The role of the dramaturg is one which is being continually questioned and requestioned within the contemporary theatrical climate. The proliferation of new artistic forms within the theatrical sphere means that “a constant dynamics of crossover and interdisciplinary art, of physical and choreographical theatre takes place” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3) which challenges the dominance of the text-based form “to which a dramaturgy in the traditional sense could be applied” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3; emphasis theirs). In the first week of the module, we were posed the challenge of interrogating both dramaturgy as a theatrical mechanism and the role of the dramaturg, and to begin to establish our own understandings of the role of the dramaturg on what Hans-Thies Lehmann and Patrick Primavesi call the “shifting grounds” (2009, 3) of theatre and performance.

Lehmann and Primavesi’s article outlines the five conflicting demands placed upon the contemporary dramaturg (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3) which I will use as provocations to discuss the general perception of the role of the dramaturg.

1. To develop creative ideas in cooperation with authors and directors.
2. To ensure the quality of theatrical work based on a 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 and discourse.
5. To build up European networks and use them effectively.

The idea of developing ideas in cooperation with other creatives is common in perceptions of the role of the dramaturg. Andrea Božić sees working with a dramaturg as “being as important as working with any other collaborator” (Božić, 2009, 1). In his article Dramaturgical Myths, David Copelin describes how “when the other artists see us [dramaturgs] there from the first concept meeting right through opening night, they come to accept us as part of the creative process, instead of as interlopers in it” (1989, 19).

The dramaturg’s communicative role within the artistic process is a repeated concept. Through communication, the dramaturg helps to maintain the “dynamic balance” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 3) within each production and might be thought of as a “negotiator for the freedom of theatrical experimentation and risk” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 4). It is only through communication, and the sort of cooperation mentioned above, that the dramaturg is able to strike this balance and act as a “productive partner” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 6).

Central to this communicative role seems to be the dramaturgical impetus to question – to be, as Copelin puts it, “process critics” (1989, 23). Professor Dassia Posner at the Northwestern University describes the dramaturg as “the person who goes in and asks questions, and tries to understand what conversation a play now might be having with its audience” (in Northwestern University Office of Undergraduate Research, 2013).

Božić identifies the double expectation the dramaturg is expected to meet, of both collaborator and critic, involved yet separated from the process and the work itself. Within her process the dramaturg represents “a kind of ‘Turk’, someone who is somewhat alien” (2009, 1), maintaining “otherness and distance from the process in order to be able to ask questions about [the work]” (Božić, 2009, 1). This idea seems to exist in tension with the idea of the dramaturg as involved collaborator.

The more prosaic idea of the dramaturg as useful to artistic and cultural institutions in developing season schedules and artistic strategies with business applications is particularly suggested by Lehmann and Primavesi’s article: that dramaturgy can assist in “invent[ing] helpful concepts for season schedules and for cultural institutions” (2009, 3). This is perhaps a more optimistic way about speaking about such an application of dramaturgy than Copelin’s description of the dramaturg as a “service job” (1989, 21). That said, this “stereotype of the dramaturg as a service position” (Blickers and Quirt, 2014, 252) holds weight as a perception of their potential artistic applications, and dramaturgy appears to have a wider field of application than solely within the developmental process of an artistic artefact.

The role of the dramaturg in enhancing unconventional modes of exchange and discourse is one which harks back to the idea I explored earlier about the dramaturg as communicator, but also contains the suggestion of the dramaturg as an artistic innovator or, if not as an innovator themselves, as a catalyst for innovation within an artistic process. Unconventional modes of exchange might also include the ability of the dramaturg to have a more nuanced view of the process, recognising the “joy of ideas as embodied in and by works of dramatic art, and their concurrence and compatibility with emotions” (Copelin, 1989, 20) and rejecting the “common error that human emotions are necessarily ‘warm’ while abstract ideas, or any ideas, are necessarily ‘cold'” (Copelin, 1989, 20). Beyond the recognition of nuance is the dramaturg’s role in identifying how ideas might be “contextualise[d…] differently in each new work” (Božić, 2009, 2) and to reframe the discussion around the art work to begin to “re-think the basic conditions of theatrical practice” (Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009, 4).

The key points that can I have identified from studying each of this week’s set readings (Božić, 2009; Copelin, 1989; Lehmann and Primavesi, 2009) individually and in combination are therefore as follows:

• There is a general agreement that ‘dramaturgy’ as a discipline and the role of the dramaturg can resist definition, but common themes recur.
• Dramaturgy is a creative resource to reflect upon the creative process, to recognise the governing structures and strategies of an artistic work, and to question the consequences of art as well as artistic preconceptions and the boundaries of form.
• Dramaturgy contextualises and interrogates artwork for creative insight and to engender deeper understanding, through a range of dramaturgical structures, of which one is the dramaturg.
• Dramaturgy engenders ideas and understanding which reciprocally inform the artistic process, as both a product of an informing mechanism for artwork.
• The dramaturg maintains an informed subjectivity and distanced ‘otherness’ to act as a creative anchor and process critic, asking questions and encouraging deeper understanding.
• The dramaturg helps to develop creative ideas and ensures artistic quality through communication and cooperation, acting as a ‘creative negotiator’ to enhance novel modes of exchange, engender creative balance between artistic and material elements of an artwork, manage tension between distinct notions of form, and to prevent pre-determinism.

Works cited

Blickers, B. and Quirt, B. (2014) Ecologies of Dramaturgy. Theatre Topics, 24(3) 249-253.

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

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.

Northwestern University Office of Undergraduate Research (2013) Theatre History and Dramaturgy – Posner [online] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc7GmMPFS70 [Accessed 23 September 2015].