Theatre’s Faustian Bargain: Power and Peril in Technology

Marina (Maka) Vasadze and Lasha Chkhartishvili

Marina (Maka) Vasadze* and Lasha Chkhartishvili**

Abstract

This paper explores how the COVID-19 pandemic and technological advances have transformed theatrical practice, focusing in particular on the shift from live performance to digital platforms. While this shift has enabled broader access, it has also disrupted theatre’s defining element: live, reciprocal interaction with an audience. Through qualitative and content analysis of productions by both state and independent companies, we investigate the emergence of hybrid forms, the integrity of theatrical expression in virtual spaces, and the long-term implications for the art form.

Keywords: technical progress in theatre, digital theatre, pandemic, theatre online, new forms

Introduction

Our goal is to examine the types of events to which theatre has historically responded and the forms and styles of theatrical productions that have emerged as a result, whether created by state-funded or independent theatre companies. We are particularly interested in whether or not these responses took the form of traditional theatre, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected theatrical production, and what innovations arose during this period. In our research model, we have employed material analysis, data interpretation and qualitative research methods to investigate our main research questions. It remains to be seen whether the challenges and transformations brought about by the pandemic will shape the long-term evolution of the arts, particularly theatrical art. However, we are already witnessing the rise of a new hybrid form of artistic expression. The pandemic, which struck the world unexpectedly, fundamentally disrupted global systems and priorities. Like nearly all sectors of industry and production, the arts were forced to adapt rapidly to new constraints, first to survive, and later to evolve.

Among all branches of art, the performing arts, especially theatre, stand out for their reliance on live interaction with an audience, one of theatre’s defining strengths. The pandemic, however, stripped theatre of this essential platform, fundamentally altering the nature of the theatrical experience. During the pandemic, theatre as an art form experienced a profound disruption which led to a dead end, marked by the sudden loss of live interaction with audiences. Despite this drastic change, theatre confronted the challenge and, to varying degrees, managed to adapt. The crisis pushed the theatre to seek out new spaces and forms of expression. With audiences unable to physically attend performances, theatre began reaching out to them through virtual means. Our research focuses specifically on identifying what kind of theatre this was, and what forms, styles, and approaches emerged as theatre transitioned to digital platforms.

A theatrical work truly comes to life only in the presence of a live audience. Yet under pandemic conditions, theatre was forced to reckon with the threat of losing its authentic, live nature. In response, a new form of artistic expression began to emerge, a synthetic, hybrid creation that blended elements of theatre, film, television, and digital media. This hybrid can be broadly referred to as online theatre.

Online theatre encompasses theatrical practices that are either performed live or created specifically for digital platforms and distributed via the Internet. These productions may include real-time streamed performances as well as content tailored for virtual consumption. One of the defining characteristics of online theatre is its reimagining of liveness, as the traditional, physical co-presence of audience and performer is replaced by mediated co-presence, where technology serves as the primary mode of interaction.

This mode of existence, remote and technologically mediated, fundamentally challenges the very essence of theatre. Throughout its history, theatre has engaged with contradictions and crises, embraced technological advancements and adapted them for artistic development. Yet it has never existed without direct communication, without the immediate, physical, and reciprocal interaction between performers and audience.

Thus, the central research question to be investigated in the present study is the following: Can theatre relinquish its live relationship with the audience and still remain theatre? This more encompassing question can be addressed more effectively by exploring a series of related questions, which are as follows: What, if anything, constitutes authentic theatre in the digital age? Should we concede that the very notion of authentic theatre may no longer be tenable? Can online theatre sustain the fundamental values traditionally associated with live performance, and what new forms or audiences are emerging in its wake?

*There, it is a Drama.* Royal Discrit theatre. Photo: Gika MIkabadze

Our inquiry situates itself within the ongoing transformations of contemporary performance, a process that is neither finite nor likely ever to reach completion. Indeed, more than twenty-six centuries of theatrical history attest to the art form’s perpetual capacity for renewal; whenever theatre appears to reach an impasse, it is precisely at that juncture that new possibilities emerge.

Aspects of the Influence of Technology on Theatre and Online Theatre

Violence has been a persistent and deeply problematic aspect of human history, one that art, including theatre as a multidisciplinary form, has consistently sought to engage with and reflect upon. As a living art form, theatre is inevitably shaped by the forces of technological progress. This influence became especially pronounced during the pandemic, when theatre was deprived of its defining element, live interaction with an audience. In response, theatre became accessible through digital means.

