Dramaturgy and Artistry - Annotation
This post discusses a scholarly article:
Gilbert, Sky. "Dramaturgy for Radical Theatre."Canadian Theatre Review, no. 87, 1996, pp. 25-27, Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database; CBCA Reference & Current Events; International Index to Performing Arts; Performing Arts Periodicals Database, http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/211999920?accountid=14771.
In this article, Sky Gilbert attempts to define the radical dramaturgy upon which his radical theatre is based. Gilbert claims that at Buddies, plays are not restricted by a traditional dramaturgical notion of play structure, but may contain any of “many elements, including plot, theme, character, dialogue, poetry, image, movement, and music”, among others. Gilbert defines theatre as “live”, and good theatre as “produced with skill”. Gilbert explains that neither theatre nor its process need be linear. The dramaturgy at Buddies in Bad Times, too, does not rely on a dramaturge removed from the work, since a writer and/or director and/or designer of a play may dramaturge it as well. Gilbert covers several examples of Buddies’ dramaturgy, which can include traditional dramaturgy but leans toward “hands-off” dramaturgy, where an artist will, instead of being critiqued by a dramaturg, be given time to develop it in short festival periods instead. Gilbert defines the dramaturgy at Buddies in Bad Times as responsive and non-paternalistic. Gilbert also stresses that Buddies is an artist-run theatre, and that by not allowing the theatre to be run by producers, the shows remain art-driven instead of finance-driven. This definition is among the major values of the article; by suggesting art-driven theatre instead of finance-driven theatre as an administrative technique, Gilbert is touching on an extremely relevant component of research into issues affecting theatre and festival administration in Canada: the need for non-profit and subsidised theatre. Theatres in Canada are trapped between the need to make theatre that serves artists and audiences, and the need to fund any theatre that they want to make. Gilbert complains that, in 1996, he lives in a town that hails commercial theatre as the new wave of artistry, which raises questions about why that is. Unfortunately the article falters in that Gilbert fails to go into detail on non-profit theatre and government funding, and in the article’s clearly dated artistic context: on a positive side, this means that more artistic theatre is certainly being produced in Toronto today, perhaps in spite of a lack of funding, and certainly due to a change in dramaturgical style. Today--in non-commercial theatre--it is more common, though not totally common, to encounter a play which is movement-based, non-linear, and which does not have a clear narrative. This indicates that the nature of Canadian dramaturgy has changed, while still leaving open the research question of exactly how.