If we talk about a performance that does not reconstruct historical background but is supposed to appeal to our feelings omitting all formal evidences, can we use the expression on the level of perception? Like The city and village in the performance are read out on the level of perception (meaning that there are no houses, cars, trees and so on).
Perception is not correct here because it does nothing to exclude concrete, physical things at all. You can perceive houses and cars as much as you can perceive emotions, or perhaps even more. It sounds like you're looking for a way to describe something that conveys an impression without all the details.
She read out an impression of the city.
It described the city abstractly.
They captured the essence of the city
The play conveyed the city's character (or soul/spirit)
We expressed the zeitgeist of the town
He described the city on an emotional level
"Are read out" is somewhat unclear. I recommend writing, "He read out," "It described," or anything that specifies who or what is reading.
Your case seems pretty nuanced and I'm not sure exactly what you're going for here. You seem to be talking about an abstract description that evokes a visceral understanding. I don't know of any idiomatic way to express that but 'level of perception' is not something that would be commonly understood by English speakers.
I'm not entirely certain what "read out" means in the original sentence. My impression of the overall question, though, is that you want to say that a play (or something similar) was performed without a set, or with a very sparse set, yet the performance still evoked a sense of place. That is probably how I would say it, too: "Despite the sparse sets, the performance evoked a strong sense of place and time."