On one hand, this shift enabled theatre to reach a vast, potentially global audience. On the other hand, it severed the direct, intimate connection between performers and spectators, an essential aspect of theatrical experience. The artistic works created during the pandemic, though making use of theatrical language and digital technologies, existed in a virtual space and arguably did not constitute theatre in the traditional sense.

In this context, living art became, so to speak, a victim of the violence of technological progress, forced to evolve, adapt, or risk disappearance under the pressure of rapidly changing conditions. Violence in this context is understood as technological disruption and the disturbance of artistic processes, rather than physical violence. In other words, technological progress compels theatre to come under its influence, since performances that incorporate the achievements of technical progress attract larger audiences. Consequently, theatre inevitably becomes a victim of the impact of technological progress.

As Microsoft founder Bill Gates remarked, “When the quarantine ends, the world will be different…” (Bariso). The pandemic, which struck the world suddenly and forcefully, reshaped the global agenda profoundly. New regulations were introduced, daily life was disrupted, and societies across the globe found themselves unprepared for the scale and complexity of the crisis. While scientists and medical professionals worked urgently to develop treatments and preventive measures against the coronavirus, humanity at large shifted to a familiar, though not fundamental, mode of communication, the remote or distanced format.

The World Health Organization officially declared the COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020. Just weeks later, on March 27, International Theatre Day, theatres around the world marked the occasion in closed, darkened halls and silence. It was a historic moment, as theatres continued to operate even during the world wars. Yet the pandemic brought them to a complete standstill. Theatre, a synthetic and living art form, was pushed to a dead end, caught between life and death. The art of theatre entered yet another period of crisis.

Like nearly all sectors of society, the arts were forced to adapt to the new rules of the game, initially just to survive, and eventually to evolve. Among all artistic disciplines, performing arts, and theatre in particular, stand apart as the only form fundamentally dependent on live interaction with an audience. This live relationship has always been its greatest strength. The pandemic temporarily severed that vital connection, leaving theatre in search of new modes of expression. In the wake of the pandemic, hybrid forms of theatre have emerged and matured significantly. Hybrid theatre involves the intentional, cohesive integration of traditional theatrical forms, genres, and expressive modes. This synthesis is not eclectic or fragmented but rather organic and seamless. In the post-pandemic landscape, such hybrid performances have become widespread, blending classical dramatic theatre with non-verbal forms, comedy with tragedy, puppetry with ballet, and more. Within a single performance, multiple theatrical traditions and techniques coexist in harmony, creating a unified yet multifaceted artistic experience.

Historical Context

For over twenty‑six hundred years, the professional, spoken Aristotelian theatre of the European model, originating in ancient Greece, has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for self‑renewal and preservation over centuries of development. Throughout its history, theatre has repeatedly seemed destined for disappearance, driven to dead ends or extreme crises, yet each time it has survived and transformed itself.

Throughout history, theatre has repeatedly come under attack, first from religious institutions like the Christian Church, later from competition with new media such as cinema, and more recently from television and the Internet. Yet even during the pandemic, theatre as a living art has persisted and evolved. Despite being abused, suppressed or challenged by different institutions in different eras, theatre has survived and continued to develop.

*Women of Troy*, Royal Discrit Theatre, directed by Data Tavadze. Photo: Nia Gvatua

As Georgia’s theatre director Data Tavadze observed during the COVID‑19 lockdown,

In moments of short or long, global or local upheavals, theatre has always been reborn… appearing at unexpected times and in unexpected places … in military barracks during a war, in the shelters of the displaced around the campfire … Theatre screamed in markets and factories and whispered in cells … The real theatre … was always born as a result of facing the extreme situation … it was born in the ruins and was itself a ruin.

Political upheavals and technological advancement have continuously exerted pressure on theatre, trying to shake it and thus enabling competitors eager to capture audiences. Yet theatre has often turned these challenges into opportunities, using new technology and even withstanding censorship in order to grow. Artists have frequently been harbingers of the future, working, under considerable tension, in an unwelcoming present, ahead of their time.

One striking example of theatre’s evolution in response to new media can be seen in the work of Robert Wilson. Starting in the 1970s, Wilson created Video Portraits of literary, artistic, and public figures like Louis Aragon, Pontus Hultén, and Hélène Rochas. Later, in the early 2000s, during a residency with VOOM HD Networks (part of the LAB HD network), Wilson developed these ideas further into high‑definition video portraits, now known as VOOM Portraits. These were not traditional theatre performances but rather artistic explorations that used video and static or minimal movement to create a mediated relationship between subject and viewer. Later, around 2004‑2009, Wilson developed the VOOM series of video portraits which reached wider audiences through HD video and exhibitions (Marjanishvili 1972).

