Dramaturgy is often referred to as being a very ‘slippery’ and indefinable word; though there are standard definitions available for us to find, we cannot seem to comprehend these definitions without exceptions arising. For example, the online Oxford English Dictionary defines dramaturgy as either being a ‘dramatic composition; the dramatic art’ or as ‘dramatic or theatrical acting.’ However, words such as ‘composition’ can be highly vague, leaving itself open to broad interpretations and debates via the scholars of drama and theatre studies. Similarly, we are left to question what exactly the role of a dramaturg is, and whether they perform this role alone or share it; as no one has actually established a clear definition of what dramaturgs actually do. Therefore, whilst I can’t propose that I can create a solid definition of what dramaturgy itself is, I shall lie the groundwork for a study into what dramaturgy may be, using an over-arching definition of what, I believe, is itself an actual field of drama and theatre studies. I initially intend to do this by referring to the teachings of such renowned dramaturgs as Adam Versényi and Gotthold Lessing. Dramaturgy also works as a form of analysis which explores the relationship between spectator, performer and even playwright; changing our preconceptions of what theatre should and could actually be. It is also important for dramaturgs to consider the social and cultural environment in which they are working, for drama is often a statement on the current society of the time, meaning that social ideas simply cannot be ignored.
In order to fully understand what dramaturgy is and how it works in current society, I feel it is necessary to explore its early roots by taking a historical...
... middle of paper ...
...rarching definition for ‘dramaturgy’ is that it is a process which uses books, plays, social research and a collection of analytical methods to both inspect and compose a plays which are often best suited to a contemporary culture.
Works Cited
Drama, 4th edition, pp. 97-195. London: Wadsworth Cengage Learning (c2004).
Barnett, S. (1987)"Über die Grenzen": Semiotics and Subjectivity in Lessing's Hamburgische Dramaturgie, pp. 407-419. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/407205.
Kant, I. (1784) What Is Enlightenment? Stable URL: http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/what-is-enlightenment.txt.
Kindelan, N. (1996) Shadows of Realism: Dramaturgy and the Theories and Practices of Modernism. Westport, Conn.; London: Praeger.
Marinis, M. (1987) Dramaturgy of the Spectator. The MIT Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1145819.
Zwillenberg, Myrna Kogan. "Dramatic Justice in Tartuffe." Modern Language Notes 90.4 (Apr. 1975): 583-590. Rpt. in Drama Criticism. Ed. Linda Pavlovski. Vol. 13. Detroit: Gale Group, 2001. Literature Resource Center. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.
Olive, David. "Possibilities of Performance: New Ways of Teaching Dramatic Literature." Links & Letters 2 (1995): 9-17. UAB Digital Repository of Documents. Web. 30 Mar. 2012.
1970, pp. 7-8. Rpt. In The Chelsea House Library of Literary Criticism. New York.:Chelsea House Publishers, 1988.
Heberle, Mark. "Contemporary Literary Criticism." O'Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. Vol. 74. New York, 2001. 312.
Galens, David, and Lynn M. Spampinato, eds. Drama for Students. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Print.
The criticism relies on two assumptions. One, that rhetoric creates reality, and two, that convergence occurs. With regards to rhetoric creating reality we are to assume that the symbolic forms that are created from the rhetoric are not imitations but organs of reality. This is because it is through their agency that anything becomes real. We assume to that convergence occurs because symbols not only create reality for individuals but that individual’s meanings can combine to create a shared reality for participants. The shared reality then provides a basis for the community of participants to discuss their common experiences and to achieve a mutual understanding. The consequence of this is that the individuals develop the same attitudes and emotions to the personae of the drama. Within this criticism the audience is seen as the most critical part because the sharing of the message is seen as being so significant.
In Euripides’ tragic play, Medea, the playwright creates an undercurrent of chaos in the play upon asserting that, “the world’s great order [is being] reversed.” (Lawall, 651, line 408). The manipulation of the spectators’ emotions, which instills in them a sentiment of drama, is relative to this undertone of disorder, as opposed to being absolute. The central thesis suggests drama in the play as relative to the method of theatrical production. The three concepts of set, costumes, and acting, are tools which accentuate the drama of the play. Respectively, these three notions represent the appearance of drama on political, social, and moral levels. This essay will compare three different productions of Euripides’ melodrama, namely, the play as presented by the Jazzart Dance Theatre¹; the Culver City (California) Public Theatre²; and finally, the original ancient Greek production of the play, as it was scripted by Euripides.
(2012, 12). Outline and Discuss Erving Goffman's Theory of Dramaturgy.. StudyMode.com. Retrieved 12, 2012, from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Outline-And-Discuss-Erving-Goffman%27s-Theory-1280254.html
Through providing a micro-level analysis of the “self” through theatrical dramaturgy, Goffman supplies an adequate account of how modification of the “self” happens via performance. Taking parallel theories and ideas, each author builds upon the arguments of the other and Goffman provides enough detailed examples of social development through performance to satisfy the treatises of Berger and Luckmann’s account. Therefore, the arguments of Goffman and Berger and Luckmann work best when combined, giving us the most insight into the “self.”
It took me some time to actually understand what Richard Burke was trying to explain about the idea of dramatism. His wording was very complicated to understand in my personal opinion and I had to read the article a few times to get a better understanding of it. I felt that our recent class lectures gave me better insight on what exactly dramatism is and how examples of it are found in our society or in literature. After gaining some more knowledge on dramatism, I felt that it was a little easier to write this specific précis. I did however agree on some of Burke’s ideas that were explained in this article. I liked how he separated dramatism into five different components and explained how they all connected to what dramatism exactly is. To be completely honest I had no knowledge to what dramatism was until reading this article and listening to our lectures about it. Although I was confused about it, I did find it interesting once I was gaining more of an understanding of the article. Burke has many intelligent observations shown in this article specifically his connections to other literary pieces that also explain dramatism. I really enjoyed getting more of an insight on other people’s views on dramatism and their explanations of what they believe it is. Even though I still need to gain a little more on dramatism to fully understand it, I enjoyed the challenge a little bit because it help me
Gainor, J. Ellen., Stanton B. Garner, and Martin Puchner. The Norton Anthology of Drama, Shorter Edition. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Worthen, William B. Modern Drama and the Rhetoric of Theater. Berkeley: U of California P, 1992.
In theatrical performance, the fictional realm of drama is aligned with the factual, or “real” world of the audience, and a set of actors feign re-creation of this factual world. At the same time the audience, by participating as spectators, feigns believability in the mimic world the actors create. It is in this bond of pretense between the on-stage and off-stage spheres of reality—the literal and the mock-literal—that the appeal of drama is engendered. The Merchant of Venice then, like any effective drama, ostensibly undermines realism by professing to portray it. The work contains no prologue to establish dramatic context; it offers no assertion of its status as imitation, a world separate from our own. And yet, the bond of pretense forged between actors and audience prevents the line between the fictional and the factual from being blurred completely. This division allows the device of metatheatricality to emerge as a means by which the play can ally itself with realism, rather than undermining it, by acknowledging its own status as drama.
Melodramas were slowly pushed out of the metaphorical spotlight as Realism and Naturalism took its place. Naturalism is a philosophy of being able to put a ‘slice of life’ on stage (Hartnoll (ed.) 1967, p. 67); that is, a small piece of everyday life, as if the audience wasn’t there. Naturalism was a leader into the modernist period and was considered a revolutionary movement of the time. Naturalism was a new and improved kind of theatre, often confused with and mistaken for realism, which, in itself is a very similar type of theatre that began to emerge alongside Naturalism in the late 19th Century. Realism is the practise of Naturalism’s ideology; Naturalism being the theory of putting a ‘slice of life’ onstage; once something is placed on stage it is no longer ‘natural’, therefore Naturalism can never be created on a live performance stage. Realism however, is the practise of this theory in which the stage is made to look as close to real life a possible, accompanied by psychological development of characters rather than physical development, accompanied by extravagant stages, costuming and make-up, common in the melodramas seen before realism became
Theatre serves to reflect society. From Shakespeare to Sophocles, a playwright’s work illustrates the different mechanics within a culture, time period, or society. Theatre offers viewers the experience of taking a step back and looking in on themselves. In this way, theatre is a mirror of the world and the way it functions. In the time period from 1968 to 1983, the world was transitioning.