Özet:

It is very well known that avant-garde art discussions are still on the agenda in academic surroundings. The term “avant-garde” is mainly used in the sense of pioneerand beingassertive.Althoughthediscussionsarestillonthetable,itis quite possible to portrait the Avant-garde within a frame. The feature that can be seen as the most introspective in this framework is that one side of the Avangard destroys while the other side builds on instead of the other. This situation is vital in terms of its contribution and change of the development of the avant-garde no matter what kind of art it is. Moscow Art Theater, filled a large gap and contributed to the recognition and production of authors like Chekhov as well as contributing to the theater itself. Even today, Stanislavski, who founded the Moscow Art Theater with Danchenco, is still discussed in his interaction with the theater. Meyerhold, Tairov and Vakhtangov, who are also one of the first students and directors of the Moscow Art Theatre, have made numerous contributions to the theater since then, with their avant-garde theater ideas, which they put forward by opposing each other's theater ideas, especially their teacher Stanislavski’s. In the light of this information, when the world theater history is examined, the development expected from Turkish Theater in its orientation to the western form, has not been achieved, compared with other countries. The establishment of the Moscow Art Theater and the work of four directors can serve as a model for the development in Turkish theater through avant-garde examples. It will be explained how the theater progressed in a country like Turkey, a small part of it, is located in the European continent and the majority of it, is in the Asian continent, is likely open to an interaction from the west.

Anahtar Kelimeler: