Mapping the Terrain (Part 2) | ADN Symposium 2016

HN: So, what’s going to happen now is, please stay in your group, don’t disband, don’t move around, it’s just too tedious and it takes up too much time. I’m sorry to be such a time Nazi but we are running on a tight schedule. So what’s going to happen now is, within your own group, I’ve already stressed to nominate, choose, arrow one person who could deliver a short summary of 15 minutes of what you’ve been discussing, and we’ll go according to your particular groups, yeah? So we’ll start with group one, and then go on to group two and group three. So like I said, it’s short I’m afraid, and then we’ll try and see whether we can squeeze in some time for discussion, if not this session ends followed by lunch, which means that you guys can go on talking during lunch, yeah? So! Can I have group one to start us going? [pause] Sure, you can have two or three, it doesn’t matter. Take it away, Ken. 

KT: Okay, actually this group, one topic this group talked about was hierarchy. So in this presentation, actually I will destroy this hierarchical position, you know, summarizing the things on behalf of this group, but actually we have two presenters, and also we probably will ask for help from other members as well. So basically we found that how ambiguous the idea of the dramaturgy and the dramaturg, so basically we discussed statement number one, and we didn’t have time to go into statement number two. But in this statement number one, what probably could be a starting point was the wording that the dramaturg as a person in charge of dramaturgy. Generally, we agreed that this is not a very correct or probably appropriate wording. But when we consider - so the meaning that dramaturgy is so fundamental in the creative process, and dramaturgy is ubiquitous. So no one person can be in charge of doing dramaturgy. I believe this is a kind of consensus in this group. So how we can define the role of the dramaturg is the next question. And one possible answer can be - it is a person in charge of the process of theatre-making, or who is aware of the process of theatre-making. Basically we are talking about the so-called production dramaturgs rather than the in-house dramaturgs, and I believe that there are very few examples of in-house dramaturgs in this area. So probably we’d better focus on the discussion on production dramaturgs, I feel. So if we consider the role of the dramaturg as kind of, a dramaturg as a person who is aware of the processes of theatre-making - of course, the things can be quite different, you know, what the dramaturg actually does in the creative process really differs from process to process, company to company, country to country. But we still can have some sets of things that dramaturgs can or should do constantly. 

RP: Thanks! [Laughter from everyone] Sure I’ll join in the middle of your thought. [More laughter] So I think what we were discussing was a kind of division between the idea of a role and the idea of a practice. And we discussed that while we were almost all in agreement that the role is ambiguous and quite diverse, that there is something about the practice that happens consistently. We did talk about bringing in the researching perspective, kind of bringing in the social and political contexts, intercultural reflections, we really loved the idea of the companion, and we talked about sometimes that companion being wanted and not wanted, feeling invited and not feeling completely invited at other times. And also the way, kind of shaping the way in which the reception of the work is positioned. With that, we came into the discussion also of responsibility as much as what we discussed what ‘in-charge’ really means for the dramaturg. I think you [gestures to the person sitting next to her, whose face is obscured] mentioned that when we talk about responsibility, there is all of this responsibility of tasks, and yet the responsibility is yours and not yours at the same time. And it is this interestingly complex place that dramaturgy happens. I think one of the concluding thoughts we had was that of the diversity that takes place within the practice across not just Asian contexts but the different contexts in which we find ourselves working. And that sometimes maybe it is to understand the process without necessarily needing to define the minute details of that practice. And one of the points that I wanted to bring to the group was, and then I think Peter clarified it by saying that non-existence also doesn’t necessarily define the space. And as there was such a rich discussion about terminology, I found myself also not being able to also place myself, because I’m here to kind of assert that I’m a performer who feels like I’ve dramaturged on performance work and what does that mean and how do you work when a context is divided along linguistic lines, a context is emerging from a richer context into a post-colonial context, where do you place yourself? Can you say the practice exists but we don’t know what the role is yet? And it’s in such a nascent stage that maybe it’s okay also that it doesn’t exist. And that sometimes we intuitively negotiate those spaces. One of the things I think I appreciated about the questionnaire was the idea of conflict. And I think in reflection, conflict allows us to negotiate and define also - that we don’t know that we’re doing it at the time, that we fight [laughs]. I don’t know, is there anything, so we did talk a lot about negotiating and what this negotiation means, and how differently negotiations can work. We talked about also placing ourselves in the non-dramatic, where how you develop structures within devising contexts, how you are the companion sometimes when the structures exist and when the structures don’t exist. And how those two contexts define the practice differently. Anything else that I —?  

RL: I think Yinan also brought in the fact that the concept of dramaturgy comes from the idea of the dialectical. That this person is supposed to be another perspective, and that’s supposed to be as a counterpoint, and then that’s always quite an important thing. Peter also said that there’s lots of things that we must not expect a dramaturg to solve all the problems. Yeah? It’s not a problem-solver, it’s not somebody who comes in and solves all the problems. And again, the neoliberal kind of expectations that it’s efficient, you have a dramaturg who will solve all your problems and the issues that you have. The three roles: research, companion and operating on the level of reception and bridging. I think that’s all, right? 

RP: I think one last thing Peter did mention also was about the idea of having a particular kind of skill set. And how that becomes relevant or meaningful depending on the different kinds of production or performance or context you find yourself engaged in. Yeah. That’s it. 

HN: Thank you. What I’m hearing a lot is the idea of defining and from terminology is that there are clear lines between naming and placing. The position and then to move away from defining but just to put a name there, and then to define the name accordingly to different structures and different organic approaches to the doing of dramaturgy and the dramaturg. Yeah? Thank you so much. We now quickly move on to group two. We will hold all comments till later, I would like to just get through the reports first and if we have time, we’ll go on to comments yeah? Group Two. 

AT: Hi. Our group, we were discussing dramaturgy in terms of festivals. So because there was curation and programming, and cultural mediation. But we just went into curation with respect to festivals. We didn’t cover the other areas. Sankar from Kerala was talking about his festival, and at the beginning there was no curation, and then later on it felt like this was problematic, so there was a dramaturgical intervention and they needed a thematic framework of the festival. So there was a dramaturgical structure. Like for example the theme was ‘the body’ or ‘body politics’, and because of the things that are happening in India lately, of bodies and bodies of women, all that, and bodies occupy space. With that, they looked at, you know, the opening show, the closing show and how the concept of the body grows as the festival carries on in the seven days. So the idea of the body politically and how can it grow in the seven days. And there was a response from Hong Kong as well as Singapore that we - okay, from Hong Kong there’s no, the curation is not so tight, there’s no thematic curation to the festival, so it’s more just shows and the audiences go - the same thing in Singapore in the past with our arts festival, but lately, recently, there’s a theme now. And with the M1 Fringe Festival there’s also a theme. And yeah, for M1 there’s a curatorial brief and then we look for plays through an open call, trawling the net and commissioning works. And then we ask the artists to write a statement of how their work relates to the theme. Because that’s how we’ve then publicised the work, so that the artist is happy with how the work is publicised. But we don’t curate it in such a way because our audiences do not follow the festival from beginning to end. Because there are competing, concurrent things going on. So the situation in a city like Singapore doesn’t allow us to make it so tight, whereas Sankar was saying that his festival audience are very hungry and they do come for, they do follow the festival and they will make noise if the theme is not growing day by day. So I have to - you can talk about Melbourne and [inaudible] 

CR: Yeah, just to add a little bit, in terms of the festival in Kerala, one of the things is that there’s a conscious weaving of the regional, the national and the international strands, with the idea that these take on an evolving presence through the festival, and they enlarge the theme as the festival goes along. And the artists are cognizant of this, and they work towards trying to engage in that manner. There are discussions and so on and so forth through the festival and then this builds on what is happening within the festival. David identified something quite interesting I think, in terms of then the curator or dramaturg working out pressure points through the programme and whether or not these pressure points are working, whether they trigger something or they have the kind of effect that is intended or desired, or they don’t and something else happens. And therefore what happens if you’re trying to make links through the festival compared to just being a consumer who’s, you know, doesn't have that discretionary interest at all. Yeah then Alyson brought up the example of the festival of live art in Melbourne, was that right? In one case, the curation worked really well across the three venues where it was happening, and in another instance it didn’t, and it became very different as an experience, it became very elitist and very exclusionary, whereas initially in the earlier example, there had been a real sense of the space and you know, the placing, in a way, as well as the intention of the work coming together very nicely. So then the discussion moved to how there is a dramaturgy of people and space, and not just the work that comes into the festival. Kind of dramaturging the logistics, especially when there’s an experimental programme, and the experiment is in part the way in which it’s put together and where it’s placed rather than just what goes into it. And then the question of then the responsibility of the festival director not to produce a ‘supermarket dramaturgy’, which is David’s term, in which there’s really a focus on the financial mitigation more than anything else, and how things get packaged together, but a more politically enlightened one that engages with the needs of the context and the needs of the artist in relation to that. So then also the M1 example of no allegiance versus quite a lot of allegiance – Hong Kong, as well. And then Alyson brought up an example of a programme in Belfast in which there was a kind of trajectory of discussion that emerged out of a festival and this discussion was often targeted, no, was often curated to give priority to silenced bodies and silenced voices in order for this discussion to then affect the work of the next festival. So there was a kind of circulation that was taking place via the trajectory rather than in the main festival itself. So there’s a talking-back and talking-across. But again, the curating was intense, there’s somebody really looking at what’s happening, and as a result of that intense watching, which for me is a big part of dramaturgical work, the experience feels richer and becomes, I guess, more intelligent by the sheer presence of that attentiveness. Anyone else? No? 

