Cathy Turner and Synne K. Behrndt's book Dramaturgy and Performance begins with a chapter that lays the foundation for how they approach dramaturgy throughout the text, and asks:"What is Dramaturgy?"
Much like our experience trying to define the term on the first day of class, they offer a number of ways to respond to that question, whether it be via history, form, content, or context.
Which of these avenues of responses seemed to most fit how you enter into a discussion about what constitutes "dramaturgy"? Which of these avenues is uncharted territory to you? How do these to avenues intersect?
16 comments:
I felt the most drawn to the avenue of context, reading Turner and Behrndt's chapter. It seemed to have the closest feel to a summation of all of the methods: encompassing the political and societal ideas of the present era and the era of the play, explaining the purpose for the form and perhaps much of the method of execution in the content. Having said this, I feel that each area deserves credit in its own right.
I feel the least informed in the realm of form. Outside of this reading there has been little in depth discussion of the form of a theatrical production outside basic historic parameters. In examining form further, it may prove to be more informative than I presently gave it credit for. For example, the Forced Entertainment production of Bloody Mess can be a comment on the chaos of our world views directly from its form.
As far as intersections between these avenues, all are woven together. Context, as previously stated, is often greatly informed by history through the era of the play. This in turn gives a glimpse of the intended audience and what method of storytelling would best deliver the desired effect of the production team. The form gives the outline or the frame within which the content is constructed. The form and the content are in turn created out of the experience of the playwright, who is influenced by the era and society in which he or she lives. This again turning to the context.
I approach the discussion as a general theatre practitioner and as a writer. I usually come at a new play first with a straightforward literary analysis: looking at the scene and beat structure, and examining themes and images that apply to the entire play. I traditionally consider dramaturgy to principally consist of answers to questions generated by a literary analysis (questions of matters both structural and thematic). I really responded to the idea of dramaturgy concerning the “relationship between subject matter and framing” (25). I like thinking of it as both an extra-dimensional frame that influences actor performances, audience reaction, and the physical world on the stage, and as a tree with roots in the script and branches that extend each of the play’s themes to sprout in performance and fruit for the audience’s palate. Dramaturgy is the trunk that supports the whole operation. I had never considered dramaturgy to interconnect with so many other aspects of performance realization, as our authors suggest is particularly prevalent in contemporary playwork. Certainly I realized the influence of dramaturgical research on acting, set and other dress work, and directing, but I never thought of it as a cyclical process of continual positive reinforcement. I thought that a dramaturg would mostly distribute whatever research the various theatre practitioners involved in a production would find necessary; I find it the idea of dramaturg-ing throughout performance (and into audiences!) both refreshing and attractive as a part of the creative process.
I feel the avenue on form and content best fits how I approach the question on “What is Dramaturgy?” While reading the section on Form and Content, the discussion on the relationship between what is being presented and how is it presented is something I am very familiar with and is something
I often deal with when working with Media. Reading this though, it opened my eyes to the fact that though one does not need to frame a shot with theatre, what is show, and how we show it is still vitally important to the story telling.
I did not much care for the history section. While I do know that history plays an important role in Dramaturgy, I was expecting the section to be more on the topic of a Dramaturge as a form of historian rather then the actually history and felt it did not enlighten me very much on what dramaturgy is.
Of course all of these different avenues intersect because alone none of them can truly define dramaturgy because it is a combination of them all. The context of the play determines what you are going to show your audience and how you are going to do that, which is form and content. All these elements are also influenced by the history of the time it is set and written as well as the time it is being performed. All of the elements work off each other and aid one another in order to create a final project.
I was able to identify most with the section that defines dramaturgy through form and content. I feel that the "Weave of Performance" really is a good metaphor for what takes place on stage when the form and content of a composition meld together to execute a concept. I believe that dramaturgy doesn't stop at the end of the page, but once a play is off the stage. The "weaving" of all aspects of the production whether it be the scenery, the actors, the script, the audience, or lighting, etc. to execute a concept harmoniously is what I believe to be the definition of dramaturgy. The form and content avenue is the most important to me because it involves, heavily, the formation of a concept, its execution, and the result of its execution. Perhaps, even more important, the section also stresses that no concept, no matter how strange or awkward a given concept may be, it will NEVER be "wrong." I believe this viewpoint is also stressed, to an extent, in the avenue of context.
History is an "uncharted" territory for me. While I feel that the definitions of dramaturgy are all very immensely broad, I feel that I have a smaller grasp of its history as opposed to my grasp of the other avenues in which dramaturgy is defined. I feel that this simply stems from the comparatively small number of plays that I have read and from the small amount of time that I have been studying drama. I know that it must not be possible that the entire history of dramaturgy was located in the text of DRAMATURGY AND PERFORMANCE by Cathy Turner and Synne K. Behrndt.
I feel that all of these avenues are important to the existence of eachother. Without the history of dramaturgy, well... there wouldn't be dramaturgy. In addition, without form, content, and context, there would not be theatre (or writing, composition, or language for that matter) therefore preventing the very existence of dramaturgy. All composition has form, content, and context. There would be no concept or composition without these elements.
Being relatively new to the study of dramaturgy, I feel most drawn to the avenue of content in informing a discussion on the nature of dramaturgy. Heading into this class I have an idea of dramaturgy as a study of the background necessities that informed the playwright's content, as well as any essential content that will inform a particular production of the playwright's work. Probably a very surface assumption about dramaturgy, but it is the avenue that seems to click most in my mind. Dramaturgs study a play's content, and provide the designers with more content. Makes sense, right?
I was happily surprised by Turner and Behrndt's article displaying dramaturgy as something much more multi-faceted. The idea of a dramaturgical analysis differing entirely based on a play's form (for instance, analysis for a cyclical play like "Waiting for Godot" being entirely different from an analysis for a naturalistic play like "The Wild Duck") was entirely foreign to my understanding of dramaturgy and opened my eyes to its relevance in determining the final presentation of a particular production. Like Carolyn, I was also highly intrigued by the idea that a dramaturg's work is not finished by a play's opening night, but that it continues to evolve as the performance's staged life evolves. I also loved the idea that dramaturgy "determines a linked sequence of events, but is found in the 'links or bridges which hold these events together' (Korish 2000: 288)" (33). This concept that dramaturgy is not only the building block upon which a production is based, but that it also helps guide the piece from one moment to another is fascinating to me.
I find it interesting that all the avenues (history, form, content, and context) intersect in this same idea of a "linked" production. The historical information of a play glues together the context it's audience perceives and the historical realm the audience is living in, in the now. This context in turn informs the very content that a play will discuss, and ultimately these aspects will create a form in which a production's designers will choose to portray a piece. After reading the article I got the sense that dramaturgy and/or dramaturgical analysis is this 'glue': the link that stabilizes the function of any particular production, wobbly on its own without analytical insight or background.
While reading the first chapter of Cathy Turner’s book I responded best to the discussion of “Dramaturgy and context”. I think I responded best to this form of dramaturgy because it deals with combining literary and dramaturgical analysis. When I think about dramaturgy and the responsibility of a dramaturgy I think how a dramaturge uses their knowledge to help give the show a “practical shape” as Andreas Kotte describes it. Dramaturgy is used to help take what is written in the script and transfer it to the stage. Literally turning verbal text into live performance. Because context is fairly broad I think that it is the best why to start a conversation about dramaturgy because it best demonstrates how dramaturgy directly affects taking a script and making it a play, and the variety of way that they do. Making a play is what all theatre practitioners are interested in and therefore would make the best discussion.
I think that I responded least to the idea of dramaturgy in term of form. The author asks the question “how does structure (form) shape and audience perception?” I always thought that this question was one that needs to be answered by the director not the dramaturge so it was interesting to hear that there are dramaturges that believe that it is their responsibility. Because I’ve never thought about dramaturgy working in that way, is probably why I didn’t think that it is the best idea to start a conversation about dramaturgy. However, I could see how both form and context could intersect in the world of dramaturgy. Because context helps take the written script and puts it onstage, I could understand how thinking about the form in terms of how the transition would occur. Still I think the director should worry about form and dramaturge can deal with the context.
