alive in us. Perhaps it is a way to gain a year or two of
illusory fame. Nevertheless, at the end we will be thrown away on the roadside: used up, without
dignity, without sincerity. Killed. Turned into a corpse filled with envy of the new idola
corpse full of bad faith and the need for revenge. It is then that our faces fade and lose
their light.

Jerzy Grotowski

In the actors case, it begins with a lack of concentration in the work. In order to hold his
privileged position, the actor must do a thousand things: he plays in the theatre, he plays
elsewhere, he has a meeting with the public during which he plays without preparing, he works
on a TV show, he has a role in a film. He attracts attention. The actor can function this way
even longer than the director. But he knows well that he is already dead. Then he begins to be
unhappy. It all begins from this pseudo need to sell everything.

28

Is it possible not to sell? One can go against the current; one can stop begging for the favor
of the press. It is quite possible. Will we be attacked? Well, yes. Our idol will be knocked down.
Just a year or two sooner... Thats the only difference. And that would be even better than if the
idol wasnt knocked down. Because if deep in ourselves we know that there is no seed of truth
in us, we wont be happy. The reason for unhappiness lies in ourselves. It is we who torture ourselves. It begins with a desire for quick success. It begins with working for success, for sensation.
It begins with selling everything we have achieved, all at once. And then we ask ourselves why
we are so nervous. We blame the big cities for it. But if big cities have this influence on us, its
because we live in big cities. The first obvious thing in this case is that we can leave the big city.
Nobody is forced to work in Parisyou can work in the country, you can work in a small town.
It is not true that you cant do theatre there. You can. After all, I dont work in the conditions
of the Polish metropolis and I dont need to wear Warsaws crown on my head. Why would
Wrocaw be worse? I like that city; people need me there. Why go to the capital? Why stay in
New York if you dont like it? Of course, if I liked Warsaw as my hometown, I would be there.
If I liked New York, I would be there. But then I wouldnt have the right to say that New Yorks
atmosphere is killing me. If it is unbearable there, then go to San Francisco. Perhaps it is possible to work in New York with all its noise, etc., and remain unaffected by its influence. But if
this influence begins with a fear of silence, of quiet... Oops, somebody wrote a nasty article
about me today, I have to respond to it on TV, and so on; Without some sensation we will
sink to the bottom, and so forth. Financial concerns certainly exist, but I dont think they are
a deciding factor. I dont think that all this noise about oneself is necessary to get money. Yes, it
is necessary, but only to get more money. But what are you really looking for? Because it could
be that you are looking for money and not for something else. You must know what you want.
If it is not money, then you have much more freedom, for example, in regard to the media. I
dont oppose some strategy in this matter. Surely this kind of pressure exists. OK. It requires
from us a certain type of agility. But only as long as it does not touch the work. One can do this

dance around the work, but one should never mix priorities here. When one starts mixing
strategy with the work, then it is the beginning of becoming barren. I observe it everywhere.
Everywhere I also observe another thing. It is a peculiar way of building a technique. I will
give you an example. A person worked with us for a while and was introduced to plastique
exercises. He returned home and continued to do them there. Now he insists that he worked out
his own way of doing them. We can only respect this. However, when I visit his place, I see what
the novelty of his approach is. All the easy parts have been kept, and all the difficult parts have
been thrown away or modified to become easy. Here we already have a double illusion: first, that
he worked out his own creative version of the exercises; and second, that anything at all is being
exercised. In fact, the purpose behind this kind of activity is to feel good. In this case, we can say
that feeling good comes before the work itself. The process is already barren, and it hasnt even
begunthere is no process at all.
Today we can see everywhere a tendency to cut us off from tradition, but by no means from
its weaknesses. We can observe everywhere attempts to create without having any roots, without
any connection to the past, to create anew. I have often repeated that one needs to be independent, but there is always one problem: Is it real autonomy or only a substitute for autonomy?
For example, if instead of human spontaneitysomething that comes from an actors natureI
observe gymnastics that (I am sorry if I misuse the term) one could call Swedish gymnastics,
after all there is nothing new in it, because it is only Swedish inertia. In theory, it was a
question of autonomy; in practice, it is dilettantism. You must know what you are doing. In this
case these details of the exercises, invented by us, arent important. You can build exercises on
other details. But details must be there and they should be precise. So you either look for them
by yourselvesbut from the beginningor take them from us. But then dont experiment
before you can actually execute them. Do that first, and then create your own version. After
all, some competence exists in this domain. If you fall into magma, into general chaos, or into
terror, into taming, then it is a clear lack of competence. You should not mix: here something
from physical, here something from plastiques, here something from voice exercisesand do
nothing out of your own. You should not combine everything like some kind of soup, and, on
top of it, feel good calling yourself an inventor.
We are not cut off from our surroundings, from our country, and our tradition. They contain
all sources of strength. Only that in keeping with these sources we might seek poor substitutes
for deeds. The reason why someone seeks illusion is always personal, not national (perhaps
with rare exceptions). However, the way in which these substitutes are carried out is generally
National, so to speak, which means that our instinct for self-preservation forces us to act in
accordance with our environment, with the dominant style of life, etc. So it is to a certain degree
natural that a Frenchman will hide behind Cartesian statements, and a Scandinavian behind
so-called reliability. This is somehow socially grounded. According to the law of imitation, one
must lend the colors of certain national values to ones own substitute.
I was asked if the point is to eliminate all masks, meaning culture and tradition as well. No,
it is not about elimination. The whole thing begins with the awareness that we have a mask. We
cannot destroy it, because it is a bit like skin. We can tear it off, but then a new one will grow in
its place. There are moments, however, when something different emerges from beneath this
mask, when we are disarmed.
In some sense, art is an immoral domain. Good intentions dont count. The result does.
When one succumbs to illusions in the work, then only these illusions are really at work. Believe
me, I wish I could tell you something different.