HN: Great, already we’re opening up from looking at the minutiae of ‘thing’ and ‘person’ to the bigger picture of curation and programming. We’re now going to extend even further, group three, who’s going to share their discussions on pedagogy and transmission of the idea, of the thing, of the concept. Take it away. I think they need a mic. Could someone give them the wireless? Great, thanks. 

GG: So in our group we focused on pedagogy and transmission and what this might mean. The discussion started off first with our experiences with pedagogy or transmission - I guess what links those words together is how do you teach this or how do you apply it, to a certain extent, and that’s where the conversation started moving around. So Shintaro was saying that, in general, there is no really formal training in dramaturgy in the academe or the departments are small and it's currently growing and we’re navigating where we are in terms of education. So there are classes in, for example, theatre history or criticism, or how to look at a performance and write performance analysis. Usually this is where the education moves around, I suppose. It’s also taught in different places, not just in the university setting or a formal school setting. Shintaro even said that he’s set up a training programme, which was a pilot idea a few years ago, exploring the idea of how to train dramaturgs. Nanako for a while was looking for a dramaturgy class, or how to study it or where to study it, and asked a lot of dramaturgs in Europe. But what she said was there was really, the advice given to her was there was really no place to learn dramaturgy, but that you had to learn on the job. You don’t sit down and study it formally. So it’s actually confusing, because later on - I’ll jump back and forth - in the conversation within the group, a lot of us who do teach dramaturgy really formally also learn dramaturgy from a teacher, so what we have are educators who have learned via practice and are teaching formally, so that's a very interesting that that’s sort of developed. And then also we have our particular areas of interest or expertise, so some are more – Helly is into dance and choreography or movement, and others are more theatre-inclined or text-based, and although it’s good to have a general knowledge of theatre history, because we have to zone in our so-called specialisations, then sometimes we share, as with Nanako’s example, a semester with another teacher who focuses more on theatre and she focuses more on dance. So that’s one way of doing that. What else did we talk about... Also Heng Leun was saying that there’s no department of dramaturgy, I think that’s kind of - no one has had a real department of dramaturgy, it falls either under a theatre arts programme or a fine arts programme, and there are specialised classes in it. Liansheng also talked about this experience here at Centre 42 where he learnt dramaturgy as an apprentice and he talked about understanding its history from the German context and then kind of figuring out how to navigate the practice towards an Asian context, and look at performance analysis in a production, and then they get to apply that skill set or knowledge set in productions that they’re assigned to. So I mean the structure falls under that. Although again there are problems of how to negotiate that relationship when you are assigned to a production, also hierarchy comes into play, will a director who is well-known or more familiar with structure and/or history listen to me, were questions that came up. There was also a discussion on how to document dramaturgy, and this was very interesting, because the practice is in itself invisible, nobody really knows, right, I mean, or we don’t see it on stage, whatever it is that we do. So one of the ways in which we can contribute to dramaturgy would be to, be sort of documenters, writers of analysis, programme notes as Heng Leun explained. Maybe that’s where we can contribute, because there’s a lack of performance archiving and research in our specific institutions, or they are not accessible to a wide range of people, and how do we make that accessible. If it’s just going to be a discussion between a small group of people, then why make performance a community event, so how do we disseminate that kind of knowledge or process of dramaturgy and theatre-making and performance-making. So, that, I think went into the ‘soft’ skill set, which was in the questionnaire, the soft skills answer the questions of whether or not it may or may not be necessary to have formal education in dramaturgy specifically because I think most of the people in the group have learned or experienced dramaturgy in practice, I suppose learning how to listen to your collaborators, being very sensitive to the needs of the production, and those things are not academic things that we study, those are ‘being a person’ things that we encounter as social beings. So there was a discussion about how that then relates to the institutionalisation of the dramaturg, which leads to the naming of the dramaturg, which is I think where a big part of the discussion overall is it, I mean, you know, what is dramaturgy vs a dramaturg and what is common I think that we talked about - has dramaturgy existed for a very long time historically and specific countries where we practice, it’s just that it didn’t have a name, right, or nobody knew what to call it or were calling it different things, which is why the functions tend to shoot out into different trajectories. So in that sense, there’s I think something political to be said about the act of naming, and/or self-identifying as a dramaturg. Personally for me, I had difficulty trying to find fellow dramaturgs in Manila because very few of them identify as dramaturgs, and a lot of people, as with most theatre artists are, wear different hats or wear multiple hats. So I decided to call it ‘slasher’ identity because director slash performance-maker slash dramaturg slash marketing person, sometimes, PR, that sort of thing. So because of that, self-identification becomes problematic and part of identification also limits the functions that you can do as a dramaturg because then you think there’s a set way of doing it, like coming up with a production book or all of those things. The soft skills and then... right, so, also, Heng Leun talked about how the job has become more complex, and coming back from its history, before you were just discussing about the text and the text’s relationship to performance or live performance. Today, there’s just, we’ve moved away from the traditional notions of what theatre can or should be, we have digital aspects of it, choreography and movement and all these other elements that come into productions, so sometimes when the director is managing so many things, it’s really helpful to have someone to talk to about all these elements and how all these elements move together and go together, so that’s pretty much - does anyone want to add anything? 

HN: Great, thank you. We all made good time which means now we can really engage or try and discuss or have any questions - the questions could be inter-, meaning you can ask different groups, or it could still be intra-, yeah? So we can keep it in any form, any way. Who would like to start off with comments or observations, or if you have questions? [pause] Or even just observations or comments of what you have been discussing within your group. [pause] Really? Just now you guys didn’t want to give up talking right? So come on! [laughter from everyone] 

RL: I think there was one more thing that we discussed which I thought was very interesting. Yinan was saying that in the China context, that the dramaturg is usually an academic, a scholar that would go in, and because of the hierarchy, it’s accorded a lot of respect and power. And Peter says that once you introduce yourself as an academic, nobody will listen to you [laughter from everyone] in the Australian context. So I think that’s really quite interesting, the reverence for, you know, there’s a kind of deep-seated divide in one context that you theorists, academics know nothing about production, just shut up - or here, what does the scholar have to say about my production in terms of that. So, again, the different kind of operating contexts and how you identify yourself, for me it’s kind of difficult that you’re supposed to do the research and everything once you introduce yourself as the academic, nobody will listen to you. So that’s just one more thing that I just wanted to throw out, if there’s anybody who has a kind of experience, a similar kind of situation. There was also a lot of talk from - sorry I didn’t get your name - Charlene, here, about how we know what we’re doing but we don’t know how to talk about it, and we don’t know what it actually means and whether it is even worth giving a title to, at which point then what is my function and role within the kind of like, hierarchy of a production as part of the creative team. Yup. 

HN: Thank you. Yes, would you want to say something? Can we have the mic passed on to this gentleman here? 

Chris: Uh, just to make an observation, my name is Chris. The context from which I am speaking from for dramaturgy is within the context of my own teaching, theatre practice work for cross-cultural playback theatre festivals situated within Temasek Polytechnic and National Heritage Board, with reference to creation of heritage exhibitions and trails in Singapore. I’m quite intrigued by the specific subtopics being brought up during the group discussions, specifically curation, programming. For me, my assumption for the relationship between these two terms is programming comes under curation, curation has specific applications and definitions, and there’s this mention by Alvin about curation of arts festivals, though within the context of arts festivals, the artistic leader could be the artistic director, but the word artistic direction is not used by curation. It sounds like a crossing of disciplines between performing and visual arts, which is, I feel is strongly divided in Singapore’s context with reference to Lasalle’s and Nafa’s teaching. So for me I use a two-dimensional matrix that I shared with David earlier for dramaturgy, but I thought through the sharing between Sankar, the group members and David, I thought it brought another layer. The matrix that I use basically is an x- and y-axis, the y-axis primarily my dramaturgy, I trace it to multiple beginnings, there’s the cultural beginnings, whereby there’s one way, and then within the culture there’s intra-cultural considerations where the culture reflects upon itself, which I thought was where Ephraim started with in Germany, where there was an accumulation of bodies of works within that context of his culture, and there’s many ways, not one way, therefore many structures. So the culture, the intra-. And then as the world explodes into a global village, the notion of the multicultural, so there’s a multicultural dramaturgical research, and then there’s an inter-, performance of Shakespeare through kabuki, the transliteration of work, and then of course there’s also the transcultural, which is neither east nor west but unto itself, a collision between the international and the local. So along this grid, this line of five cultures, intra-, multi-, inter-, trans-, which I loosely group under the term of ‘cross-cultural’, there’s another axis which is the x-, which is along vocational application. There’s acting dramaturgy, directing dramaturgy, script-writing dramaturgy, arts managing dramaturgy and pedagogical dramaturgy. Across these five by five, two-dimensional matrix, we get 25 permutations, of which 25 can be interlinked in any way. But what Sankar mentioned about the festival and I thought was, I interpret as some form of very constructive criticism from David, the notion of international, national and regional narratives, you know, how funding works, how our dramaturgy is being crafted by the way money is being given, and how do we use that money, how do we channel that into our artistic work. I thought I’m quite intrigued by Sankar’s model because I thought there’s some other merits to it. Because it gives a common platform where the regional, the international and the national can be blurred. Everyone sees everything. I want to see everything. But yet within cities’ contexts, not everyone pledges allegiance to the festival. So it brings a totally second layer to this whole matrix I’m considering right now. How do we find funds, how do we manage funds within the context of dramaturgy. I think that is important. Just a thought. 

HN: Do we have a response - Alyson. 

AC: I think that’s really interesting. The relationship between funding and money and dramaturgy. Last year was the first year for our Master’s in Dramaturgy and we’re trying this big mapping thing, it’s impossible. It goes all year. And we had this sort of masterclass session every week and one was a creative producer who came in and we were having this debate before about is it creative producer, is that a dramaturgical job, well of course it is, but when it becomes about the money, is that dramaturgy? And actually, that has stuck as a real point of contention about that. So I think it’s very, very interesting that you bring that up, because that’s where we hit a sticking point. We could go yes, curation; yes, programming; yes, all these other things internal to the work, external to the work — money. It’s another one. Yeah. 

DP: I think it’s really important but what I really liked about what Sankar was saying was that in terms of, in the context of our conversation about curation and programming, the way in which we were talking about dramaturgy was the dramaturgical trajectory through the festival, set within the role of the curator, the programmer. And that within that role of the curator, the programmer, actually that’s where you have the financial relationship, the financing relationship. Not directly in relationship to the dramaturgical responsibility that he has as a curator. So I would love it if it was possible to separate - I don’t think that a, I think it’s, okay, I think it’s better that the role of financing is not connected to the role of the dramaturg. I really do. Because it’s connected to every other aspect. And I think at some point, you need somebody in the artistic process not to think about that, you really do. I think that’s something we should probably try and fight for in that space because it’s very oppressive in all the other tasks in the process of creating a work. 

HN: Miyo, there’s a mic there right? 

Miyo: Sorry, I hate to mention where I belong to, because we are particularly fighting for this place. I am from Japan Foundation Kuala Lumpur, but not speaking from the Japan Foundation Asia Centre point of view for this forum, but speaking generally from the viewpoint of the founders, I think sometimes it’s really interesting the dramaturgy also connects with the money and how international, national and regional also relate to how these each funding connect, I think that’s very interesting point to mention in here. But on the other hand, maybe particularly in Japan or some Asian countries, when you don’t have money, when you don’t have access to the country which is far away, and the farther it goes, the money gets bigger, and if you have a particular funding at one point, in whatever political reasons, if it exists, and then you have like a dense network of that region of the people, for example, in Japan we had Asia Centre in 1990s, and the amount of the network with Southeast Asian countries and Japan dramatically increased, and then when it disappeared, it dramatically decreased. And now it came back again and now I can really feel and see that it’s increasing. How can you as dramaturgs or as an artist, programmer or curator, how can you really separate your experience or your environment, which is already influenced by the money, which is not in the point of a newer programming, but when you’re programming you’re thinking about the network that you have, which might be a result of the funding already. So when we are talking from the dramaturg’s viewpoint, I think it’s very easy to say, we wish that money can be not attached to anything and can be fully free, so we can really have a free decision, but can that really happen? Because sometimes the money helps to broaden and you get influenced by the - 

DP: I’d love to respond to that because I think that there’s two things that are going on. You’re talking about dramaturgy and you’re talking about the role of the dramaturg. And I think they are two separate things. And that’s really, I think, something that’s very important. If the role of the dramaturg, if the dramaturg and their agency is separate from the financial aspect of it, then what you do is you carve out space whereby their practice and the things that they do are able to serve the creation and artistic work. When you’re talking about dramaturgy, then funding is attached to dramaturgy because that’s where we’re talking about the system in which it is created. So they’re two separate things. I’m proposing that the role of the dramaturg is, as much as possible, protected from that financing, but actually dramaturgy, which can be applied across artistic, institutional, cultural, is necessarily involved in funding. How Ngean is a dramaturg, but in his capacity as - he has not put this together, this whole network together as a dramaturg. He’s actually what is called a producer or an administrator. It’s two very separate skill sets. And I think in terms, even though they live in the same body, and often we all have those things going on in our same bodies, they actually need to be distinguished intellectually and artistically and professionally, so that we understand what is being impacted at every single moment. So we can say that I apply myself in this way as a producer, however in the role of the dramaturg I don’t want to be interested in finding the money for that job. That’s actually two separate things altogether. And that’s why I think it’s very interesting that in the discussion this morning, the role of the dramaturg is quite different to dramaturgy. And they actually have very different contexts that they operate within. And obviously some of them cross over. 

