To read PART I of this interview, go to this link.
Hayel Ali Al-Mathabi: In light of this technological storm that theater faces, like all forms of the arts and aspects of life in general, what are the manifestations of cultural and artistic resistance to these transformations that you find and notice, and are they effective to the extent that they preserve the traditional form of theater, or some of it, to endure and survive?
Marina Hanganu: Since there are many theatre traditions in the world, what sort of “traditional theatre” one wishes to preserve will also depend on the point of reference. Maybe one common and ancient aspect of the various theatre traditions is the physical co-presence of actors and audiences, which was disrupted by the emergence of recording and telecommunication technologies. This disruption happened relatively recently in human history, whereas theatre is much older. I think the human actor’s physical presence is perhaps the main element being defended against technology, due to fears of its absence, substitution or reduced visibility under technology.
2032 SMART-FAMILY. On stage in Italy: Monica Buzoianu. In the projection: Ogmios Z42’s live-animated face, controlled by Smaranda Găbudeanu in Romania. Photo by Alice Longoni. © Alice Longoni.
Another fear I have heard expressed by theatre professionals in Romania is that technology is “cold”, meaning emotionless, whereas theatre (and art more broadly) should modulate emotion. This is a huge discussion, but it is also culturally situated. The Romanian theatre tradition is deeply indebted to Stanislavsky’s conception of the theatre, in which emotion is essential. Firstly, technology per se does not prevent emotion in the theatre. Some of my telematic performances, such as 2032 SMART-FAMILY and The Planet of Lost Dreams, are clear evidence that audiences can laugh and cry in two countries at once, brought together by technology. Secondly, there are many ways in which audiences can be engaged in a performance and emotional engagement is just one of them.
However, rejecting technology in the theatre may not be just a matter of theatrical tradition, but a reaction against digital saturation. In a world of almost ubiquitous technologically-mediated communication, many people (artists and audiences alike) want to preserve the experience of being together in the same physical space. After the pandemic, for example, most people have hailed the return to physically co-present performance. Furthermore, some artists and audiences wish to take a break from technology when at the theatre, and also underline theatre’s difference from television or film. I’ve recently heard Tim Crouch voice this opinion in a post-show discussion of his performance, Truth’s a Dog Must to Kennel. So a development direction will probably involve intentionally “low-tech” or no-tech theatre. This is perfectly fine, as long as the discussion does not become polarised or radical, such as condemning the use of telematics or other technology in the theatre. All forms of theatre can coexist in the same cultural landscape – variety is to be wanted, not chased away.
2032 SMART-FAMILY. On stage in Italy: Giovanni Longhin and Francesca Fatichenti. Holographic projection of Giovanni Longhin. Photo by Alice Longoni. © Alice Longoni.
Notwithstanding technological rejection by some artists, most theatre performances are already making use of digital technology on a functional level. A big part of the infrastructure of theatre venues has already been digitalised (lights, sound, stage mechanisms etc.) and will continue to be. This infrastructural use of technology seems just normal to most artists and audiences, even to those who reject technology as an expressive tool. From my perspective, AI and robotic automation of most stage mechanisms is just a matter of time, with autonomous or semi-autonomous algorithms soon operating the lights, sound, video etc. during performances.
At present, the aesthetic (and not just the functional) integration of technology remains scarce in mainstream productions. However, I believe various technologies will be increasingly incorporated into the theatre as expressive tools and not just infrastructure. These will no longer be considered “high tech”, but the regular expressive tools that future theatre artists will use. At the same time, I trust some practitioners will continue to break new ground by incorporating and, crucially, also interrogating the newest and rarest technologies, while exploring their wider (social, personal, relational, environmental etc.) impact.
2032 SMART-FAMILY. On stage in Romania: Ogmios Z42 (controlled by Smaranda Găbudeanu) and Aura Călărașu. In the projection: Monica Buzoianu, on stage in Italy. Photo by Vlad Dumitrescu. © Teatrul “George Ciprian”.