Another example is Data Tavadze’s work with the Royal District Theatre; in particular his productions such as Women of Troy and Prometheus – 25 Years of Independence combine documentary materials, historical memory and artistic innovation to address societal crises and trauma (Chkhartishvili ). These approaches underscore theatre’s capacity to remain alive, even when its traditional live‑audience platform is disrupted.

*Prometheus / 25 Years of Independence,* Royal Discrit Theatre, directed by Data Tavadze. Photo: Bobo Mkhitar

To understand the secret behind theatre’s capacity for development during crises, it is necessary to understand how it can retain its original form and strategic purpose, to reflect life artistically and serve as a mirror to human experience. As Shakespeare (2.7) has said in his play As you Like it, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” Theatre reformer, modernist and avant‑garde Kote Marjanishvili expressed the mission of theatre succinctly, noting that “The aim of art is simple: to give happiness to and instill courage in humans” (2011).

Scholars, writers, philosophers, and dramatists through the ages have agreed with these perspectives; theatre is a mirror of society. People attend theatre to see life, others, to observe themselves. They see vivid reflections of their own experiences: joy, shame, weakness, disaster. Through these reflections, theatre helps individuals cope with daily struggles, probe their problems more deeply and imagine solutions. It allows them to access unfulfilled desires, and to live, even if only imaginatively, that which has not been lived. Theatre is a repository and transmitter of human knowledge and emotional truth. This has held true for centuries and continues to hold true today.

The temporal frame, key sociocultural structures and respective range of problems are changing, the language of the theatre itself is changing, but the goals of any type of theatre and the means of interacting with the audience, based on live and direct communication, are not changing. Will theatre be able to fulfill remotely the above stated goals, roles and mission, and will it still be theatre as art without live communication? This, in our opinion, is the main question to raise when exploring the form and function of theatre in the pandemic and post-pandemic period.

Theatre’s Unique Dependence on Live Interaction

A theatrical product lives only when it has at least one live audience. Traditionally, theatre involved a live actor on one side of the stage and an audience on the other, with emotions expressed openly in a shared space. However, during the pandemic, this dynamic shifted. Performances were either recorded or specially staged for digital formats, and audiences engaged remotely, watching from their homes, on the move, or at work, often pausing or viewing in segments at their convenience. Thus, under the conditions of the pandemic, theatre art faced a threat to its existence in an authentic form. The pandemic gave rise to a new type of art, expressed in a synthetic, hybrid product of theatre and film arts which we can tentatively call online theatre.

At the onset of the COVID‑19 pandemic, theatre swiftly transitioned to remote, online formats to maintain its connection with audiences. Institutions worldwide began offering digital access to their archives, making previously inaccessible performances available to viewers across all continents. Platforms like UpStage facilitated real-time, avatar-based performances, allowing artists to collaborate online and audiences to interact via text chat. Similarly, the Living Archive project by Viral Theatres combined multimedia elements to document and reflect on pandemic-era theatre practices, exploring concepts such as participation, intimacy and collaboration (Mosse).

Although one might argue that adaptations such as online or hybrid theatre ensure continuity during crises and expand reach, thus showing the resilience and adaptability of the art form, we contend that this mode of existence fundamentally, conceptually and radically contradicts the essence of theatre.^[1] Theatre has always engaged with contradictions and embraced technological progression, using innovation in its development; but it has never existed remotely, without some form of direct interaction, whether physical or mediated, with its audience. Thus, in recent years, theatre has again faced global problems and difficulties, the like of which it has not had in the past 26 centuries of its existence.

This scenario thus raises a core question: Can theatre ever reject its live relationship with its audience without ceasing to be theatre? If the answer is no, then how can live communication be preserved when art moves into virtual or digital space? Today, we are witnessing the emergence of online theatre, a hybrid artistic product that combines the methods, forms, and means of theatre and cinema in novel ways. Here, the challenge is not simply to adapt, but to find ways to maintain liveness in the so-called third dimension, to preserve what is essential in theatre even when performances are mediated, streamed, or otherwise technologically displaced.