AT: I’d just like to add to David’s point. Because increasingly in the Singapore context, you have venues and programmers going into producing work, or co-producing work with artists. And there are dramaturgical involvements or interventions, and the material and the content can also be policed. Because the venues here are given a blanket term, they don’t have to submit their plays - in Singapore we have to submit our plays to get licenses. But some venues don’t have to submit the plays because they have a blanket exemption. And so they police themselves. And so when they go into co-production, they can use a dramaturgical position to actually regulate the content. And that means part of funding, and there’s a danger in that. 

HN: We have Liansheng - 

WLS: I just wanted to say on the flip side, because Heng Leun was talking about documentation and for me that went into the idea of legitimizing dramaturgy, and how it helps secure funding. Because I think a lot of the discussion in local, I mean I’m not being politically correct here, but I just wanted to share my view that a lot of the political discussions in Singapore relating to trying to place emphasis on process rather than a product, in terms of our artistic creation, I think dramaturgical work, if we are able to document it, helps to explain and legitimise the artistic process and helps, perhaps, artists to better explain certain things to the funders, to the sponsors, that’s one thing. I understand Alvin’s point in terms of policing the work, but my response to it would be, a lot of the dramaturgs operate on a very subjective basis, bringing along their own experience and learnings and cultural baggage. I mean, if they were hired by institutions, and they, you know, were framed to do certain things, I believe there’s some integrity in the dramaturg to refrain from acceding to institutional requests. Yeah. 

HN: Just to add on to that, I think I can say a few things about institutions and dramaturgy. As Faith pointed out earlier, my growth in the role of a dramaturg really started when I started working with the Esplanade on particular specific dance commissions. And yes, it’s a very interesting relationship, I think. Even though - the premise is that when they commission a new work from a choreographer, they would always suggest, advise, recommend that perhaps it would be to the choreographer’s advantage to work, collaborate or to have a dramaturg, also because some of the times, these commissions do champion, favour young and upcoming choreographers and artists whom Esplanade sees as potential artists to grow with. So, there is always this fine line, right. And of course this commissioned choreographer is free to choose, select, to recommend someone to come on board his/her team, bearing in mind that there are very few dance dramaturgs or dramaturgs in the region and specifically even in Singapore, this goes back to 2009 or 2008, in a way because of my working relationship, I would always be suggested to the choreographer. But we do go into a lengthy discussion and chat and there’s a getting-to-know-you period, literally there’s a matchmaking period, whether the choreographer is comfortable, whether I’m comfortable to take on these things. But the first one or two projects that we entered into - yes, as a dramaturg myself there was always this slippery slope of, ok, where are the alliances here? Top of my mind is always to serve the work and the art-maker. But at the same time, the engagement was with the support of the institution. I have to say, and again not to be politically correct, Esplanade quite a bit of leeway, a lot of leeway actually, mainly because we were all still also trying to figure out and negotiate the function of dramaturgy, the role of the dramaturg. So there was always this kind of negotiation and charting of really unclear territory, and it changes with each project. And as time grew, my working relationship with some of these choreographers grew from project to project. And then the areas became bigger and wider and in fact, more exciting for me as a dramaturg, which then included what we call the grey areas of creative producing, writing copy to help clarify promotional material for touring performances, then I became involved that way. And still, yes, there was a question of accountability to artist, to producer. And then of course as projects grew bigger, co-presenters came into play, co-commissions, different countries, money became important, obviously. There were also times in the last few projects or the previous ones, the really present ones now, where there were talks of certain institutions, producers talking about money and cost of certain set designs, and then the discussion went into include me. So there was at times always the question of ok, where do I stand in this, because I do see as a producer with experience, the practicality of certain cost measures in terms of a set design, do I then agree with the producer, do I then have a discussion with the artist, the way that I’m still learning is that we kept it very separate. And I would talk to the artist, I would also talk to the producer or the institutions, and then to see where things go. For the purposes of this particular case I’m talking about, at the end of the day, I did agree with the artist and said, we need to get this set going for very particular reasons, because there was a very strong artistic rationale behind it. It literally hung on the entire concept of the performance. But yet, it’s uncomfortable, it is uncomfortable - but I think it’s about generating the kinds of relationships we’ve been talking about, where you have to negotiate and there is a certain amount of grey areas that we do have to be aware of. And I think one way we do it is that we keep talking about it, where I actually tell the producer or the artist, I don’t usually need to talk about this, but if we want to talk about this, I need to know that everyone is talking about it, that I’m involved in it. Especially when it comes to money. Thanks. Anybody has any response or onto another question or observation? 

