In early 1990, Wojciech Krukowski became the director of the Centre for Contemporary Art at Ujazdowski Castle in Warsaw. Roughly twenty years earlier – in 1973 – he founded Akademia Ruchu [the Academy of Movement], one of the leading companies of Polish “alternative theatre” or – if you wish – the “young theatre” or “open theatre.”² In 1990, a group of friends led by Krzysztof Czyzewski formed Fundacja “Pogranicze” [the “Borderland” Foundation], and a year later “Pogranicze – sztuk, kultur, narodow” [the Centre “Borderland – of Arts, Cultures, and Nations”], located in Sejny. At that time, Krzysztof Czyzewski had to his credit already several years of work as an actor and organiser at Osrodek Praktyk Teatralnych “Gardzienice” [the Centre for Theatre Practices “Gardzienice”], a degree in Polish from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, work as an organiser at a cultural centre in the Winogrady housing development in Poznan and in the village of Czarna Dabrowka in Bory Tucholskie.³

The year 1991 saw the beginning of the activity of Osrodek Badan Muzykologicznych i Kulturowych Europy Srodkowo-Wschodniej [the Centre for Musicological and Cultural Research of Central-Eastern Europe] and Fundacja “Muzyka Kresow” [“Music of the Borderland” Foundation] in Lublin managed by Jan Bernad and Monika Maminska. Jan Bernad – like Krzysztof Czyzewski – had previously spent a few years with the “Gardzienice” company and earlier had participated in workshops at Teatr Laboratorium [the Laboratory Theatre] in Wroclaw. After leaving “Gardzienice,” he sang in Orthodox choirs and, for several years together with a group of friends, sang Christmas carols in the Lemko country [Poland’s south-eastern borderlands].

This centre’s task is to study and cultivate the musical culture of the former Commonwealth of Both Nations [Poland and Lithuania].⁴ On January 1, 1990, the Centre for Study of Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and for Cultural and Theatrical Research was founded in Wroclaw at the premises of Teatr Laboratorium which dissolved in 1984. There, in the years 1985-1989, existed Drugie Studio Wroclawskie [the Wroclaw Second Studio], founded and managed by Zbigniew Cynkutis – one of Grotowski’s leading actors. After Cynkutis’ tragic death in 1987, Miroslaw Kocur directed the remaining group of young actors and students.

Those activities did not satisfy the ambitions of the art circles and municipal government, and in 1989, the Studio was closed down, to leave place to the Centre for Study of Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and for Cultural and Theatrical Research. I was asked to manage it. In June of 1989, I proposed a program for the Centre. I ran the Centre for seventeen months, and in June 1991, Stanislaw Krotoski became the general director while I remained at the Centre as its “artistic and scholarly director.”⁵

Krotoski had been involved for many years with Wroclaw’s Teatr Kalambur [the Kalambur Theatre] (as an actor and in the 1980s also as a co-director). He also coorganised International Festivals of Open Theatre in Wroclaw. The four cultural centres mentioned, whose foundation and first activities date back to the late 1980s – early 1990s, are probably the best known. Undoubtedly, each one differs in its character, but they all possess certain common features among which the following deserve attention:

1) They were created by people who in their activities did not identify themselves with the so-called official, dominant, culture and the values it promoted. Their attitude towards those values was for the most part critical or extremely critical.

2) They perform creative functions combining cognitive and educational tasks, and frequently research programs with artistic and aesthetic concerns, contrary to a tradition of separating “beauty” from “truth” and “goodness” prevailing in our culture. Thus, we can talk here about aiming to attain something that the Greeks referred to as kalokagathia describing a particular unity of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness. A consequence of this is themultifunctional character of the centres’ activities (postulated as well as accomplished).

3) They are all original creations.

4) One of their basic aims is to stand for values absent in the official (dominant) culture – ones that are usually fought against, omitted and marginalised by that culture.

***

This text does not aim at promotion or self-promotion. You can learn about our goals, our accomplishments over the last four years, current events, and future plans from our informational materials. Maybe some of you have come into personal contact with some aspects of our activities.

