Thoughts on the Database

Having clocked up two hundred odd interviews for the dramaturgy database, I've learnt a great deal about dealing with press officers and the general uselessness of asking performers about their reasons for coming to the Edinburgh Fringe (it's the world's largest arts festival). The danger of asking questions via email is that by the time I realised I had a dud, one hundred artists had been good enough to reply.

That one's my fault, and I apologise to the correspondents for wasting their time. But some of my other questions have struck gold.

First of all, dramaturgy itself seems to be both complicated as a concept and frequently associated with a specific task within the making of performance. The connection between 'dramaturgy' as a process or study, and the job of a 'dramaturg' is repeatedly made by performers. This led to my comic response, Not Just for Dramaturgs, which rejects the connection out of hand. Dramaturgy and dramaturgs may be linked by etymology, but if I accept that the dramaturg is the primary provider of dramaturgy, my research will be taking a swift trip to the tip.

I think this ties in with another theme that the research has revealed: the definition of dramaturgy is uncertain. I had thought this might be the case – having studied it at Glasgow University, there was a feeling among the students that even the dedicated courses offered less a clear definition of the subject than an expansive meditation on the general concept. While I enjoy a touch of abstract thought and metaphorical thinking, this isn't helpful and comes across like a mystification of a simple idea.

Wandering off topic, when I started my Mlitt in Dramaturgy and Playwriting, I would encountered confused looks when I named my study. Then a bloke in the bank smiled and said “it's the study of how theatre is made.” I realised that I'd been hosting a festival of obscuration and contributing to a culture that likes long words, so long as no-one pins down the meaning.

Between requests for a definition (usually tempered by the comment I know what I mean by it, but do you mean the same thing) and detailed descriptions of how working with a dramaturg had improved the quality of a production, there is a general hesitancy to embrace dramaturgy. At this stage, I'm not concerned to locate the details – partially because it might read like a name and shame session – but consider my culpability.

Rather than asking for a definition of dramaturgy, I asked whether the artist could describe the relevance of dramaturgy to their process. This was a trap. Dramaturgy is the process of creation: each individual artist is doing dramaturgy every time they make a decision, even down to taking a piss break during rehearsal. But from this easy-peasy definition comes forth a multitude of individual dramaturgies – like the way in certain strands of Hindu thought, the multiplicity of gods emanate from a single divine principle.

And it is these individual approaches that interest me. By being deliberately vague in the question (and those artists who noticed this, and probably got a bit annoyed with me for it, totally win), I was hoping to have left enough wiggle room to get interesting replies. And that worked a treat.

A common way for students to describe their dramaturgy, at least in Glasgow University when Dr Lavery is on the microphone, is to conjure a metaphor. My friend Elliot Roberts, for example, went for dramaturgy as fire (although he has a side-line in 'theatre as a meaning making machine'). I think it was Rhum and Clay who were closest to my model, when they asked me why my questions ignored the relationship of form and content.

The problem with the definition of dramaturgy is that these multiple versions are mistaken for a definitive version. I wonder whether having a 'capital D' Dramaturgy (that is, the one about it being the study or application of choices that transform an idea into performance) and 'small d' dramaturgies (the ones that individuals apply within their process).

Still, it's been brilliant reading these answers. And where I have got into conversations with correspondents, meeting new, exciting people. Their passion and generosity and intelligent is astounding.

For the sake of equality, I shall now answer my questions myself.

Where did this production start?

The dramaturgy database is a prelude to a longer period of study at Glasgow University that I hope will connect the world of performance with the world of sequential art.

Why the Fringe?

There are many people coming to do performance in August, and they are mostly up for some chat about their work.

What can the audience expect?

Plenty of artists talking about their work, a wide range of ideas, and smart-ass commentary from me.

Relevance of dramaturgy?

It's like breathing: I do it all the time, but this project gives me a chance to think about how I do it.

Process?

I just do things, and see what happens. It's a bit like scientific method, only without the testing of a particular hypothesis. It's more a case of finding out what happens at random, before getting a hypothesis to use.

Traditions and Influences?

Oh hell. Scientific Method. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. That rhizome theory. I'd like to say deconstruction, but I haven't done any yet (breaking stuff is not deconstruction).

Performers: Ian Smith (see comic about it). Les Ballets C de la B.

Importance of audience?

I believe that meaning happens at the moment of connection between audience and art work. It is never entirely independent from either side... if these words are never read they might as well be fsgflgwgwgfgrunnjh;[ojfHFHGG.

Other Questions

I want to come up with a second wave... sorry.