Rather than 'art for art's sake', it appears that theatre is most effective when understood as an amalgamation of 'art' and 'life'. From this, McConachie ultimately makes the overarching contention that "the differences between fact and fiction [life and art] for humans can only ever be normative [relative], never absolute"8. Such a mixing of domains is precisely the objective of both anarchist and futurist plays, and whilst the anarchists' success in this regard was often inhibited by their individualistic inclinations away from collectivity, the ideologically-united futurists were arguably much more successful at undermining preconceived definitions of 'life' and 'art'. .
Part of the anarchists limited success was due to a fundamental tension, as Whitaker asserts "a contradiction between the needs and rights of the individual and the needs and rights of the collective"9. An inherent inclination away from collective ideological organisation meant that the critical reception to anarchist theatre of the Belle Epoque often overlooked or underestimated the radical nature of their messages. This is symbolised in Octave Mirbeau, who had to perform a continual balancing act with his plays: on the one hand, they had to convey his deeply radical anarchist messages, whilst on the other, they had equally to provide sufficient non-didactic entertainment to please both theatre producers and theatregoing crowds. Too much anarchist ideology would render the play unpopular and unsuccessful amongst the masses, whilst too much palatable entertainment and 'watered down' anarchy would displease the anarchists and misrepresent the movement. The struggle to find a compromise in the theatrical representations of anarchism is exemplified in Les Mauvais Bergers in 1897, wherein Mirbeau's depiction of a workers' revolution against capitalists led to a range of inaccurate critical responses, some saw it as "a poorly-conceived attack on parliamentary socialism"10 whilst for others it was "worthless dilettanism"11.