I do not intend to discuss here the importance of Grotowski’s accomplishments for, and not only for the theatre. This subject has its own extensive literature in many languages. However, the universal awareness of Grotowski’s inspiring influence in many areas of contemporary culture, is in today Poland still unnoticed and understood only by a few. This has been one of the reasons for creating the Centre at “Wroclaw, Rynek-Ratusz 27,” and constitutes an important impulse for all our activities.

I will use examples of our own activities because, obviously, I know this best. Having done this work for almost five years, I feel the need to rationalise my experience in its entirety, and to make myself and others aware of its consequences for today and in a longer perspective. An official document⁶ describes the tasks of the Centre for Study of Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and for Cultural and Theatrical Research:

“We document, research, and popularise the creative work of Jerzy Grotowski, its sources, its influence, and reception. In time, the Centre should develop into a world centre for documentation and information that will inspire research, particularly with respect to the work of Jerzy Grotowski and his Laboratory Theatre, serving those representing various scholarly and artistic disciplines and other interested persons.

“The Centre’s public activities include organising:

• presentations (preference being given to artists who refer – also polemically – to Grotowski and his Teatr Laboratorium);
• seminars and workshops;
• internships/residencies;
• exhibitions;
• meetings;
• video sessions (including “Theatre Cinema” – since October 1991).

“The Centre publishes the periodicalNotatnik Teatralny [Theatrical Notebook] (since June 1991).

“The Centre seeks all kinds of materials and documents related to Grotowski himself, his associates, interns, students, followers, ideological heirs, polemicists, and adversaries throughout the world.”

As far as the Centre’s “internal activities” are concerned, we focus on the development and organisation of our collection (very diverse and multi-lingual), its preservation and restoration, preparation of catalogues and materials for bibliographies, dictionaries and other publications, as well as servicing and documenting events organised by the Centre.

We also participate in conferences devoted to Grotowski’s work, usually accompanied by presentations of our documentary films. Such conferences take place primarily in theatrical and academic circles in various countries. Obviously, all these aspects, like connected vessels, directly reflect the Centre’s multi-functional pursuits.

Perhaps the Centre’s basic task is to build bridges:

• between art and scholarly investigation;
• between the past and the ancient past, and the contemporary, which looks ahead to the future;
• between people of different nationalities and cultures.

Expressed in words, this may sound too general and unconvincing. However, in practice, there exist concrete actions and correlations between them. For that reason, I once called it “practised humanities,” referring to our (and my) own activities, as “practising humanities in a particular manner.” I will give an example to clarify this. In November 1993, we organised an international, interdisciplinary conference, Herman Hesse – Writer and Phenomenon. It lasted three days – over a weekend as usual to make the event accessible to those outside Wroclaw and its vicinity. It was already the eighteenth conference we had organised. I will quote here a comment from one of the participants:

“When Jerzy Grotowski was active in Wroclaw, his theatrical-cultural Laboratory attracted a great number of young people searching for their own place in art, and maybe even for something broader: fulfilment in life. Something of that character has remained today even if Grotowski works in Pontedera and the Laboratory ceased to exist ten years ago. […] One could see it during last week’s conference. […] The interest exceeded by far the organiser’s expectations. At the last moment, the meeting was transferred to the Centre’s biggest room. The showing of a biographical film on Hesse had to be repeated and still some viewers had to watch it standing. […] The formula of such meetings at the Centre has proven right. They differ from the not very attractive academic standards. They are intended to be interdisciplinary. They are also open in the sense that the same equal right of access is being given to theoreticians and practitioners, specialists with academic status and self-taught experts, or those who for some other reason also have something important to say on the discussed topic.

For these as well as other reasons, I found the conference devoted to Hesse and his work lively and attractive. Hesse’s phenomenon – as we should call it– was presented and interpreted from different points of view, in various contexts. […] For myself, I can say that I have not participated in a meeting so interesting, inspiring, and educational for a long time.”⁷

The quote calls for comment. When Teatr Laboratorium was active, such meetings were not organised. The University of Research of the Theatre of Nations in 1975, or meetings with Grotowski at the Laboratory premises or during the International Festivals of Open Theatre, were something altogether different: different people, contexts, and circumstances. Maybe only this intended interdisciplinary character has remained a common feature, although, obviously then, it manifested itself in an entirely different manner. Next, I will address the “openness” referred to in the quote. I have to say that at the universities, it remains a practically unattainable goal, particularly with respect to the relationships between people. Having worked for thirty years at two Polish universities and having observed other academic institutions, I remain pessimistic that the openness alluded to by Tadeusz Burzynski could be within reach, apart from a few, remarkable exceptions.