H.A.: Can we say that the time has come for theater artists in the world to announce a statement against the transformations in technology and the expansion of automation that is sweeping across professions and jobs, including theater jobs and professions, writing, acting, directing, and other works and professions… such as announcing a statement specifically for theater writers that writing is a right? of human rights. Or like announcing a special statement for performing artists that performance is a human right..? Then demand laws that protect these and other rights?
M.H.: The development and use of AI need to be regulated and have already started being regulated at a political level, for example, in the EU. Interestingly, you mention the need for specific rules or even laws to defend theatre artists from AI and automation. I don’t have a clear answer to this yet. The notions of “performance as a human right” or “creativity as a human right” are certainly thought-provoking, but I am not sure how the use of AI should be regulated in the theatre without preventing experimentation, at least for now. The screenwriters’ and actors’ strikes in Hollywood last year are instructive up to a point and one of the main takeaways is that control of the creative process and outcome should still belong to human artists.
I see AI as a tool for creative humans, not as a replacer of humans. Not even a robot can be said to replace humans, but certain human roles, as there are many humans with many different roles behind a robot. Will some jobs be lost to automation in the theatre sector? I think so. Starting with part of the stage technicians, I believe. But some new jobs will likely emerge as well. The issue is whether humans will be able to adapt fast enough to these changes. Regarding the complementarity between humans and AI, I anticipate that future theatre makers of all specialisations will have AI assistants. And I envisage another development direction – the gradual erosion of borders between different specialisations in the theatre (mainly concerning the off-stage creative team) and the emergence of theatre auteurs who make use of personally-trained generative AI to create a performance from scratch, mostly by themselves. Whatever happens, I trust creation by humans for humans will remain central to art, even if AI-enhanced.
2032 SMART-FAMILY. On stage in Italy: Giovanni Longhin, Francesca Fatichenti and Monica Buzoianu. In the projection: Aura Călărașu and Ogmios Z42 (controlled by Smaranda Găbudeanu), on stage in Romania. Photo by Alice Longoni. © Alice Longoni.
One first step towards AI regulation in the theatre could be obligating theatre producers to disclose whether the performance contains a significant amount of AI-generated content or not: AI-generated theatre plays, videos or music, for example. What a “significant amount” means is to be defined. Given the mediocre nature of most AI-generated content, audiences may eventually keep away from performances that rely too much on AI-generated content, which will automatically force producers to rely on human creatives. Strictly speaking of playwrights, I don’t see them as particularly threatened by AI at the moment. For now, AI cannot generate a good, coherent and interesting theatre play, if you ask me. Even if the algorithms will no doubt improve, I trust that exclusively AI-generated content will remain of average quality. The first to reject working with poorly written plays will be actors and directors.
Another point of reference for protective law could be that in all cases involving generative AI, human labour should always be recognised behind these technological tools and paid accordingly – including the (consent-based) use of artists’ works as AI training data. And this is where things get very interesting and complex. Let’s imagine a hypothetical AI lighting designer. Such an algorithm would have to be trained on data coming from the work of human lighting designers. So maybe the lighting designers who contributed to its training could receive money whenever the AI does the lighting design for a certain production. Or maybe the AI lighting designer will be a digital double of the human designer, bringing her revenue.
No matter how you look at it, art remains a human form of expression, as AI needs training on human artworks to be able to generate content. Moreover, it is still humans who need to validate AI-generated content as art or deny its status as art. To conclude, the discussion surrounding AI regulation is complex and any attempt at regulation should certainly be an interdisciplinary endeavour.
2032 SMART-FAMILY. On stage in Italy: Francesca Fatichenti. In the projection: Aura Călărașu, on stage in Romania. Photo by Alice Longoni. © Alice Longoni.
H.A.: Before we concluded this dialogue, we needed details of your project, Smart Family 2032, and for you to talk to us about the dimensions of this experience, as this artistic work is the first theatrical performance in which a robot participates as a main actor with a group of actors in an artistic work, in addition to being the first theatrical work that employs technology and Internet techniques. And he volunteers her to serve the theater in what is called “telematic theatre”?