LAG- A Zoomsical Comedy (Haddon Kime). Screenshot from zoom performance

Technological “Violence” vs Innovation

Theatrical projects prepared for an online premiere or television film-performances staged in pavilions utilized the previous approaches of television productions.^[2] During the COVID‑19 pandemic, theatrical projects prepared for online premieres or television‑style film‑performances staged in studios or pavilions often combined techniques and devices familiar from televised theatre. This new, revised form of TV theatre, known as online theatre, refers to theatrical products distributed via computers and the Internet that have been adapted for digital formats.

The performing arts sector showed remarkable creativity during lockdowns, producing many innovative and original online theatre works. A few well‑documented examples are as follows:

A Killer Party: A Murder Mystery Musical (2020): Created by Jason Howland, Nathan Tysen (lyrics), Kait Kerrigan, and Rachel Axler (book), this is a digital musical fully performed remotely and released as a nine‑episode web series on Vimeo.^[3]
The Poltergeist by Philip Ridley: Originally intended as a socially‑distanced stage piece with livestreaming, this one‑man play (performed by Joseph Potter, directed by Wiebke Green) became livestream‑only during the UK’s second lockdown. It won the OnComm Award for “Best Livestream” at the 2021 Offies Wikipedia).
Zoomsicals: A new genre of theatre that emerged during the pandemic, combining dialogue, music, and lyrics performed via video conferencing platforms like Zoom. One of the first original zoomsicals, LAG: A Zoomsical Comedy, was created by Haddon Kime and premiered in May 2020.
Swamp Motel’s Online Escape Rooms: This London-based immersive theatre company adapted its productions for the digital realm by creating online escape room experiences like Plymouth Point and The Mermaid’s Tongue. These interactive narratives allowed audiences to engage in storytelling through video clues and internet sleuthing.
Extraordinary Bodies’ “Human”: An integrated circus company blending disabled and non-disabled performers, Extraordinary Bodies produced Human, a performance that captured pivotal life moments via circus skills and digital recordings, emphasizing personal narratives and inclusivity.
Kristina Wong, Sweatshop Overlord: This 2021 play by Kristina Wong, based on her experience organizing volunteers to sew masks during the pandemic, used comedy to address themes such as anti-Asian racism and the invisible labor of women and people of color. It was a finalist for the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.
Kaivalya Plays’ Open Space – Online Improv: Based in Delhi, this theatre company hosted weekly online improvisation sessions during the lockdown, allowing participants from around the world to join in. Over 700 people attended these sessions, fostering a global community of performers and audiences.

These examples illustrate the adaptability and innovation of the theatre community in response to unprecedented challenges. By using digital platforms, artists maintained audience engagement and expanded the boundaries of performance art.

With respect to online theatre, Ukrainian researcher Anna Kurinnaya poses an important question: “Is online theatre a new phenomenon for theatre? Or is it rather a revival of a once‑forgotten tradition of television performances, which over time was sidelined by declining artistic quality and low unprofitable ratings?” (86). Online theatre clearly shares many traits with television theatre, yet it represents a qualitatively different phenomenon, offering a distinct perspective on what theatre art can become.

*The Poltergeist* by Philip Ridley – Joseph Potter, Wiebke Green, livestream one-man play. Illustration: Joseph Potter

In 2007, Nadja Masura, University of Maryland, defended her dissertation, entitled Digital Theatre: A “Live” and Mediated Art Form Expanding Perceptions of Body, Place, and Community. In her work, Masura examined how digital technologies, such as animation, video, motion capture/sensing, and internet broadcasting are used together with live actors and in‑person audiences to produce a hybrid form of theatre. As she explained, “Digital theatre is a type of theatre that uses both ‘live’ actors and audiences with digital media to create a hybrid art form that brings theatre to life for modern audiences.” Technologies used in her performances included video conferencing, media projection, MIDI control, motion capture, VR animation and AI.

Unlike traditional live or online theatre, digital theatre encompasses not only live-streamed performances but also productions specifically designed with computational tools, virtual environments, motion capture, and immersive technologies such as virtual and augmented reality. Its defining features include the technological integration of software, cameras, and digital scenography; the hybridization of physical and virtual performance elements; global accessibility that allows audiences from diverse geographical locations to engage with the work; and interactive components that enable spectators to participate directly through digital interfaces. Moreover, the use of digital instruments fosters innovative narrative and aesthetic strategies, expanding the possibilities of visual, spatial, and temporal experimentation. In sum, digital theatre constitutes an emergent phase in the evolution of the performing arts, where the concept of liveness is reconceived and audience engagement can occur across multiple, technologically mediated dimensions.