Let us return to the triple “between” outlined earlier. For example, our Centre (and nowhere else) has hosted Anatoliy Vasilev and his School of Dramatic Art twice. Eugenio Barba’s Odin Teatret has visited us several times, and we organised a tour of this exquisite troupe to other cities. We must remember that prior to the foundation of the Centre in Wroclaw, Odin Teatret’s last visit to Poland took place in June 1980 and was limited to Jelenia Gora. We will never know the group’s several productions that entered theatre history during this eleven-year gap. We also did not have timely access to books by Barba and his associates. As for Anatoliy Vasilev, he never, before or afterwards, presented his performances in Poland, except at our Centre, because this particular place, as he never fails to mention, has a special meaning for him. I would like to point to one more “between” aspect: the relation between the so-called “repertoire theatre” and “theatre of search.” Beginning in the early 1960s, several generations have allowed themselves to become sealed in one of these two major fortresses. As a result, one never spoke of the so-called “normal theatre” with someone from Gardzienice or from Teatr Osmego Dnia [the Theatre of Eighth Day] and no self-respecting actor of any Warsaw theatre would go see a performance by Odin Teatret or Teatr Osmego Dnia considering them “amateur” without degrees from dramatic schools. Those “professional” actors would take offence at the suggestion that they might actually learn something if they went. Rare exceptions (who usually happen to be outstanding creative individuals) only confirm what has almost become a rule.

Therefore, I would like to remember the conference The Theatre of Jerzy Jarocki held at the Centre (April 29-30, 1992), with the participation of the outstanding Jarocki and those studying his work, as well as a session with Erwin Axer (October 24, 1992). We are currently organising a conference on the creative output of Jerzy Grzegorzewski. Our Centre has also hosted two meetings with Peter Brook (December 11, 1991), and a conference on Tadeusz Kantor (January 16-18, 1992). After his residency at the Centre, Yuri Krasovsky, the director and teacher from the Institute of Music, Theatre, and Cinema in St. Petersburg, was invited by Teatr Wspolczesny [the Contemporary Theatre] in Wroclaw to direct a performance later received as one of the best on that stage. These are all examples of “bridgebuilding” – actions undertaken in the “between” territory. Without ostentation but with full awareness, we initiated our “public activities” with a presentation of the achievements of the Moscow School of Dramatic Art headed by Anatoliy Vasilev. To undertake such an action at that time (April 1990) meant to go against the tide, despite the fact that at stake were the last three performances of the already famous staging of Pirandello’sSix Characters in Search of an Author. During a scholarly session accompanying the performance, the director spoke of what Russia and “Russian character” meant for him; their basic importance for his art became apparent to us all. At the Centre, nationalities and cultures do not constitute barriers between people. On the contrary, they incite mutual curiosity and facilitate understanding. Maybe this explains why people from various places in Poland and the world keep coming here. Somehow, it happens to be “on their way…” I would like to quote an excerpt form Tadeusz Burzynski’s account of a meeting with Odin Teatret on September 28, 1993:

“I have never seen such a crowd at the Grotowski Centre. People swarmed on chairs, benches, and the floor, literally pressing Eugenio Barba, his actor, and musicians against the wall. For the last conference and the farewell performance of Kaosmos we were joined by guests arrived from Austria and Ukraine. I also noticed high school students for a theatre class in Klodzko. I met friends from Poznan.