M.H.: Although telematic theatre is not new, it remains somewhat exceptional, as there are extremely few artists who work with telematics worldwide or do so only occasionally, as this type of performance is very difficult and often expensive to produce. What I believe sets my practice apart from that of other telematic artists, past or present, is my focus on story-based theatre, combined with a tailoring of the technology to suit the story and, vice versa, a tailoring of the story to suit the technology. I always write or co-write the theatre plays I direct (and often co-direct), and do so with the clear purpose of staging them telematically.
2032 SMART-FAMILY is an example of a highly complex telematic performance. The theatrical action took place in two physical spaces simultaneously, namely “George Ciprian” Theatre in Buzău, Romania, and Industria Scenica in Milan, Italy, which were connected via videoconferencing software (hence the telematic aspect). In each venue, there were physically present actors and audiences. The actors interacted via videoconferencing, while the audiences in each country could see what was happening remotely on a large projection screen. The action was filmed in real time by two robotic cameras in each space and relayed to the other country as a live video montage. In Romania, apart from the human actress, there was also a robot, built specifically for our performance and tele-controlled live by a puppeteer. It is important to mention that the telematic setup and the robot were narratively integrated, as the story followed a future transnational family from the year 2032. In the play, an elderly and ill elderly woman who lives alone in Romania is given a companion robot by her daughter, Virginia, who lives in Italy. What is more, the daughter interconnects their distant dwellings via an always-on videoconferencing system. The story was inspired by interviews with Romanian migrants and elderly parents in Romania.
2032 SMART-FAMILY. Aura Călărașu on stage in Romania. In the projection Francesca Fatichenti, Giovanni Longhin and Monica Buzoianu, on stage in Italy. Photo by Vlad Dumitrescu. © Teatrul “George Ciprian”.
About the robot – we are not the first artists worldwide to have worked with a robot on stage, although the way we integrated it into a Sci-Fi story of migration, elderly care and remote family life is rather original, at least to my knowledge. And yet again, examples of robot use in the theatre are still rare. Robot Ogmios Z42, as co-playwright Bianca Trifan named it, was built for our performance by a team comprising two engineers, one interaction designer and one 3D modelling and animation artist. Ogmios could be called a telepresence robot, as it was controlled remotely by puppeteer Smaranda Găbudeanu, who was located at the theatre balcony and watched the stage both with her naked eyes and via the robot’s video camera. The puppeteer controlled not only the robot’s movement through space but also its facial expressions. She also spoke for the robot via a microphone with an added metallic voice effect. Our robot has no artificial intelligence, yet it is still technically a robot, as it is a mechanism that can move in the physical space. It is a telepresence robot pretending to be a social robot with advanced AI. In the theatre, you can fictionalise as many aspects as you like and the abilities of robots make no exception. It is usually the illusion that matters. And, indeed, robots have a lot to do with theatre, puppetry and illusion, as many researchers and practitioners have noted.
Because of the great effort required for its public presentation, 2032 SMART-FAMILY had a limited run of 10 representations. However, the video recording is still available on YouTube and can be watched for free, with English, Romanian, Italian and Spanish subtitles. Since the performance run ended, the robot was reused for an interactive installation at the RADAR New Media Art Festival in Bucharest (October 2023) and also as a theatre games coordinator in children’s workshops (May 2024). My wish is to upgrade Ogmios with sensors and AI and reuse it for future performances and events.
2032 SMART-FAMILY. Curtain call. On stage in Romania: Ogmios Z42, puppeteer Smaranda Găbudeanu and Aura Călărașu. In the projection: the audience in Italy. Photo by Vlad Dumitrescu. © Teatrul “George Ciprian”.
H.A.: Give us a word that suits the merits of the dialogue, with which we can conclude this dialogue?
M.H.: Thank you very much for your interest and stimulating questions. My project colleagues and I are delighted that our work in Tele-Encounters: Beyond the Human has reached you in the Arab countries. We were also pleasantly surprised to learn that you have translated the full project book into Arabic.
This post was written by the author in their personal capacity.The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of The Theatre Times, their staff or collaborators.
