Hello

I was interested to come across this forum (although I’m not altogether sure it’s still in use?) so thought I would make a post on something which concerns me as a dramaturg.

There are a vast number of courses in Britain especially which claim to be training people to be dramaturgs.  However, from experience I know that (a) these courses are not always reaching their full potential to educate and train dramaturgs effectively enough to enable them to practise in professional theatre and (b) the amount of graduates every year far outstrips the number of jobs available.

Add to this that the definition of dramaturgy is wide and varied and anyone can be a dramaturg who designates themselves so, and it leads to an odd situation.  Part of the joy of dramaturgy is that it is non-restrictive, wide-ranging in scope and possibility, and that playwrights, directors, and any other number of people can take on that role as appropriate.  However, when applied to an educational course, I am not sure how one can best blend this with an academic structure. 

As dramaturgs, what can we do?  How possible would it be to set up an accreditation system, for example, for courses?

I throw this open to debate…

Louise.

Hi Louise,
We have discussed this a lot in the dramaturgs network and one of our early ideas was to engage with the educational institutions around these issues. However with limited resources that issue fell off the immediate priority list of our activities. Also in the last few years the role of the dramaturg has continued to change both in how it is being percieved and what type of practices it refers to so we have focused on being active in the discussion amongs practitioners rather than the academic.
I think this is the right approach as it is the actual theatre practice that should inform the educational focus. Looking at how the role of the dramaturg is seen in UK Theatre there are some things I feel quite strongly about. To me one important issue is to make sure that dramaturgy is not equated only with the development of new writing but that all the areas of performance dramaturgy get highlighted and developed. Another point to look at is how the dramaturgs role differs from that of the director, choreoghrapher, producer etc etc. and whether there is a person on the project designated to this role or whether it is a joint repsonsiblity. I find a lot of blurred lines about these issues when talking to theatre practitioners but am not sure how the various courses outline the role.
I wish we had the resources to do more but at least at this point we have some members who are active within this field in several universities who hopefully work to clarify and develop how the role is explained and taught.
Hanna

louise - 29 June 2007 02:15 PM

...dramaturgy is wide and varied and anyone can be a dramaturg who designates themselves so, and it leads to an odd situation.  Part of the joy of dramaturgy is that it is non-restrictive, wide-ranging in scope and possibility, and that playwrights, directors, and any other number of people can take on that role as appropriate. 

Lousie,

Would an accreditation system not destroy the very polysemic character of dramaturgy that you value?  As far as I can see an accreditation system would have an homogenizing effect on the work of dramaturgy (by effectively sanctioning whatever didn’t fit the model).  I’d suggest that if your goal is to improve the standard and/or relevance of the education currently on offer you should focus more on building links between the theatre and the uni/college.

Paul

Hi Paul

Firstly, how dare you call me lousie! 

Whilst I cherish the multi-faceted nature of dramaturgy, I don’t think an accreditation system would homogenize dramaturgy.  I’m not saying, for example, that because college A taught a different curriculum from college B that they couldn’t both be accredited.  (We’re in Louise’s Dramaturgy Utopia right now, of course).  And of course the people administrating this would be dramaturgs themselves so I don’t imagine it’d be too likely that dramaturgs would attempt to restrict the scope of their field near-sightedly, in the same way that I don’t think anyone would argue, say, that having a NCTJ restricts what journalists write about.  Nor am I saying that dramaturgs as people ought to be accredited, because as part of my post I said that I had experienced many effective dramaturgs who had never studied the subject as an accademic discipline (in the way that many top writers haven’t ever studied writing). 

What I’m saying is that I have seen that graduates have an unrealistic expectation of what dramaturgy actually entails on a practical level (including how to go about it - i.e. how to give dramaturgical feedback, how to develop writer relationships, etc).  Secondarily, I have seen that graduates have an unrealistic expectation of how likely they are to get a relevant job.  The former, at least, in my view is something that educational institutions ought to be addressing if they are teaching a course in dramaturgy.  (The latter can be put down to “on your own head be it").  Sending graduates out in the world without the skills to do a job they have a Masters degree in isn’t right.  And it can impact negatively on the artists that these graduates work with. 

As for trying to make links with the organisations - I have strong links with some of the courses I’m talking about.  But I’m not the course co-ordinator, and I can’t organise someone’s course for them.  At present there’s no way of a prospective student knowing whether or not the dramaturgy course they might take is of practical use or in any way useful for the professional field by looking at it. 

Hanna, all your points were extremely true and well put!  And Paul, I am not randomly taking potshots at colleges.  I just thought this forum might be a good way of exploring these issues with other dramaturgs.

Louise

Hello all,

I’m not sure I entirely agree� I think there are two issues � the management of expectation about realistic options available for self-identifying dramaturg graduates is one thing (although who knows how much practice in the UK would actually exist now were it not for some of those high expectations?).  I think that there�s generally an understanding that even a high level degree from one of the more respected drama schools doesn�t necessarily qualify you for employment in your chosen field in the hugely competitive theatre / media market, why should dramaturgy be any different?  I suspect it may be more of a problem at BA level, when students are younger and might not be expected to go into their course with as much sector knowledge. That�s where closer links between supportive professional organisations / theatres and training institutions might be particularly useful. I don�t think there�s a �vast number� of these courses though. 

The other issue? - I like the idea of varied curricula reflecting the broad ranging nature of the practice however I wouldn�t want to overlook the fact that dramaturgy is itself grounded in a defined field of knowledge: a detailed understanding of the history, form and contemporary practices of theatre making and drama.  Whilst I appreciate that many practitioners can and do take on the role (coz it�s certainly often better for someone to be doing it in some projects than no one), this grounding is what differentiates the perspective of a professional �turg, qualified or not, This is the formal basis of much teaching on the Continent and stateside (and is also the basis of the couple of BA courses I used to know about in the UK).  You simply can�t teach this volume of material in a one year MA � the expectation for an MA should be for practice-focussed and more self governed research into your own practice.  Maybe the MAs are being mis-sold (they�re certainly big income generators for their institutions)?  Or perhaps applicants are reading in what they�d like to find�

I�m not sure that the problem is one of accreditation tho. And anyway hat would we be accrediting beyond the achievement of an MA?  There�s no equivalent in any other field of theatre practice and it might contribute to existing suspicions about the academic nature of the practice.  I think rather that the onus is on us as practitioners in a very emergent and ill-defined field to wade in and forge that definition and particularly to share skills and to support the development of younger practitioners, building a standard for the practice of dramaturgy in the UK. Maybe I�m in my own utopia now).  Skills sharing: one of the initial reasons the Network was set-up and is vitally important (considering the influential and volatile role any dramaturg can play within a process).  Com along on November 12th for the CPD conference to hopefully see this ideal in practice!!
Cheers, beccy x