With Barba’s consent, and thanks to the openness of his actors, we found ourselves inside the team working on a performance. […] It is impossible to present here this entire extraordinary encounter, which as one could easily sense, became a true creative adventure and an unusual lesson not only for the young. When I watched Kaosmos again that evening, I began to notice details I had never even suspected existed while watching it for the first time.”⁸

However, it also happens that there are fewer than twenty people in the room and sometimes there could be only a few present. For example, this was the case during the conference Konstantin Stanislavsky and Mikhail Chekhov. It does not mean that the presence of a few is less important for us than the attendance of a hundred or more. We try not to think in these categories. I would like to recall once more the testimony of Tadeusz Burzynski included in his June 1992 text titled “Zrodlo” [The Source]:

“During these difficult years for culture, Wroclaw has gained a unique institution – The Centre for Study of Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and for Cultural and Theatrical Research. Some wittily jokingly called itGrotoleum. The name suggests a scholarly, elite, and closed character of the centre. […] significant part of the work performed there [...] remains of that kind. Nevertheless, many projects undertaken by the Grotowski Centre are addressed to a rather wide range of theatre people, and those interested in theatre. The centre has taken a role of a particular open university – an institution one can use to broaden the knowledge of theatre, its varied cultural backgrounds, its thresholds as a discipline, and about numerous innovative attempts in it. [...] This proposition contains original projects unattainable anywhere else in Poland.”⁹

Although nobody talks about it, running the Centre undoubtedly involves some kind of a theatre director’s touch. For example, certain talents of the director are required while selecting a topic or event, choosing whom to involve, coordinating individual elements to the last detail (and details, as everybody knows, are of particular importance). One also needs to predict and construct “dramatic tensions,” or deal with spatial composition including lighting, editing, etc. When I say that the work of the centres focuses around its leader, I do not mean that all their activities are controlled by one person. What I have in mind is that everything created and happening is related to individual people, their professional and spiritual needs, interests, passions, initiative, and ability to deliver.

In our case, all planned activities are first discussed. With Stanislaw Krotoski, we make an initial analysis: what does it mean for the Centre? could we accomplish it? when? what resources are necessary? and so on. It is up to me to present proposals for the majority of events, but in some cases, inspiration comes from somebody else. For example, Dni Teatru Tadeusza Kantora [The Days of Tadeusz Kantor’s Theatre] and Sympozjum Kantorowskie [Kantor’s Symposium] would not have happened without Krotowski’s ingenuity and commitment. Likewise, the visit of Teatro Vivo from Guatemala would not have occurred without the prior recommendation by Dr. Juliusz Tyszka. These are only a few selected examples.

***

The centres of the 1990s are multi-functional. The seemingly most important functions performed by each of them relate to the following aspects: cognitive, aesthetic and artistic, educational, inspirational, promotional, cultural, and integrative.

The seven functions enumerated here do not exhaust all possibilities. A detailed analysis of the resulting issues is beyond the scope of this text that – due to the current stage of reflection – is limited to an introductory systematisation very general in nature.

Thus, out of necessity, I will point out certain issues only. Examples of the centres’ inspirational influence are those theatre establishments in which the preparation and stagings are accompanied by broader cultural activities. This happens, for example, in the Teatr Osmego Dnia, Osrodek Praktyk Teatralnych “Gardzienice,” or Teatr Wiejski Wegajty [the Wegajty Village Theatre]. In addition, the activities of Warsaw’s Centrum Sztuki “Studio” [“Studio” Centre for Art] and Cracow’s Stary Teatr [Old Theatre] have included (for the last two years) public sessions with artists in addition to exhibitions and publications. The monthly periodical Teatr published transcripts of those meetings.

One can presume that the most important reason behind such undertakings is an awareness that today a performance alone, even an exquisite one, is not enough. Therefore there is a perceived necessity (probably in all disciplines of art) to search for other kinds of contact with potential and actual viewers either alongside the performance or outside of it. Probably it is not accidental that such activities, whether “accompanying” or “external,” are conducted in a relatively systematic manner precisely by the institutions that have, for a long time, played a leading role in Polish theatre.

Mutually inspiring is also the direct co-operation between the centres, most apparent in co-ordination of similar events. A conference on Carl Gustav Jung is one of many examples. First, the conference materialised at our Centre (October 1991) and then at the Centrum Sztuki Wspolczesnej (called Jungian Conference) two years later with mostly the same speakers.10 The consecutive Polish visits of Odin Teatret, customarily hosted by the two centres mentioned and Teatr Osmego Dnia, serves as another example. Still other examples are the presentations staged by Centrum Sztuki Wspolczesnej and Osrodek “Pogranicze” at our premises, and the conference Creative Work of Jerzy Grotowski held at Centrum Sztuki Wspolczesnej (June 6-8, 1993) as well as my lectures and a presentation of films on Grotowski in Sejny. A particularly important task of the centres is what I have termed their “cultural function.” It consists, among other things, in their being complementary in relation to the dominant culture and values realised by representative of that culture and on its behalf. The centres are to provide some sort of a counterweight for what is being brought about by them official culture. I would like to recall here the words of Jerzy Grotowski, who on November 15, 1979, spoke about the consequences of such an attitude during a meeting commemorating the twentieth anniversary of Teatr Laboratorium’s existence in Wroclaw:

“The consequence of the principle of complementarity is that we do not propose global solutions or solutions at all. It is very important we do not perceive our solutions as universal. We assume that for a culture to be fruitful, it has to be diverse, and that a uniform culture is dead.”¹¹

I absolutely share this view. As far as our Centre and my personal role in it are concerned, I have to confirm our full awareness of this complementarity which we try to attain, in our own way and according to our capabilities. In that sense, I regard myself as an heir to the tradition of Teatr Laboratorium, at the same time recognising that while we conduct our activities at the same place, what we do at the Centre is something altogether different – different people, contexts, etc. I have not yet become a megalomaniac and I think I have always recognised the significance of what Grotowski and his Teatr Laboratorium accomplished in Wroclaw. It is precisely why, as a person responsible for the direction and quality of activities conducted by the Grotowski Centre, I do not see today the reasons for “micromania.” In my opinion, complementarity in relation to the official culture constitutes one of the basic duties of our Centre, and we fulfil it. For the other centres mentioned, it presents a challenge approached differently by each and with varying degrees of selfawareness. No one who seriously and responsibly embarks upon any cultural activity can avoid the question: By what myth does today’s man live? One of the few who dared to pose this question was Carl Gustav Jung, who also offered his own answer:

“‘Then do we no longer have any myth?’ ‘No, evidently we no longer have any myth.’ ‘But then what is your myth – the myth by which you live?’ At this point the dialogue with myself became uncomfortable, and I stopped thinking. I had reached a dead end.’”¹²

(I cannot help but agree with this diagnosis. But back to Jung…) “I have never counted upon any strong response, any powerful resonance, to my writings. They represent a compensation for our times, and I forced myself into the position of saying what no one wants to hear. For that reason, and especially at the beginning, I often felt utterly forlorn. I knew that what I said would be unwelcome, for it is difficult for people of our times to accept the counterweight to the conscious world. Today I can say that it is truly astonishing that I have had as much success as has been accorded me – far more than I ever could have expected. I have the feeling that I have done all that was possible for me to do. Naturally, one could do even more, even better, but it was not within my power.”¹³

I would like to address these words, uttered by a then old man, and, as he wished, published after his death, to my colleagues and myself so that we do not lose strength and courage on our paths.

After several years of experience, I feel that the direction is right and what we do is meaningful. However, I do not know for how long one can travel this path without slipping into routine and superficiality. I also do not know whether we will succeed. Probably, we will not. I shall quote here a remark made by Juliusz Osterwa when he was founding the Reduta Theatre:

“If we do not get there, those who come after us will. Maybe we will see where the right way is.”¹⁴

This is precisely what seems to be one of the fundamental tasks of the centres in the period designated by the organisers of this conference as the “time of transition.” Others name it “the deep metamorphosis of culture,” “the culture of synthesis,” or something still different.¹⁵ If the style of the author of Answer to Job or that of Juliusz Osterwa seem offensive to somebody’s taste, I would like to remind them that, whether one likes it or not, “archetypes speak the language of high rhetoric, even of bombast.”¹⁶ That is simply their nature.

