The term ‘theatrical’ is used frequently in descriptions of life and art in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in catalogues of art exhibitions, academic texts, and descriptions of the period in popular culture. The term seems to have become indispensable in attempting to capture and convey the convergence of art, society, and performance in Europe across the long seventeenth century. However, just like the popular period designation ‘baroque’, ‘theatrical’ is a loaded term. It can be a useful one and, as this book will aim to demonstrate, in many cases an apt one. But it is also a term that requires critical deconstruction and analysis. What does ‘theatrical’ mean? What does it describe? And why is it apparently more present in the art and culture of the baroque period than, for example, in the Renaissance, which also had a keen interest in the production of theatre and theatrical spectacles? The following chapter examines the current scholarship on the relationship between theatre and visual culture during this period and considers the problem of how to disentangle our modern ideas of ‘theatre’ and ‘theatricality’ from those relevant to the seventeenth century.

The Problem with Theatricality

The challenge of untangling the intricate and fluid relationship between theatre, art, and the observation of society have been explored by several scholars. A useful place to start is with Keith Christiansen's explanation of the ‘notion of theatricality’ in the work of Tiepolo. He writes that, ‘[i]n discussing the work of Giambattista Tiepolo it has become commonplace to employ terminology that suggests some kind of affinity between his paintings and the stage’. Christiansen observes two distinct intentions behind the use of this language. The first is analogy, to describe Tiepolo's Würzburg frescoes as theatrical because they are framed by drawn-back curtains in stucco is to suggest their visual similarity to scenes upon a stage.