After presenting, I realized how fragmentary and unorganized my thoughts were about what I am doing. It was obviously difficult for the critics to give good feedback when the project was not clearly presented to them. Dragana said that I should maybe do a traditional theater, Blough said to stick with Artaud. I agree with Blough on this issue because otherwise, I think the project will lose some of its potential provocativeness. So in order to simplify, I am going to just ask the simple question: "how can the 4th wall be broken architecturally?". Marc, I agree with your thoughts of the proscenium. The reason I was putting it in was to still differentiate between what is stage and backstage. I realize now that this may be of secondary importance right now. The question that remains for me to solve is how the original character of the space can be kept while still allowing for the support structure needed for both actors and spectators in the theater. Over the weekend I will work on schemes that I believe may be able to use architecture to break the 4th wall in a simple way that will not clutter the main space left by the void of the switch box.