1 Of course, natural space may be used for theatrical purposes, but during the spectacle natural space undergoes semiosis and becomes a sign of some other fictional space, usually set at a different time than the time of the performance.

2 Of recent publications on the subject see McAuley, G., Space in Performance: Making Meaning in the Theatre (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nanay, Bence, ‘Perception, Action, and Identification in the Theater’, in Krasner, David and Saltz, David Z., eds., Staging Philosophy: Intersections of Theater, Performance, and Philosophy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), 244–54Google Scholar. I have also used a Polish edition of Yi-Fu Tuan's book on space, Przestrzeń i miejsce (Warszawa: PIW, 1987).

3 Yi-Fu Tuan, Przestrzeń i miejsce, p. 157.

4 I am using the plural form ‘creators’, because in theatre we have a joint effort of several people engaged: dramatist, director, scenographer, choreographer, composer of music and – last but not least – actors. Of course, in today's theatre practice the director is the major figure, and he/she coordinates the contributions of the others.

5 For a slightly different approach see Rozik, Eli, ‘Is the Notion of “Theatricality” Void?’, Gestos, 15, 30, (November 2000), pp. 11–30Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Acting: The Quintessence of Theatricality’, SubStance, 31. 2 and 3 (2002), pp. 110–24.

6 So far, in scholarship only the invisible fourth wall has been distinguished, separating the box stage from the auditorium, often identified with the bourgeois theatre and its aesthetics. The abolition of this wall is often a sign of breaking through fossilized conventions. The readers are obviously familiar with the concept of the fourth wall, which needs no further explanation, but the appearance of the fifth may be somewhat misleading. However, I have come to understand the ‘fourth wall’ as a metaphor rather than a literal reference to the ‘missing wall’ in the proscenium stage. In my understanding, the ‘fourth wall’ may refer to any type of stage, and thus mean the temporal and spatial distance created by the actors from the audience. The ‘fifth wall’, on the other hand, refers to the invisible divide between the material and the non-material, the vehicle of the sign and its denoted meaning, the physical and the fictional time, and so on. Basically, it is the invisible boundary between two time streams, two present times, two temporal dimensions, separating the material substance from the fictional sphere; separating human bodies, props, costume, music and the like from what all this signalling matter denotes in the fictional realm. In addition, the fifth wall marks the division between the two spheres governed by different laws of physics, and that includes geometry (space) and – most importantly – time. So, during the performance, the dual world of the stage is juxtaposed with the auditorium, with the concomitant division of time and space (and dual ontology, so to speak), followed by the conspicuous emergence and juxtaposition of two models of perceiving reality, that of performers and that of spectators (the actors' perspective is not part of the performance message). Consequently, time in the performance becomes split: it is the real present of the performer, who is a live human being, and the created fictional present time of the figure (which may occasionally merge). This is why I am speaking of the theatre's fifth dimension, which results from the dual present time. I have introduced the concept of the fifth wall in my book, published in Polish, Piąty wymiar teatru (Theatre's Fifth Dimension) (Gdańsk: Stowo obraz terytoria, 2006).

7 Three-dimensional space reveals the features of structural organization, which enables the spectator to establish spatial relationships between objects, human bodies and other phenomena on the stage.

8 Of course, we have to keep in mind that, quite contrary to what many writers believe, theatre signs have the unusual ability to reveal dual orientation: on the one hand they may denote a material or phenomenal element of the fictional realm, on the other they are oriented towards themselves, showing us their material and form, creating a visible relationship between the denoted meaning and the substantial value of the vehicle of the sign. The latter is the most important feature of theatre signs, and shows that illusion is not necessarily a desired aim of theatre (in illusion we lose the sense of the ‘inadequate’ relationship between meaning and substance).

9 Fictional (i.e. scenic) spaces can and should be distinguished as oriented ‘away from the auditorium’ and ‘towards and through the auditorium’. The former I suggest calling ‘escaping’ or ‘vanishing’ (just as in perspective the point at which two straight lines meet is escaping or vanishing), the latter ‘incorporating’ or ‘levelling’ (since to a certain degree it incorporates the space of the auditorium, and levels the invisible barrier dividing it from the stage). This distinction is useful to the extent that in a performance we can have an alternating game of orienting the space. I call such a space ‘pulsating’. Sometimes in the scenic space various orientations can be recognized at the same time. In that case we shall call it ‘simultaneous’.

10 Of the numerous publications on the subject, let me mention Issacharoff, M., ‘Space and Reference in Drama’, Poetics Today, 2, 3 (1981), pp. 211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Braun, K., Przestrzeń teatralna (Warszawa: PWN, 1982)Google Scholar; Theatre Symposium, Vol. 4: Theatrical Spaces and Dramatic Places (Southeastern Theatre Conference: The University of Alabama Press 1996); Pavis, Patris, Dictionary of Theatre (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Carlson, Marvin, Places of Performance: The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Berg, K. van den, ‘The Geometry of Culture: Urban Space and Theatre Buildings in Twentieth-Century Berlin’, Theatre Research International, 16, 1 (1991), pp. 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Golikov may be treated as the director of this particular production.

12 Again, this may be quite the contrary of film, where a simultaneous presentation of different points of view within the same space is hardly possible, because it would introduce a large dose of confusion.

13 Another example of the subjectivization of space on the stage is the 2006 London production of Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus in Hampstead Theatre (directed by Rupert Goold). In the last scene, following a blackout, we see the two major actors (playing the Chapman brothers) and the stage set as if seen from ‘above’. The question remains, of course, ‘who is looking’, if the point of view is certainly not that of any of the fictional figures and not that of the audience (God?). The first version of this play, directed by Rupert Goold, opened in the Derngate Theatre in Northampton in 2004.