Krzysztof Czyzewski summarised his experience in “Pogranicze”:

“One may say that what we do in Sejny is a laboratory of sorts, where we search for new forms of work and cultural as well as educational activity, new ways of animating life in our little homelands which would meet the challenges of our time. It is not easy. The resistance in enormous.”¹⁷

The author of the quoted article also states the need to create a workshop “which would prepare people to live in the borderland in the situation of openness and a chance for dignified coexistence.” It is important because “first of all, we are unprepared to face the reality which has suddenly emerged in front of us.”¹⁸

This “laboratory” tradition is very dear to me although the areas of the pursuits in Sejny and Wroclaw are very different. Therefore from the very start of our activities, I insisted that the Centre for Study of Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and for Cultural and Theatrical Research should become step by step “some kind of laboratory of practised humanities.”19After the experiences of this several year period – whatever the evaluation may be – I can only say it again.

***

Now comes the time for conclusions.

Undoubtedly, the centres have filled “vacant spaces,” which traditional cultural and academic establishments were incapable of filling. At the same time, it is obvious that none of the presently active centres can (or have the intention to) replace museums, theatres, universities, etc. However, it is also apparent that all of these centres (to different extents and each in its own way) fulfil at least some part of the functions of all these respectable institutions, thus revealing (whether deliberately or not) their limitations.

The essential characteristics of these centres of the 1990s are: complementarity in relation to the dominant culture; orientation towards dialogue; openness; “between”-type of activities; combining theory and practice; creating interpersonal communications of a type distinctly different for those in the official culture – more integral and comprehensive, appealing to a human being as a whole, independently of official hierarchies and social cliques. After all, the deep cultural needs of some people are not satisfied by academia, or by official art and related institutions. Nobody knows precisely how many people belong to this group. We do not collect any relevant statistical data, but our observations suggest that the number is big enough, and that such people can be found everywhere: in different circles, countries, and cities. In recent years, there seem to be more and more of them.

Even if they are a small minority, which is probably the case, we should remember that one of the fundamental criteria of real (not declared) tolerance is actualised respect for the rights and spiritual needs of minorities. Certainly, it is not the task of the centres to influence directly the activities of “such establishments as philharmonic orchestras or repertoire theatres.” It does not fall within our capabilities; that is obvious. But maybe, through our complementary activities, we can exert a certain amount of indirect influence upon these institutions as well, or at least upon some people associated with them – their awareness, their attitudes and quality of work, and so on – and this in turn could somehow radiate, or be contagious. It is very difficult to predict today what will happen to these centres in the future. It is certain that their work must be long-term, spread over several years if it is to create its own firm character that can be followed. The needs the centres try to address are to a large extent “eternal human needs.” Thus, if for some reason any of the centres terminates its activities, it is highly probable that sooner or later there will emerge somewhere a need to continue this work. It would be best if it happened out of a creative polemic, in its own way and at its own risk. But it can also happen that a centre will accomplish its tasks and then change into a “respectable” institution, becoming a caricature of the values it was founded to defend. One has to be careful not to find oneself in such situation.

Zbigniew Osinski

February 1994

Translated from Polish by Kris Salata with Kamil Piwko, proof-reading Teresa Kelley, translation edited by Grzegorz Ziolkowski. Wroclaw 2004.