The avenue I felt most drawn to in this article was context. This is what has always interested me about theater in general. The context is such a huge motivator for how a production is created as a whole. I feel like this avenue generates the most collaboration through a production team which I feel is an important job of a dramaturg.
The avenue I have the least experience in is the form of a play. I never realized how much form can influence a play and how the audience reacts to it. I believe I have taken form for granted and I have never thought of it as a possibility for influence. After reading the article, looking back, when I watch plays I take a lot of comfort and understanding due to the form that I never attributed to anything.
These avenues intersect in many ways to create the complexity of dramaturgy. You cannot have one without the others even if a playwright was not thinking it while creating a piece. The context of a play creates a world that is the catalyst for the content. On the other side of that, the content could inform the context. A certain context could be forced due to the content of a show. Form gives a structure to a piece of work and assists others in understanding a play. The history is a backbone of a play that influences all the other avenues.
When asked to define Dramaturgy my response generally fits the avenue of Form and Content with a hint of Context. I have thus far thought of Dramaturgy as script analysis-form/content, and contextual research on the time and location that the play takes place. However, each of these sections made me take note of subjects within form, and context that I had not otherwise considered to be important.
I had never thought of the structure of the play as a tool for expression. I guess I assumed the structure we learn in P.O.D's and in English as just the standard for entertainment and any changes or alterations as methods to "spice things up" and not as deliberate choices or comments on life. For example the section on Waiting for Godot helped me to see that the lack of traditional structure was purposefully used to highlight the uncertainty and "nontraditional" reality of life.
The section on Context opened my eyes to the importance of the audience and environment in which the play is performed. This makes complete sense, since I believe half the purpose of theatre is to comment on the world and make people feel or understand something that they wouldn't have otherwise. So of course within a Dramaturg's analysis of a production they should take into consideration the experiences, history, and culture of the audience the piece is being presented to. One cannot touch someones life with their words if they cannot first take into consideration the person they are speaking to.
Whenever asked the question “What is Dramaturgy?” I am always inclined to begin my attempt at an explanation from the historical realm. For me, Dramaturgy is deeply rooted in the historical contexts of a production. I am much more interested in where the method of performance or design required for the production has been derived from and how it can be manipulated into a much more successful practice. Therefore I deeply connected with the historical perspective section of the reading in which G.E. Lessing struggles to derive a new form of theatre and educate those around him on what he believes is acceptable theatre practice. I was also drawn to Schiller and Goethe’s work and the beginning of the ever-important relationship between dramaturg and director. I really feel that their work in combining their knowledge of different theatre practices is the explanation that I often attempt to give when describing dramaturgy.
The avenue that I felt least informed about was form. While I have been presented with a basic knowledge of form, I found that this was the area I knew the least about. And yet I found this to be surprising because Dramaturgy is clearly so involved in the realm of form that I found myself greatly saddened for having not known more about this topic.
The avenues of history and form intersect in quite a magnificent way in dramaturgical practice. For example, a “traditional” structure or form comes from a performance practice that has been done time and time again. The desire to break away from a traditional form, such as Beckett’s attempt in Waiting for Godot, comes from some sort of historical knowledge of what this form may be.
When approaching the question what is dramaturgy, I most relate to the context selection of the reading. I have always seen dramaturgy as related to the context of the play and how the research can help the actors and the production team to understand the world of the play as it fits into the reality of life.
The idea that struck me the most as uncharted territory was the idea of the audience also being related to the work of a dramaturg. Obviously this was not the first time the idea had been proposed to me, because we discussed the audiences’ role briefly in class but I still stand by my notion that the audience is the most foreign term for me personally.
