We started the semester last week by posing the question "what is dramaturgy" and talked about first impressions, experiences, and assumptions we make about what it is and who does it. Then, we immediately embraced our own practice as we read Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa's Rough Magic. While we had a great discussion about our practice, I think we missed an opportunity to talk about how Aguirre-Sacasa portrays the dramaturg--and how Melanie's definition of what she does may or may not gel with how we see ourselves as dramaturgs or how dramaturgs operate in our world.
But why stop there? Let's add the first couple of chapter's of Michael Chemers' Ghost Light into the mix. He has beautifully set up his own entrance into the field, and how many different entry points there are into talking about who we are and what we do. Armed with more research and information, revisit our discussion from the first day of class. If someone asked you what the (*$#&(*% is a dramaturg--how would you respond?
14 comments:
What the #$%@ is dramaturgy?
This is actually a really interesting question and one that doesn’t always have a clear answer. Due to the nature of dramaturgy and theatre in general, dramaturge Mark Chemers noted in his text, Ghost Light, that he often asks himself that very question.
Chemers writes a plausible—yet technical—definition to this elusive question: “A dramaturge [is] a practical aesthetic philosopher who thinks about theatre in a theorized but very pragmatic way for the end goal of improving the theatre’s phronesis on the community that generates it” (13).
This answer, in and of itself—though thorough—raises a few auxiliary questions. Principally, it raises the question: What the #$%@ is dramaturgy?
It becomes evident that the study and art of dramaturgy is rather obscure. We can dissect Chemer’s definition of dramaturgy into its basic essence, resulting in something a little easier to understand: A dramaturge, using historical, literary, philosophical, and even theatrical context, can rationalize and break down the complexities of theatre in an effort to give actors, designers, directors, and audiences the information that they need to understand the play in all ways practical and necessary.
To further narrow down our definition of a dramaturge, it could be useful to define exactly what theatre is and what it aims to do. Augusto Boal, a theatre practitioner, once said, “Theatre is a language through which humans can engage in active dialogue on what is important to them. It allows individuals to create a safe space […] and use [it] to explore the interactions which make up their lives. It is a lab for problem solving, for seeking options, and for practicing solutions.”
Dramaturgy can easily be considered to facilitate this practice. Through dramaturgy, we can analyze what it is in our life that applies to theatre (and vice versa: analyzing theatre to identify something in our own lives). And I do find it necessary to note that in this context, “we” refers to everyone involved in the process from the initial catalyst of a conflict or situation, to the playwright that dramatizes it, and to the audience paying to see the final production.
Through this clarification of theatre’s purpose (subjective, I know), we can see that dramaturgy is the unifier. Dramaturgy is the reason that a theatrical production or even theatricality in its most basic form can be considered poignant or applicable to our daily lives. Dramaturgy can provide the answer to the question to which we thought we already knew the answer: What the #$%@ is theatre?
-H. Smith
In his work, Ghost Lighting, Michael Mark Chemers questions the reader on their knowledge of what dramaturgy is. This is a practical question since most people, including myself until recently, are unfamiliar with the practice or even the existence of dramaturges. Chemers defines a dramaturg as “a member of the artistic team of a production who is a specialist in the transformation of a dramatic script into a meaningful living performance” (5). Although this does not define what dramaturgy is or specifically what a dramaturg does in relation to a production, this explanation is important because it emphasizes the fact that a dramaturges are responsible for conveying the significance of a piece to the audience. Example of ways ART dramaturges do this is through creating actor packets, hold post-show lectures and sometimes lobby lectures. This allows the audience so see the practical application of a production and how it personally applies to them.
Dramaturges need to be familiar with theatre history, understand philosophy, and according to Chemers, they should not be “scared of libraries” (7). Not only do they help the audience understand the context of a play, but with their research and knowledge they are able to pass on important information to other members of the design team.
Dramaturgy cannot be summed up in a few words or even a few sentences. It is a continually evolving process essential to the integrity of a production.
First I should mention that my theatre career started in college where dramaturgy was naturally part of the production team. So I have never really thought about the question, What the #$%& is a dramaturg?
In Chemers's "Ghost Light" he mentions a few different ways on how to define what a dramaturg is. The idea that I connected to the most was the idea that dramaturgs are light ghost lights in the theater. That they are there to guide us down the paths that are hidden in the dark. For me the dark is always there when starting a new play, so knowing that there is someone there to answer my questions and help me through my struggles in the processes is great.