The use of digital techniques and new technologies has a long tradition on the stage. Pioneers like Erwin Piscator and Josef Svoboda experimented extensively with projections, movable screens, light effects, optical illusions and kinetic stage machinery to transform theatrical space (Grecea). These early experiments anticipated many of the possibilities digital theatre offers today. Digital theatre has opened new opportunities and motivations for modern theatre artists, for example, the ability to combine and even blur roles and actors, redefine or multiply places of action, visualize scenes in multiple layers, and stretch the boundaries of scenography and narrative.

Online theatre can be seen as a hybrid between television theatre and digital theatre. It sits uneasily between theatre and film, because it both borrows from and violates the canons or traditions of each. It inherits elements from TV/the broadcast medium but transforms them by introducing or at least attempting live performance, presence and immediacy, and by relying on the Internet and virtual modes of dissemination.

*A Killer Party- A Murder Mystery Musical* (2020) – Jason Howland, Nathan Tysen, Kait Kerrigan, Rachel Axler. Poster

A Mexican scholar and culture expert, Monica Bajonero Diaz, called this process theatrical diffusion. As she observes, “Now a new stage language is being formed which will allow theatre to find new channels for and ways of disseminating performances. During the period of theatrical diffusion, theatre is looking for new platforms to reach the audience.”

In remote or virtual‑mode performances, actors often perform in front of cameras using theatrical techniques; role‑playing is fragmented or episodic rather than continuous, since performances may be edited, paused, or staged in segments. Professional directors and cameramen, even if not trained as filmmakers, take on technical roles; lighting, camera angles, editing, and scenography are designed differently for screen rather than stage. Audiences view these productions on computer or smartphone screens, without the live shared atmosphere of a theatre house. The actors no longer receive applause in person, but feedback comes through virtual applause, comments, emojis, and online reactions. Extending this line of reasoning, theatre researcher Emiliia Dementzova has written, “Theatres and theatre practitioners should choose the best tools for streaming and other online projects. Each platform has its advantages and disadvantages, both artistically and practically. Reaching out and connecting with your audience is more important today than ever. Thanks to the new challenge, there is a chance now for theatres to attract the attention of audiences who previously preferred other theatres” (34).

However, the main priority of theatre, the process of energy exchange, is lost in online theatre. This unique moment of interaction which defines live theatre is compromised. Because the director and cameraman provide a fixed perspective, the audience is forced to accept what is offered. The audience can no longer express emotion and feedback live, since it too has moved into the virtual space. What will happen in the future? It’s hard to say, and only time will tell. Yet this new fusion of expressive methods from theatre and cinema, known as online theatre, is taking shape before our very eyes.

Conclusion

In the digital age, the notion of authentic theatre must be understood, not as a fixed category, but rather as a dynamic interplay between theatre’s enduring values and the technological innovations that increasingly shape its modes of production and reception. Authenticity no longer resides exclusively in the physical co-presence of actors and spectators within a single space, but rather in the preservation of theatre’s core principles: the immediacy of presence, the reciprocity between performers and audience, the embodied voice and gesture, and the shared temporality of performance.

Online theatre, particularly as it was performed both during and after the pandemic, has demonstrated its ability to safeguard many of these values, most notably narrative force, symbolic expression and new forms of audience engagement. However, it cannot fully replace live performance. The irreplaceable energy of corporeal presence, the resonance of the unmediated voice and the sensory atmosphere generated by live spectatorship remain beyond the reach of digital mediation. Online theatre thus supplements, but cannot replace, the live art form.

The convergence of digital and traditional practices has given rise to new forms and audiences. Hybrid theatre in particular has emerged as a key phenomenon, integrating classical drama with non-verbal forms, virtual scenography and interactive elements. Such hybridity is not eclectic but organic, reflecting the evolving aesthetics of a post-pandemic theatre. New audiences have also appeared, especially younger generations more attuned to digital culture, diasporic communities reconnecting through streamed performances and spectators previously excluded from theatre due to geographical or physical constraints. The Georgian and post-Soviet theatre landscape offers illuminating examples of this global trend. These practices illustrate that despite the allure of technological novelty, the classical dramatic tradition and digitally inspired performances coexist harmoniously within the repertoires of contemporary theatres.

In sum, the digital turn has not erased the authenticity of theatre but instead has reframed it. Live performance remains central, irreplaceable and vital, while digital innovations expand the expressive vocabulary of the stage. The resulting synthesis, what practitioners increasingly call hybrid theatre, unites technological and artistic achievements into a coherent whole, ensuring theatre’s continual renewal at the very moments when its future seems most uncertain.