Yudi: Hi, I’m Yudi from Indonesia. If we, at a certain degree, agree with the notion that dramaturgy is an operating system, or fundamental process in the performance-making, but we cannot come to an agreement on what is the definition of a dramaturg, or the role of the dramaturg, the definition and the role of the dramaturg is ambiguous and full of contradictions, for instance - then I have this question: what is the situation, what is the need that initiates this function that we name it right now as ‘dramaturg’? What is the background, what is the reason for this position, let’s just say. That’s my question. 

HN: Who would - Yair, would you like to respond to that? 

YV: I can try to respond. And I will talk from an artist’s point of view and not from a dramaturg’s point of view, and really raise for me the thought about, the ‘expert’ or the one with more - when we are talking about mentoring or we are talking about to be the ‘expert’ or to come to a process from an experienced point of view - so I’m kind of thinking, well, when I’m creating, I have to have a dramaturg even though I have a lot of experience, I’ve done a lot of things, I dramaturged a lot of pieces. But when I’m creating, I’m this boy who doesn’t know what he’s doing, and then I need this position of a dramaturg to hold my hand and to explain to me what I’m doing from an outside position. So then, he’s not more experienced than me, or she’s not more experienced than me, she doesn’t know more than me - but this is the position, to be from the outside and to try to explain to you what you are doing, even though I have a lot of experience of telling other people what they are doing. It’s like a very shallow definition now, but I’m using these shallow words to make my point, so then the position of the dramaturg has to be there to create this kind of relationship between the inside and the outside. I’m not sure I’m agreeing that - I’m working the independent scene and I’m a part of an institute so I’m curating in an institute, but I don’t want the dramaturg to be the bridge from the institute to the artist. I really cannot understand this, even though I understand that it exists. But the dramaturg is part of the production, is part of the team of the production we are working with, so I would never ask the dramaturg - as a curator, I would never ask the dramaturg to be on my side and not with the artist or the opposite because then I would - it would get crazy. I don’t need my kind of spy in a production, but this is like how I’m working or I can never be - I can never agree with the theatre if the artist I’m working with is not agreeing with the theatre. It’s impossible for me because we are partners, we are collaborators, we are doing the same project together. And the position of the dramaturg is really to be this kind of person who is walking hand in hand with the artist, with the production. And I can say both as an artist and as a dramaturg for other artists, this is kind of my - 

HN: Great, thank you. Different responses, different ways to explain or to help answer Yudi’s question? 

SV: Just bringing a specific example of a play production of Emperor and Galilean by a theatre company from Lebanon. Emperor and Galilean is one of the biggest texts that Ibsen has written, it’s an 800-page text. And it is impossible, almost near-impossible to put this production on stage the way it is. So the dramaturg of that company, Omar Abi Azar, he comes up with this idea of a dramaturgical framework where a theatre company in exile is forced to perform a play in front of an audience. And the director choses Emperor and Galilean. Now that dramaturgical framework allows the play to happen. So you see a director desperately trying to dictate to his actors how to do this play, and in the process there is a mutiny, the actors murder the director [laughter from everyone] and then the lead actor, who has murdered the director, now takes on the role of the director, and he turns out to be an even worse monster than the director whom he murdered. And the women in the company come and strangle him [laughter from everyone]. So, this is a dramaturgical framework which allowed this production to happen. Otherwise I don’t know how this company is going to pull together this production. 

HN: I think what’s happening here is that in trying to define and lock down, I think it’s really opened it up further to question the position, the role, the function - more metaphors and allegories and visualisations of the function, the person, the thing, it has all come into play. It’s true, I think for me what was valuable to remember is that these ambiguities are generative, they are productive, and as I think all of us know, especially those who have been practising dramaturgy, whether as artists or whether as dramaturgs, is that there is room to play. I do like what Yair said about a boy, holding hands, the holding hands is not as in holding hands to guide, but rather someone to play along with. And the playing will definitely include the fighting. But the fighting is when then you clarify how hard, how deep you can play. How far you can play together, or for something else, or for the game that you’re trying to shape. So just quickly on Yair talking about how the institution, the dramaturg and the production team and the idea of ‘the spy’. I have to say, the first time I was engaged by Esplanade, and I don’t think is anything bad to say, that I did feel like oh dear, am I betraying the artist’s trust if I do make comments or have discussions with the producer on certain things? The fact was that the artist was from another country, and there were certain kinds of practices and systems that he had to understand. And also I had to understand his customs and practices from that particular country. And this goes back to Ken’s phrasing of cultural mediation, which goes beyond just the literal cultural practices but in all-inclusive terms of what David refers to as the operating systems. The operating system here is one within another - like a babushka doll - when we talk about artistic practices then it goes into production practices, institutional practices, then it goes into larger sociocultural practices. So it did occur to me at some point, am I being a ‘spy’? But the fact remains that if I work in cross-cultural, transcultural, intercultural settings, there are discussions to be had with producer, me with artist, where it benefits all and then to put, literally to sit producer and artist down and say ok, sort it out you guys, because there’s also so much the dramaturg can do. Yeah? Right. Any last - Charlene. 