The fact that dramaturgy is slowly becoming more widespread is also a reason that we might not really know what the #$%@ a dramaturg is but that we also don't really seem to mind. They are there doing their part to help the group and guide the production on its way. So who is to care if they don't have a definite job description, if they fill an important purpose that's all anyone should ask for.
Dramaturgy is a loaded term and there are several complex definitions that only lead to more questions about its meaning.
Dramaturgy is what keeps theatre in bloom. It brings the factual and structure-oriented minds to the entertainment industry that is theatre and drama. As long as there are disagreements, debates and interpretations, a dramaturge will be needed. The opinions and questions from the audience should never be disregarded or look down upon. The audience is the customer and a show will receive satisfaction if the theatre practitioners have done their homework. Most of this approval rating has to do with research, historical accuracy and the value of the play as a whole.
A successful play piece should make a viewer question actions from their current, past, and future life but this can only happen if the dramaturg has kneaded out the right kinks from the director and some of the design team. This doesn't necessarily means spoon-feeding the audience what they want to see/hear but so they become soaked into a life that is not their own without doubting it's next moment.
Dramaturgy is always asking the question of, "what's the point of this?" and "why did you as a director/designer choose to do that?"
These questions are examples of what a viewer would most likely ask while watching the show but never have the chance to get them answered, and will slowly lose interest and/or conviction in the performance. Essentially, dramaturgs ask the questions that people are too afraid/intimidated to ask in person.
In Michael Chemers dramaturgical book, "Ghost Light", his first chapter eloquently explains what makes a dramaturg; that is, "they are experts in aesthetic philosophy and theatre history" and "devoted to the principle that theatre should be socially as well as artistically relevant." These factors alone make the job description extremely difficult to pursue. Like most careers in the arts, dramaturgy involves an excellence in composition, organization and instinct. They must take the dialogue of the script and analyze it. Dig for a psychological meaning, whether it agrees with the playwright or not.
All in all, dramaturgs are there for correction and motivation. They are the friendly critic (most of the time) who is there to guide the rest of the team, not berate them. Without this advisor, theatre would lack discipline, ordinance, concept, authority, training, affluence, etc.
I've barely even touched the subject which is why there is no concrete answer for what a dramaturg does, or what DEFINES dramaturgy. Finally, if you relate dramaturgy to a ghost light, you'll notice that things only make sense when that historian is around, in other words, that vivid light at the end of the stage is the dramaturg.
Having read the first couple of chapters of Ghost Light, I have discovered that my definition of a dramaturg has always been fairly accurate, but it has now expanded to be defined in much broader terms. I believe the general structure of a dramaturg analyzing, researching and practically applying is a good base for any definition.
I found two concepts from the book which helped me expand my definition. First, I latched on to the idea that a dramaturg is a person who likes to collaborate with other artists and comes from many different backgrounds, and possibly, skill sets. I always find myself trying to find a way to be involved in everything in theatre, and being a dramaturg is one way this can be accomplished. A dramaturg should have their hands in every aspect of a production in some way in order for all members of a production team to be on the same page. This helps them, due to the dramaturg, create a wholly unified production.
That being said, the second point that intrigued me came from the metaphor that a dramaturg is like a ghost light. Being a lighting designer, I know how easy it is to get wrapped up in my own little world and venture off the path. When comparing a dramaturg to a ghost light, Chemers says,"The ghost light's lonesome existence is dedicated to protecting us, just in case we wish to venture into the dangerous space" (9). This is a really important point to me, and I love the idea that a dramaturg's art is to keep all the other artists true to the meaning and heart of the script.
Just in this first reading, I am seeing how important a dramaturg can be to everyone on a production and I look forward to applying these discoveries to myself as a dramaturg.
What is dramaturgy?
No one seems to be able to come up with an answer that can define the term that does not over-generalize. There are many different opinions and ideas as to the true nature of dramaturgy, but to me, dramaturgy is about making a connection between the audience and the play. The “audience” does not necessarily need be an audience in the normal sense of the word. In this case, the “audience” can also refer to the play’s design team, actors, or anyone else involved in a production.
