Month: September 2016

Dramaturgy on Shifting Grounds

The following outlines my reaction to Dramaturgy on Shifting Ground (2009).  When understanding what the term dramaturg means you must first ask what is the ultimate goal of a dramaturg? Hans-Thies Lehmann and Patrick Primavesi summarize that “the notion of dramaturgy (not only in Germany) has been deeply rooted in the project of enlightenment, in the urge to educate the people and to build up the cultural identity of a nation” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 5). The very function and position of a dramaturg within the today’s mainstream or contemporary theatrical landscape is a subject of continuous debate and questioning. “‘The terms ‘dramaturgy’ and ‘performance’ both cover such vast areas, demand such a comprehensive grasp of art practice, past and present, as well as a broad and diverse understanding of contemporary cultures that it could seem an act of hubris to even begin, knowing that we are unlikely to do justice to both, or to either term” (Behrnt and Turner, 2008, 1).  Arguably, within the diverse theatrical setting of today text, is no longer prioritized as highly outside of traditional consumeristic bourgeois theater due to the rising increase of innovative theatrical-conventions. This prioritizing of physicality, spectacle and over-reliance of new-media over text-based development and understanding, “text is no longer the central and superior factor…” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3), this has challenged the position that “dramaturgy in the traditional sense could be applied” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3; emphasis theirs). Throughout the first week of Current Issues in Drama, Theatre, and Performance, we were asked the question of what is dramaturgy and, what is the role of role of the dramaturg as a theatrical instrument both inside and outside of a theatrical setting? Ultimately trying to understand what Lehmann and Primavesi outline as the “shifting grounds” (2009, 3) inside subjects concerning both theatre and performance.

 

Within Lehmann’s and Primavesi’s article Dramaturgy on Shifting Grounds (2009), debates five contrasting problems or objectives that a contemporary dramaturg faces within today’s current “shifting grounds” (2009, 3).

 

The article draws upon these statements.

1. To develop creative ideas in cooperation with authors and directors.
2. To ensure the quality of theatrical work based on fruitful communication process within the production team.
3. To invent helpful concepts for season schedules and for cultural institutions in general.
4. To enhance unconventional modes of exchange of discourse.
5. To build up European networks and use them effectively.

 

Drama by its very nature is usually underpinned by being a collaborative process that requires cooperation with other creative talents, and artists in order to achieve a deeper development process overall. However, to most theatre-makers or artists there seems to be a resentment or the very mention of a dramaturg as some feel a “powerful resistance to the very word dramaturg” (Luckhurst, 2006, 3). This supposed resistance is outlined in David Copelin article Ten Dramaturgical Myths (1989), “…dramaturgs are no more than powerless, stage-struck “Ph.D. gofers” with no real artistic talents of their own, reduced to working as underpaid readers and clerks.” (1989, 20).  Instead, however, dramaturgs through collaboration become individuals of “informed subjectivity” (1989, 19), in which their “credibility as observers is based not on our [dramaturgical] title, but on our function” (1989, 19).

 

Overall a dramaturg’s communicative position throughout the artistic development process is a continuous repetitive underlying process. Utilizing effective communication skills, the dramaturg strives to maintain a “fruitful communication process within the production” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3), and could be regarded as a “negotiator for the freedom of theatrical experimentation and risk” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 4). Through this utilization of diverse and ‘approachable’ communicative skills, a dramaturg aims to achieve a harmonious communicative relationship, that allows the dramaturg to operate as “a productive [induvial that has] flexibility […] to shift grounds oneself and to switch from an argument based in literacy knowledge to an argument based in visual arts” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 6). Contrasting this to an individual of “dramaturgical discourse” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 6).

 

Out of the many functions, a dramaturg serves Lehmann and Primavesi seem to imply, that a dramaturg’s role lies in being able to “invent helpful concepts for seasons schedules” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3). This statement, further enforces that a dramaturg’s role is not only contained in the text but the wider community outside of the theatrical space. “Thus there is a dynamic, contextual and, indeed, political dimension to dramaturgical practice” (Behrnt and Turner, 2008, 4), This statement is further applied by Copelin who states a dramaturg’s role in cultural institutions lies in, “ensuring that our theatres remain essential as both makers and reflectors of our culture” (Copelin, 1989, 21). A dramaturg, should not be de-noted to a simple role of “merely territorial” (Copelin, 1989, 21), concerned with only the text but instead a relationship of “long-term collaboration” (Copelin, 1989, 21), that has a wider field of application concerning devising new ways in which to include the wider community within the often intimidating and intimate theatrical space.