CR: Yeah, I just wanted to throw in a word that came to mind, which is the degree to which a dramaturg needs to engage with complicity, and complicité. Because we are complicit in something and there is now pure existence, no pure eye, but then to play with it and work with that liminal space I think is to engage with the complicité. And the complicity is not necessarily a bad thing, in that one has to then get all morally worked up about. But I think it’s part of a working relationship with any organisation, any group of people, any collaboration, there is a certain amount of capacity to be complicit with something, and I use it with that tinge of darkness that surrounds it. 

RL: I’ve thought about what Yudi was saying and I think, and it reminded me of a conversation I had with a director who said, why do you need a dramaturg? We’ve survived so well for the past two, twenty, forty years without a dramaturg, why do you have to spend money hiring this person to do what essentially what a director is already doing? At which point I said to him, well, you’re not producing art 40-50 years ago, you’re producing art now, and the conditions are different, you’re encountering very different intercultural collaborations which you need another person to help you out. It is not an encumbrance. So I think what I would say is the conditions of production and the conditions of artmaking are very different, and to include another person actually deepens and widens the artmaking itself. That’s all I have to say. 

HL: Then I thought the title was quite apt. If you’re an artmaker it’s almost like you're standing in this particular location - you actually don’t quite know the terrain you’re working with because you’re exploring the terrain. But at the end you actually need a mapper to help you draw the latitudes, all the different signposting, and you know what you’re working with. You decide what kind of maps you really want. So I think a lot of times the dramaturg is actually like the mapmaker - they call it the cartographer. Yeah, but cartography is actually an art. So there’s an artistic process at the same time. That’s why my response then would be in its relationship with funders, that’s where the artistic process becomes very important in that negotiation. Rather than just merely from the financial point of view. So yes I think that became part of it, which then brought me to just now I think when she mentioned about the idea of the community, again because I think when we work in a production, there is a community at work, whether it’s just the artistic community that’s working, or the financial, or the administrator - but there’s also the audience. Again, together actually we’re trying to map something. Actually the cartographer, the dramaturg maps that particular terrain where we all are in. And just to find our place, which then, which is very much about placing. Yeah. 

HN: Thank you. Any pressing last-minute comments? One more, from Alyson, and then we wrap. 

AC: Back to that same question, I think that any conversation about dramaturgy in my mind sort of gets a bit hijacked by the idea of the dramaturg. And actually it’s about a dramaturgical consciousness, which is a term that came up in The Dramaturgies Project a few years back in Melbourne with Paul Monaghan, and it’s been really useful for me in terms of - what is it that we actually want to develop? Well, it’s dramaturgical thinking, the ability to think dramaturgically and to do so consciously. So it doesn’t have to be somebody called a dramaturg, it’s becoming clear to me that even though I’m really, I find this sort of fetishizing of the role takes over - so even though I resist it quite often, I’m finding it impossible to resist it. So maybe it’s just that we’re trying to articulate a role, and the dramaturg has become - because it is about the dramaturgy, I still really resist this idea that the dramaturg has some sort of sole understanding of the dramaturgy, very very much so, but it is about this person, what we’re hearing about a lot, that is in there, that can be conscious, can be documenting, can be archiving, can be articulating, can be doing all of those sorts of things that it’s much easier to do when you’re not right inside, in the middle. And I think it’s very clear that we’re moving in and out of these roles [a loud crack of thunder distracts the entire room] - oh thank you gods, oh it’s amazing [everyone laughing], just give me the microphone and you know. I’ll stop, I’ll stop. 

HN: Talk about great timing, yeah? On that note, and sound - I’d like to wrap this session up. Thank you everyone, for really really getting together. Thank you so much. [applause] So, just very quickly, we’re going to break now for lunch. We have an hour and a half, but there are a few just key housekeeping things that I’d like to quickly talk about. One is that speakers who are involved in the next session, it’d be great if you can come back by 1.45 at the latest. 1.30, ideal. To do a bit of setup and everything else. The next session will continue in the vein of - I hate to use this word, but theorizing or articulating the thinking of dramaturgy, the function, the practice, and hopefully maybe finding some threads from a regional point of view. We will have Peter Eckersall, Nanako Nakajima and Shintaro Fujii who will be up here with us to talk about that. So for now, thank you very much for this session, lunch for the foreigner speakers, you may want to get tips on where to go around here if it’s not pouring outside. We’ll meet back here. The next session begins promptly at 2. Thank you very much. [applause]