Dramaturgy is about understanding a play and its background. However, that definition only over-generalizes the art as a whole. Dramaturgy is not just about analyzing a script, or delving into its history. Dramaturgy is the gateway to the human experience, the bridge to enlightenment. By drawing upon sources, history, and personal knowledge, the dramaturg is able to decipher a script into language that is not only understandable, but interesting for the audience.
Michael Mark Chemers, in his book Ghost Light, quotes several ancient Grecian philosophers. It was most interesting to me, however, when he [Chemers] quoted Plato about his teacher, Socrates and an actor named Ion. “Socrates then presents poor Ion with an awful choice; either to admit as an artist, he is engaged in a complex deception of his audience or to acknowledge that his ability to engage audiences is divinely inspired” (17). Socrates offered Ion the only two options he had: admit that he was a cheat, and was tricking his audience into feeling something, or admit that the gods favored him and inspired his work.
The ability to connect to the audience of a script is of extremely important value. The duty of the dramaturg is to seek out the things that make sense within a script. But moreover, the duty of the dramaturg is to seek knowledge, and offer understanding.
So, what is dramaturgy? It is whatever you want it to be.
Part of what fascinates me about dramaturgy is that no matter how many times that question of "What the *&^% is a dramaturg?" is asked, the answer never really seems to get any more concrete or sure of itself. It evolves, adapts, and varies depending on who you ask, but it is ultimately never (as we know it now) quantifiable. It is this quality that I find the practice kind of brilliant. It is almost as if the art is still primordial, growing legs and arms that aren't there yet, and adapting itself to the needs and demands of the environment around it.
Mark Chemer's opening chapters of Ghost Light make some bold attempts to create at least a slightly clearer microscope to look at this new organism though. However, after reading it, my feeling as to what a dramaturg almost becomes more unclear, as my understanding of their role expands and encompasses more.
If asked again now, after reading this, I might qualify that a dramaturg is like the site foreman of a production. (S)He is not the ultimate authority on the final product, as that is the architect (read: director), and the client (audience), but instead, they are the ones who bring the project from all fronts to a fruition. While many specialists are needed to create any great piece of architecture, such as a mason, a plumber, a carpenter, steel workers, etc, etc, they are only responsible for the scope of their craft. It takes the knowledge and oversight of someone with a relative mastery of all facets (as Chambers says more specifically of the theatre craft and practitioners within) to make sure that all pieces come together harmoniously, and ultimately as one, to create a cohesive, artful, successful, and most importantly, inhabitable space. Sure, each craftsman in their own right is good enough at what they do to do their job correctly, and without a foreman the building will still probably be completed, but would not resonate as a work of art.
This is what stands to me as being a defining factor of a dramaturg. Someone who ultimately is responsible for taking a play from representational and recital to inhabitable and three dimensional. Plato's argument with Ion stands out to me, in its argument about the worth of recitation (acting). The dramaturg must take a world of suggestive architecture and painted floors and men pretending to be generals, and instead help to team to present an audience with the living streets of Rome, walked upon by living generals. The dramaturg is someone who instead of bringing a photograph of the past to an audience of today, must instead deliver audiences of today into worlds of the past, accurate in every detail.
The best part of this is that if you ask me this in 2 months, I'm sure my answer will be different once more.
Dramaturges fill a lot of different roles and because of this it is hard to have a definition that can fit neatly in a box with a little ribbon tied around it. When an audience member asked Mark Bly what his contribution as a dramaturge was to the performance he responded “I can’t point to anything specifically, but if you took a knife to that play, it would bleed me.” A dramaturge puts a part of themselves in to the production. In essence a dramaturge becomes one with the script to the point where the script engulfs their very being.
Ghost Light described dramaturgy as “the very blood coursing through the veins of any theatrical production.” The dramaturge helps advocate for the playwright and the text of the play. When the director, actors, or members of the production team detrimentally sway from the intention of the text it is the dramaturge’s duty to fight for the play and set everyone back on track. A dramaturge’s work is often under appreciated, because their work does not call attention to itself like a lighting design or a set design. Rest assured the lack of a dramaturge will be very apparent.