It is quite clear how these two aspects relate to each other, because everything that is put on stage is for the audiences entertainment and understanding. And quite frankly I am a little embarrassed to say the thought of the dramaturgy having a link to the audience is not one that had crossed my mind previously.
The section on historical perspective resonated with me. The era that is discussed is recognizable to me due to a previous class. However, I have never considered the dramaturgical perspective. The text explains the foundations of modern dramaturgy using very specific examples. From Aristotle to Brecht, the development of dramaturgy has been extensive.
The avenue that was unfamiliar to me was the section on form and content because it stresses the importance of presentation within dramaturgy. The action of the play is important, but how it is presented is just as significant. The connection between structure and content is discussed in depth using many examples. By comparing Ibsen and Beckett, we are able to conclude that, while form affects content, it does not indicate a certain type of content.
The two “avenues” I have selected correlate because it is impossible to understand the dramaturgy of form and content without knowing how it was developed.
And this, from Desiree:
Because of my background in literature and history I am most familiar with approaching any given work from a textual and historical basis. However, while I have much less experience working with live performance I also emerge from a background informed by design, a way of thinking that lends itself to a form of interaction that is not text-based.
Dramaturgy is in many ways about fulfilling the needs of a performance whether that be contextual and relating to the audience, the purpose of the theatre, the questions and 'answers' of why here and now, something more grounded in textual decoding or historical scripting, or simply a facilitation of the "dynamic and continually in process" composition of a performance. I think a dramaturg must employ all of the elements discussed by Turner and Behrndt's chapter at different time and for different reasons; it must be something uniquely tailored to each and every production which more than this is also dependent upon the people which comprise the different elements of a production.
In truth, I have yet to find an area within the four that has truly resonated with me. I have a great deal of appreciation and connection with context and content having spent time as an actor, however, I see great importance in history as well as form. But, for argument sake, I will have to say that context feels like an adequate route to take to help define dramaturgy.
From what I have read and what I have discussed with the Dramaturges on my own time, I have found that dramaturges are often practical visionaries of impractical concepts. Theater works to recreate a past event on stage (fictional or non-fictional), which is in itself, is impossible. The only time a production could be perfect in aspects of the word, it would not be a production at all, but rather, real life. However, that theater is not looking for perfection, and instead, we do the best with what we have. In order to do so, we use dramaturgy. With dramaturgy, one is able to use every ounce of information provided by the playwright to help research and criticize in order to create something as close to reality as one can get.
What I found to be quite interesting was "The Weave of Performance" and how in it Turner and Behrndt talk about Barba's idea that dramaturgy as a synthesizing process, weaving each aspect together into a cloth. I would even go so far as to call it a tapestry, with each member of the production being a different thread and dramaturgy being the weaver, working to create a single work of art.
-Amber Lynn Justmann
When reading Turner and Behrndt I found myself agreeing with the each definition until the next one came around. I also feel that Dramaturgy encompasses history, form, content and context.
I am familiar with the idea that Dramaturgs help research the world in which the play is set and help to add truth to that world. I think in that sense they do take items from history and help give them form in not only the context of the play but the content as well. I believe that the craft involves everything and is there for the well being of everyone, from the audience to the actors and designers.
The area I was most drawn to was context, primarily where dramaturgical and literary analysis intersect. As a creative writing major, I have studied literary analysis in some detail. The difference between analyzing a text to put on stage and analyzing a text to write a paper on is deep, but each side of analysis has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. This is the side of dramaturgy I am most comfortable with: the dramaturg as a literary interpreter.
The section on history gave me some trouble, as Turner and Behrndt's ideas were contrary to what I thought it would be about. Like Emily, I thought that the history section would discuss the dramaturg's role as a historian, as a researcher and purveyor of historical facts. I'm sure that this is still part of the definition of dramaturgy, I just wish it was explained in a different way, so that I could learn more.
It is easy for me to see how context and form intersect, because all literature has an inherent structure. The form of a play is a huge part of its context. Looking at dramaturgy as a branch of literature makes these two parts connect.
Post a Comment