1. Fragments of this text were presented as a paper on two occasions: first at the conference “Theatre Anthropology as an Event in the Borderland of Cultures” organised on November 20, 1993 by the Department of Theory and Anthropology of Literature at Institute of Polish Philology, Bialystok section of the Warsaw University and Provincial Centre for Animation of Cultural Activities; and during the international conference “Culture in the Times of Change” (February 2-5, 1994) organised by the Art Communications Committee in Poznan, in co-operation with Poznan’s Towarzystwo Przyjaciol Nauk.
2. See: “Akademia Ruchu” [“Movement Academy”], E. Wysinska, M. Semil,Slownik wspolczesnego teatru. Tworcy, teatry, teorie [A Dictionary of Contemporary Theatre: Creators, Theatres, Theories], second edition, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1991, p. 9-10;Centrum Sztuki Wspolczesnej – The Centre for Contemporary Art. Ujazdowski Castle. Information folder in Polish and in English.
3. “Fundacja Pogranicze. Osrodek Pogranicze – sztuk, kultur, narodow” [“Borderland Foundation: The Centre Borderland of Arts, Cultures, Nations”],Miesiecznik troche inny, 1991, no. 4 (5), p. 52-53; C. Kubaszewski, “Sejny, czyli centrum Europy. Zycie pograniczem” [“Sejny that is the Centre of Europe. To Live in the Borderland”], Polityka, March 21, 1992 (no. 12); A. Gornicka, “Miedzy prowincja a Europa. Mala ojczyzna to swiat” [“Between the Provinces and Europe: Small Fatherland is a World”],Kultura, June 1993, no. 6 (20), supplement to Polityka, June 26, 1993 (no. 26).
4. See: M. Stopa, “Pojdzmy wszyscy do Dubienki. Obrzedy weselne – sesja Fundacji ‘Muzyka Kresow’ w Dubience (12-15 lipca)” [“Let’s All Go to Dubienka: Wedding Rituals – Session of ‘Muzyka Kresow’ Foundation in Dubienka (July 12-15)”], Gazeta Wyborcza, March 3, 1993, no. 179.
5. See: T. Buski [Burzynski], “Pozegnanie Teatru Laboratorium” [“Farewell to the Laboratory Theatre”], Sprawy i Ludzie, February 2, 1984; “Przed sadem ostatecznym” [“At the Last Judgement”], interview with Zbigniew Cynkutis, director of the Wroclaw Second Studio, interviewer: Zdzislaw Smektala,Tu i Teraz, February 13, 1985, no. (7); K. Sielicki “Wobec tradycji” [“Facing Tradition”], Teatr, 1986, no. 5; T. Buski [Burzynski], “Katastrofa” [“A Disaster”], Sprawy i Ludzie, January 15, 1987, no. 2, p. 10; T. Buski [Burzynski], “Fantazja i rzeczywistosc” [“Fantasy and Reality”], Sprawy i Ludzie, February 19, 1987, no. 7; T. Buski [Burzynski], “Glos do protokolu” [“Voice to Protocol”], Sprawy i Ludzie, April 2, 1987, no. 13; “Spotkanie z DSW. Isc dalej ta droga...” [“Meeting with the Wroclaw Second Studio. To Go Further This Way”], interview with Tadeusz Nestorowicz, interviewer: Alina Sachanbinska,Wieczor Wroclawia, May 17, 1987, no. 94; T. Buski [Burzynski], “Genius loci”,Sprawy i Ludzie, June 4, 1987, no. 22; T. Burzynski, “Grotowski – wielkosc nieurojona”, [“Grotowski – Unimaginary Magnitude”],Sprawy i Ludzie, May 12, 1988, no. 19, reprinted in: Jerzy Grotowski, Teksty z lat 1965-1969 [Texts from the years 1965-1969], selected and ed: J. Degler, Z. Osinski, second edition (revised and enlarged), Wroclaw: “Wiedza o Kulturze”, 1990, p. 182-188; R. Rozycki, “Koniec Drugiego Studia Wroclawskiego [“The End of the Wroclaw Second Studio”],Slowo Polskie, July 5, 1989; R. Praszynski, “Epitafium dla Drugiego Studia Wroclawskiego” [“Epitaph for the Wroclaw Second Studio: Game Over. June 1989”], Konferencje (Wroclaw) 1989, no. 1 (3); M. Kocur, “Wokol Drugiego Studia Wroclawskiego. Do przyjaciela Henryka Koczana” [“Around the Wroclaw Second Studio: To the Friend Henryk Koczan”], Informator Kulturalny, 1989, no. 11; H. Koczan, “Wokó?Drugiego Studia Wroclawskiego. Przyjacielowi w odpowiedzi”, [“Around the Wroclaw Second Studio: Answer to the Friend”],Informator Kulturalny, 