My definition of dramaturgy has always been very vague. I have never really completely understood what exactly dramaturges do. To me, they seemed as though they would explore and analyze the script in every angle possible. They always seemed like a weird hybrid of literature, history, and theatre experts. This would always seem only half of their job though. I have always recognized that communication is also very important in what they do. They must not only people to understand the world of the play, but also be able to communicate that world to others.
Reading ghost light helped shape my definition even more. It made me more aware and helped me to obtain a better understanding of what they actually do. I absolutely loved the analogy between a dramaturge and a ghost light. Both the metaphor and the practicality of the relation seemed spot on to me. How dramaturges are surrounded by “darkness” when exploring a new play world and it is their job not only discovers the space but also reveal it to others so that they can tread safely in it.
As stated earlier, dramaturges usually seemed like literature/ history theatre experts. But these few chapters made me realize that they are even more. I also now see them having knowledge and skills in philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and even detective skills. All of this knowledge I believe is a key factor in being able to understand how the world of the play functions and how it influences the characters.
I believe my favorite topic in the first chapter was when it was being discussed that the best way to figure out what a dramaturge does is to try not to define it. It seems counter productive but I agree with this idea. If you try to clearly define all of what a dramaturge does, it would be like trying to put an elephant in a test tube. It is too encumbering and winds up muddying up what they do. I think it is more important to just focus on what a dramaturg does and not what they are. What the dramaturg does is question.
I still don’t believe I have a perfect definition, but I think a close one would be: A dramaturg is a contributor of a production team who analysis the world of the play by questioning everything about it, then communicating what they have learned to the rest of the production team so that they may be able to do their job efficiently and effectively with proper insight.
Hey Jessie, what the #$%& is a Dramaturg?
That’s a loaded question. A dramaturg is a lot of things. To me, they are the analytical frontier philosophers of the theatrical world. They yearn to expand their knowledge of not only the general picture of the piece, but the history behind the piece, the construction of the piece, the vocabulary required to successfully execute the piece. I appreciated Chemers comparision of a dramaturg to the circulatory system of human anatomy – they provide the necessary means for the rest of the team to do their job; organs can’t survive without blood flow, production teams can’t survive without dramaturgs.
[Warning: unpopular opinion] Personally, I don’t agree with the metaphor of a dramaturg as a ghost light. The ghost light is such a staple in the theatrical world that has created a name for itself and a story behind its presence, and I feel that adding the title of dramaturg to the story of the ghost light is attempting to merge two vastly different histories. However, before I start a riot with this opinion, I do believe in the reason behind the comparison between a dramaturg and a ghost light – they act as a guiding light in the production, providing assistance and illumination to things that designers or actors tend to overlook. Because of this, I concede to the metaphor, but feel that another noun should’ve been attached - for example, a light house. Yes, I know a lighthouse and a ghost light are practically the same thing, but in two different business. Yes, I know this opinion is merely harping on the status of a word, but it’s a word that has a rich theatre history that I don’t feel follows the same story as that of the dramaturg.
I must admit that while I was reading the first chapter of Chemers' "Ghost Light", I couldn't erase the gleeful expression that was bubbling about my face due to parallels I found in his checklist of people designed to be dramaturgs. The newfound understanding I gathered is that dramaturgs have a varying commitment and respect for the theatre that differs from that of actors or directors. We are a new breed of theatre enthusiasts that continue looking for answers long after the final curtain call. Plays don't just touch us, they burn us. They leave strange marks and require much time and many layers of new skin to make ourselves whole again.
But enough of my own cheesy metaphors, Chemers litters his book with plenty of his throught-provoking symbols; the one I thought of as most striking would be his explanation of the ghost light itself. His histrocial backstory of the theatre as being this Twilight Zone-like atmosphere, where the magic of art crosses unearthly boundaries and leave rembrandt of a haunting glow. I sort of think of dramaturgs as the ghosts of Chemer's historicalo anecdote, crossing different dimensions to try and find a truth to the overwhelming complexity of life and death. Like the ghosts, we mostly go unseen during the production, hiding in the shadows observing all other team members...waiting to rattle our chains when there is an injustice to the vision of the story. And maybe give a little insight to a world that has been lost or forgotten.
In his short, action packed play, Rough Magic, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa depicts Melanie as very well rounded in literary works (mostly that of Shakespeare to fit the theme). I think that this portrayal represents a sort of stereotype for dramaturges. In my experience, dramaturges are often understood to contribute a strong background in theatrical texts to a performance, but beyond that most people can’t guess at what role a dramaturge plays in the world of theatre.