Endnotes

^[1] In 2020, the International Association of Theatre Critics hosted an international conference titled Theatre Online, bringing together theatre practitioners and theorists from across the globe. Most speakers used the term online theatre in two primary contexts: a.to refer to video recordings of productions staged prior to the pandemic and later streamed online; and b.to describe performances created and premiered remotely during the pandemic. See more here. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

^[2] The first television productions were based on “Armchair Theatre,” which was broadcast on British Television in the form of an anthology series in 1956-1972.

^[3] A Killer Party: A Murder Mystery Musical is a digital remotely performed musical created in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Wikipedia+2Music Theatre International+2. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Bibliography

A Killer Party: A Murder Mystery Musical is a digital remotely performed musical created in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Wikipedia+2Music Theatre International+2 Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Bariso, Justin. “After the Pandemic Ends, the World Will Be Different (Interview with Bill Gates).” Inc., 10 Apr. 2020.

Chavchavadze, Ilya. Letters on Theatre. Edited by Maya Kiknadze, Tbilisi, 2021.

Chkhartishvili, Lasha. “War and Contemporary Georgian Theatre.” MDPI, vol. 12, no. 6, 2023.

Dailes teātra direkcija. “Dailes teātra mērķi.” Latvijas Vēstnesis, 19 Nov. 1920, p. 3.

Damentsova, Emillya. “Theatre During Self‑Isolation: Danger as Opportunity.” Materials of the International Scientific Online Conference Theatre Online, 11 May 2020.

Diaz, M. B. “Theatre Has No Certainties: Reflections from Confinement.” Materials of the International Scientific Online Conference THEATRE ONLINE, 11 May 2020.

“Digital Theatre.” Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities, University of Maryland. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Grecea, Olivia. The use of virtual images in performing arts. The Center for Imagination Studies, 22.06.2012.

Kairišs, Viesturs. “Stage Director’s Annotation.” Performance Program, Daile Theatre, 2025.

Kurinnaya, Anna. Online Theatre. 2003, p. 86.

London Theatre. London Theatre. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Marjanishvili, Kote. Letters about Theatre. Theatrical Messenger, vol. 5, no. 69, 1972.

———. “Theatre and Live,” About Theatre, Magazine vol. 3-4, no. 4, 2011.

Masura, Nadja Linnine. Digital Theatre: A “Live” and Mediated Art Form Expanding Perceptions of Body, Place, and Community. University of Maryland, College Park, 2007.

“mith.umd.edu.” MITH at UMD. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Mosse, Ramona, Documenting Viral Theatres, 28 Oct, 2022. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

“museum-joanneum.at.” Museum Joanneum. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Ridley, Philip, The Poltergeist (play) London Theatre+3Βικιπαίδεια+3 Accessed 11. Oct. 2025.

Robert Wilson Video Portraits, 15 May 2020, Apollo Magazine+2museum-joanneum.at+2. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Sapnis vasaras naktī Dailes teātrī.” Filma un Skatuve, no. 56, 26 Sept. 1931, p. 568.

Shakespeare, William. Tragedies. Translated by Ivane Machabli, vol. 3, Tbilisi, 1953.

Tavadze, Data. “Data Tavadze’s Recommendations.” Hammock Magazine, 2 Apr. 2020. Accessed 15 Mar. 2022.

Theatre Online 2020. International Online Scholarly Conference Almaty, Baku, Tbilisi, 2020.

ViralTheatres.org. Viral Theatres. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

“vanabbemuseum.nl.” van Abbe Museum. Accessed 11 Oct. 2025.

*Marine (Maka) Vasadze is a Doctor of Arts and Associate Professor at the Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Film State University of Georgia, A member of the Georgian section of the International Association of Theatre Critics (IATC), she founded and chairs the union Culture of Theatre, culture and art workers in Georgia, edited the newspaper Culture (2005‑2009), and has authored, edited, or compiled several monographs, textbooks and teaching materials.

**Lasha Chkhartishvili is Doctor of Arts and Associate Professor at the Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Film State University of Georgia, founder of the Modern Georgian Theatre Research Centre and the Digital Archive theatrelife.ge. He is Vice President of the International Association of Theatre Critics, member of IUTA. He has authored multiple monographs and hundreds of reviews. He publishes widely in international journals, and has received several national awards for theatre criticism.