1989, no. 11; K. Kucharski, “Po Laboratorium, po Drugim Studiu” [“After the Laboratory, After the Second Studio”],Magazyn Tygodniowy, no. 46, supplement to Gazeta Robotnicza, November 17, 1989, no. 266; “Teatr” [“Theatre”], Zycie Literackie, November 26, 1989, no. 47; “Tydzien w kulturze” [“Week in Culture”],Przekroj, December 3, 1989, no. 2319; A. Lis, “W teatralnym Wroclawiu. Dokumentacje i inspiracje” [“In Theatrical Wroclaw: Documentation and Inspirations”], Trybuna Ludu, December, 16-17,1989, no. 292; T. Buski (Burzynski), “Miejsce po Grotowskim“ [“A Place after Grotowski”], Sprawy i Ludzie, January 4, 1990, no. 1; R. Rozycki, “Nie ma DSW – jest Osrodek Badan. Kuszaca (?) niewiadoma” [“The Wroclaw Second Studio is No More – There is The Centre for Study. Seducing (?) Unknown”], Slowo Polskie, January 6-7, 1990, no. 5; T. Burzynski, “Osrodek Grotowskiego” [“The Grotowski Centre”], Kalendarz Wroclawski, 1991, p. 111-113; R. R[ozycki], “Zywy czy Martwy? Osrodek Badan Tworczosci Jerzego Grotowskiego i Poszukiwan Teatralno-Kulturowych – w tym roku” [“Alive or Dead? The Centre for Study of Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and for Cultural and Theatrical Research – This Year”,Slowo Polskie, January 19-20, 1991, no. 16.
6. Internal document of the Grotowski Centre, 1992, published inOsrodek Badan Tworczosci i Poszukiwan Teatralno-Kulturowych – The Centre of Studies on Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and of the Cultural and Theatrical Research 1990- 1994 (the chronicle of the Centre’s activity), Wroclaw, 1995.
7. T. Burzynski, “Hesse – kontestujacy wedrowiec” [“Hesse – Rebelling Wanderer”],Gazeta Robotnicza, October 10-11, 1993, no. 16.
8. T. Burzynski, “Pozegnanie z Odin Teatret” [“Farewell to Odin Teatret”],Gazeta Robotnicza, February 29, 1992, no. (49).
9. T. Burzynski, “Zrodlo” [“Source”],Gazeta Robotnicza, October 1, 1993, no. 49.
10. See: E. Czerwinska, “Jung wiecznie mlody” [“Jung Forever Young”],Gazeta Wyborcza, December, 3, 1993, no. 282.
11. J. Grotowski, “Teatr Laboratorium po dwudziestu latach. Hipoteza robocza” [“The Laboratory Theatre after Twenty Years: Working Hypothesis”], Polityka, January 28, 1980, no. 4.
12. C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, recording and edition: A. Jaffe, translation from German: Richard and Clara Winston, New York: Vintage Books, 1974, p. 171.
13. Ibidem, p. 222.
14. From a letter to Wladyslaw Orkan, Warsaw, October 1, 1919, in: Juliusz Osterwa,Listy [Letters], introduction: Jerzy Zawieyski; letters assembled by E. Osterwianka; ed.: E. Krasinski, Warsaw: PIW, 1968.
15. See: J. Prokopiuk, “Zmian kodu. Glosa” [“Change of Code. The Gloss”],Kultura, February 1992, no. 2 (4), supplement to Polityka, February 29, 1992, no. 9.
16. C. G. Jung, op. cit., p. 178.
17. K. Czyzewski, “Z perspektywy Siedmiogrodu” [“From the Perspective of Siedmiogrod”],Polska Sztuka Ludowa. Konteksty, 1993, no. 3-4, p. 14.
18. Ibidem.
19. See: Z. Osinski, “Osrodek Badan Tworczosci i Poszukiwan Teatralno-Kulturowych – Wroclaw. Projekt zalozen programowych, Wroclaw 21 czerwca 1989” [“The Centre for Study of Jerzy Grotowski’s Work and for Cultural and Theatrical Research – Wroclaw. A Program Proposal, Wroclaw, June 21, 1989”; E. Han, “Laboratorium praktykowanej humanistyki” [“A Laboratory of Practised Humanities”],Slowo Polskie, May 12-13, 1990; “Teatr poszukujacy – to zarazem alternatywa i dopelnienie kultury oficialnej. Na innym biegunie” [“Theatre which Searches is an Alternative and Supplement to Official Culture: On the Other Pole”] – an interview with Zbigniew Osinski and Stanislaw Krotoski, interviewer: M. Peczak, Kultura, June 1993, no. 6 (20), supplement to Polityka, June 26, 1993; S. Krotoski, Z. Osinski, “Na innym biegunie” [“On the Other Pole”], a letter to the editor,Polityka, August 14, 1993, no. 33.