After reflecting on this question, “what the #(*&%# is a dramaturg?” I would have to say that my answer would be this: A dramaturge asks questions in order to seek out the social relevance of a performance in order to emphasize the impact that theatre has on society. The role of a dramaturge brings deeper meaning to a performance, taking it beyond “face-value” entertainment.
According to Michael Chemers in his work Ghost Light, a GOOD dramaturge goes beyond the world of theatre question many aspects life in general, becoming well rounded in multiple areas of study. Aristotle, for example, was knowledgable in biology and medicine, physics, logic, philosophy, and politics, among many other areas of study. He was also certainly a dramaturge as he commented, quite famously, in his work Poetics on the influence that theatre can have on society.
*Since I have not read the recommended texts I may or may not be saying stuff that's already been said. My apologies, if so.*
My gut answer to the "What the #$%@ is dramaturgy?" question is probably the same answer that would absolutely infuriate me if I was the asker: Dramaturgy is nothing, until its not. Dramaturgy can't exist in a vacuum--it needs a point of reference, ANYTHING/ANYONE, and off it goes diving into the abyss uncovering scope, reference, perception, scheme, theory and practice. The main point is that it can exist in the presence of anything, but it can't exist alone. This is how I generally define dramaturgy. I specifically describe an instance of dramaturgy as: "It depends." Ha, yet another infuriating answer, yessss!
Dramaturgy is so malleable, so chameleonic (is that a word? Oh god.) that by mere proximity to an object, it adapts instantly. Here are two [theatrical] examples:
A director hires a dramaturg for a traditional production of Romeo & Juliet. We all see where this is going. Period research, gender roles in the Renaissance, deconstructing the anachronisms of Mercutio's dick jokes, etc. The dramaturg gives presentations to the cast, keeps a d-book chock-full of extra "in case you didn't know" tips at rehearsal for actors to thumb through at breaks, and generally acts as the guru for the show when it comes to target period/styles of the production. Once the show is open, the dramaturg leads discussions, fields questions and when the show is over she/he notes the favorite resources and tucks the materials away for any future applicable productions.
Second example: A dramaturg is invited to join/aid an ensemble writing a show about an historical event. This dramaturg gets to know the ensemble, what aspects of the event each of them are researching and helps to shape the frame in which they work, while also covering any research gaps not being handled by the cast. When the digging ends and the writing begins, the dramaturg continues with the ensemble, but shifts to the extremely important 'outside eye' role: attending rehearsals, advising on how scenes would 'read' to the audience, serving as an informed sounding board, committing and contributing to the show's writing as much as the actors are--having come to understand their process, goals and scope of production. When the production opens, the dramaturg & cast curate a website built for the production that helps moderate questions/comments from the public. When the production closes, she/he gathers the notes, checks in with the cast, and then compiles the materials with the ensemble leader (or director) into a manuscript about the ensemble’s process, findings, successes and pitfalls, to which the cast contributes personal anecdotes relating to writing the show. The manuscript is published as a book.
In these examples, neither dramaturg is better than the other. In both cases, the scope of their role and involvement depended completely on two things: what the production required of their role, and what the dramaturg was willing to contribute.
I realize I defined Dramaturgy as non-existent until it interacts with something else, but by no means is a dramaturg mindless until someone tells them what to do. Their skillset is unbelievably expansive, their resources are usually personal, hand-picked and hand-built on a project-by-project basis. So much is demanded of them and their role can almost never be simply defined. Because of that, dramaturgs have to be on their toes PERMANENTLY. A dramaturg can be anything from an individual asked to drop in on a rehearsal and give an opinion, to an historical, stylistic & philosophical anchor to which the entire cast and crew are connected in order to keep a production’s complexities focused and grounded.
That’s my short answer. I suddenly realize why people write books about this.
There is no simple answer to this question. Whether there even is a correct answer to this question is something to question. Which leads me into what I think dramaturgy is. From the reading, the common theme I found was questions. It is important to ask and find answers to questions. From actors, to directors to the dramaturges themselves, questions pop up throughout the production process about the history, and accuracy of events that take place. It is part of the dramaturgs' job to try and answer these questions.
Post a Comment