It will become a mental phenomenon. Perhaps we should take into consideration the fact that
what is mental, what is intellectual, is not identical with what is psychicit is only a part of the

Farewell Speech

In theatre, if we want to go beyond telling anecdotes, we must find, in a coherent structure,

that which reveals us together with our fundamental experiences. Then the story functions
merely as a pretext. You might say that it is being burned-through.

29

psyche. This point can raise doubts. When I said that purity could cross this boundary, it is
exactly because this purity is of the psychic order.
I would like also to say something to Mr. Y. I would like to say that I do not believe in selfcriticism, because there is in itespecially in certain circumstancessomething extremely
dangerous; I mean, one might be putting on some kind of play or making a gesticulation that
is supposed to suggest that one is destroying oneself. If there is an understanding, words
are unnecessary.
Is it inhumane? Yes, you may think so. Except that with all this humanitarianism that was
proposed here as the alternative, a human being, I think, is terribly unhappy. It is written in his
face; it is written in his life; it is written in his reactions. He has not made an offering...
Is the way of life that Im talking about the only way? No. But why do I not agree with the
opinion that it implies repression and coercion? Coercion is possible only where some authority
exists. If I wanted to submit you to repression, then, without authority, I would only risk trouble.
When I see that something isnt working, I have two possibilities. I can say that some things
in it are done well, but that I value something else. Then I can be sure to have you in a certain
sense on my side, and in this way the whole thing will drag on. However, I think that its you
who are responsible for the illusions, not I. If I had said to you that something was bad, yet this
other thing was good, and consequently that you had not wasted your time, thenI realizeI
would still have your respect and your...lets call it, good feelings. But then I would be the one
responsible for prolonging illusions. The only possibility was to kill myself in your hearts, so
that you would feel dislike and disgust for me, so that only a few would retain faith. In this
situation, there is no blame on my side, because Im doing it with full responsibility.
During this seminar, as you have noticed, I really remained somehow absent. I was just
observing what was taking place, because I decided to confront the question of my own responsibility for the false appearances that were created around my work. Even if I came here with the
intention of having a discussion with you, I had no idea in what direction this discussion would
go. I needed all this. If in fact some idol existed, thenhere we arethe idol has been knocked
down. Without a doubt, its cult will not be prolonged any further. It was also for this reason
that I couldnt answer your questions during rehearsals. It happens sometimes that a group that
has been repeatedly falling into appearances might finally mobilize. I waited for it until the end,
until the last day of the seminar.
One could say that I am a nonbeliever. However, show me your Man [Czowiek], and I will
show you my God.
It is time to finish. Or, perhaps not? I propose to end without giving the organizers a chance
to deliver a formula, but instead to end in a noncommittal way. If someone doesnt want to leave
the room yet, let him stay. Let him do as he wants.

Jerzy Grotowski

This talk was transcribed from an international seminar that took place in a European country around
the time of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Laboratory Theatre (1969). Attending the
seminar were many people and groups who claimed to work according to Grotowski. The Polish text
was prepared for publication by Leszek Kolankiewicz.

30