 

As expressed earlier, I stated the overall role of the dramaturg to be one that utilizes teachings beyond the theatrical setting, their deemed unconventional modes of exchange and discourse could label them as dramaturgical innovators or, maybe if not them, then the process they project and encapsulate within and throughout the artistic process. Through approaching work from an “observer” or “outsider” perspective dramaturgs, are afforded a subtle perspective of the artistic process from its inception, they are afforded the credibility to “recognise the joy of ideas as embodied in and by the works of dramatic art and their concurrence and compatibility with emotions” (Copelin, 1989, 20), thus discarding “sentimental blabber” (Copelin, 1989, 20), that dramaturgs disregard the over-reliance of human emotion  within dramaturgical development in favour of “cold abstract ideas” (Copelin, 1989, 20), that supposedly hinder or distort the overall theatrical practise. Instead as Lehmann and Primavesi state, “the dramaturg may instead become a negotiator for the freedom of theatrical experimentation” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 4). Ultimately it is the role of the dramaturg to challenge and to question the text in terms of overall understanding, and not to dominate the creative theatrical process but, tread the line between a passive observer and an active participant.

 

Works Cited.

Bernt, S. and Turner, C. (2008) dramaturgy and performance. Great Britain: Theatre & Performance Practices.

Copelin, D. (1989) Ten Dramaturgical Myths. In: B. Cardullo (ed.)(2009) What Is Dramaturgy? New York: Peter Lang.

Lehmann, H. and Primavesi, P. (2009) Dramaturgy on Shifting Grounds. Performance Research, 14(3) 3-6.

Adrea Bozic ‘On dramaturgy’ (2009).

 

“A dramaturg in my process is someone who is somewhat alien, who maintains his or her otherness and distance from the process in order to be able to ask the question about it. And it is also someone who makes a lot of drama, someone who asks questions about things that might otherwise slip by unnoticed or be taken for granted” (Bozic, 2009, 1).

 

“take original material from other sources: films (embodying the movement of the actors), my private life (moving my furniture into my installation), weather conditions (collaborating with the factor of its unpredictability and ‘givenness’). Then I set up ‘generators’ that process this material to produce new work. These generators are, in fact, dramaturgical structures, and their transparency in the work is as important as the material itself”(Bozic, 2009, 1).

 

“I set up certain dramaturgical structures (a generator), which might, for example, be based on a timeline of a certain emotion” (Bozic, 2009, 1).

 

“Once this generator is clear to all of us. we use it as an anchor to hold the rest of the elements together, a red thread that runs through the process and the performance and to which everyone can relate” (Bozic, 2009, 1).

 

“A good dramaturg for my process is someone who manages never to lose sight of this red thread” (Bozic, 2009, 1).

 

“…the thread that connects all the individual projects into one ongoing exploration” (Bozic, 2009, 1).

 

“I can use certain elements from my projects, as well as from other people’s projects, art history, politics, daily news, weather, my friend’s lives etc. in order to contextualize them differently in each new work I make” (Bozic, 2009, 2).

 

“They may include: a dramaturgy of one’s of life (how I fictionalize my own life to give it a grand narrative); a dramaturgy of community life (that makes visible the strategies of staging, fictionalizing and performing day-to-day life); a dramaturgy of virtual life (that makes visible the strategies of fictionalizing, staging and performing political and other events through the mass media of TV, film and the Internet)” (Bozic, 2009, 2).

 

“…attitudes that can help to make dramaturgies of real-life events transparent” (Bozic, 2009, 2).

 

“…not only is life a generator of art but art is a generator of life in a transparent way” (Bozic, 2009, 2).

 

My observations.

All dramaturgs that create work should always find a ‘red thread’ in order to make cohesive work, without it, they are lost.

Regardless of subject matter or format and given topic can be used to create work or, set up generators in which work can be conceived.

There is no downside to being a distant dramaturg as long as they maintain a vital presence in the creation of the developing work. A good dramaturg is someone who is always observing and asking the question, of why this is happening?

Using certain dramaturgical devices can allow work to flow more freely through its development.

 

 

Works Cited.

Bozic, A. (2009) On Dramaturgy. Performance Research, 14(3) 1-2.