• SokyokuchiToward a Theory, History, and Practice of Systemic Dramaturgy
• Michael Chemers (bio) and Michael Sell (bio)

novice:

Why did they applaud?

know ledge able companion:

It’s hard to explain, but basically, he did that exactly as if he were a puppet.

—exchange overheard by michael chemers during a 1996 performance of kyoden’s edo umare uwaki no kabayaki, lilly library, indiana university.

Despite a century of warnings from well-meaning (if perhaps overweening) theatrical traditionalists about the dangers of technology in the theatre, theatre has not perished but has instead evolved into new, exciting, and culturally and politically pertinent forms. This is due, in large measure, to the emergence of new technologies and their application in the theatre. This raises a number of questions for the contemporary dramaturg, the first of which is, exactly what questions should dramaturgs be asking about technology, about the digital, the cyber, and the virtual, in relation to theatre? What are the questions that can help us define the theoretical foundations for a renewed dramaturgical practice that takes into account political, social, technological, historical, and psychological discourses and puts them in dynamic relationship with each other? How can we define theoretical and practical principles for dramaturgs that will help them embrace a broader historical and global perspective on the question of technology and theatre? How can dramaturgs better serve directors, designers, and audiences so that they can think about technologies both old and new, technologies that can not only create memorable experiences in the theatre but [End Page 24] facilitate creation and collaboration by those who want to make those kinds of experiences? Although many excellent scholarly works on technology and performance have emerged in the last few decades,¹ we argue that the ability of theatre artists to rise to the challenges and opportunities of computers, digital media, social media, and other so-called “new media” is hampered by both conventional understandings of dramaturgy and Eurocentric and inadequately historicized understandings of technology, and so we hope to demonstrate that some very old approaches to theatre articulate a new and useful way of thinking about and working with technology on and off the stage. This essay, which is part of a larger book project, explains the historiographic and theoretical foundations of this idea.

We call this approach “systemic dramaturgy,” which we consider part of a wave of scholarship and creative practice that has dramatically expanded the very notion of dramaturgy, particularly how we understand the dramaturg in relationship to the dramatic text and theatrical production. The premise of systemic dramaturgy is that theatre is best understood as a concatenation of people, places, things (scripts, props, structures, tools, specialized personnel, and so on), and processes (writing, casting, rehearsal, direction, design, publicity, and so on) that work together (hopefully!) in an organized fashion (hopefully!) to accomplish the goal of (particularly hopefully!) entertaining and edifying an audience. Theatre is also an interlocking set of conceptual systems: interpretive systems, production systems, teaching systems, and research systems. The systemic dramaturg understands not only how these systems work but also how they work together and how they work in concert with larger ongoing systems including aesthetic, political, and economic ones.

The exchange between the novice and the knowledgeable companion quoted above was overheard at a 1996 performance of Kyoden’s Playboy, Grilled Edo Style (Edo umare uwaki no kabayaki) at Indiana University’s Lilly Library, at the moment when the hero of the play first entered the stage, crossed to the center, and, in one smooth movement shifted his stance, bringing his parasol from his left shoulder to his right, earning thunderous applause from the members of the audience who understood and appreciated what they had just seen. The challenge faced by a novice spectator of Kabuki to fully understand why a human actor would intentionally wish to mimic the movements of a puppet—even one of the immensely sophisticated puppets that populate the modern Bunraku theatre—provides an excellent starting point for a case study of systemic dramaturgy. The conventions of Kabuki are challenging because they reflect a different way of thinking about and making with technology. To engage that difference, [End Page 25] we need to understand...

• Sokyokuchi向系统戏剧学的理论，历史和实践迈进
• 迈克尔·凯默斯（生物）和迈克尔·塞勒（生物）

新手：

他们为什么鼓掌？

知道窗台有能力的同伴：

很难解释，但基本上，他做到了就好像他是一个木偶一样。

— 1996年，印第安纳大学礼来图书馆的kyoden的《edo umare uwaki no kabayaki》的演出中，迈克尔·凯默斯（Michael Chemers）偷听了交换消息。

尽管好意的（尽管可能是过分的）戏剧传统主义者对剧院中的技术危险发出了一个世纪的警告，但剧院并没有灭亡，反而演变成了新颖，令人兴奋的，与文化和政治相关的形式。这在很大程度上是由于新技术的出现及其在剧院中的应用。这给当代戏剧界带来了许多问题，第一个是，戏剧界应该就与戏剧有关的技术，数字，网络和虚拟领域问哪些问题？有哪些问题可以帮助我们定义新的戏剧实践的理论基础，而这种实践又要考虑到政治，社会，技术，历史，和心理话语，并使它们彼此之间具有动态关系？我们如何为戏剧演员定义理论和实践原则，以帮助他们在技术和戏剧问题上接受更广阔的历史和全球视野？戏剧演员如何更好地为导演，设计师和观众服务，使他们可以思考新旧技术，这些技术不仅可以在剧院创造令人难忘的体验，而且可以[结束第24页]促进了那些想做出那种体验的人的创造和协作？尽管在过去的几十年中出现了许多关于技术和性能的优秀学术著作，但是¹我们认为，剧院艺术家应对计算机，数字媒体，社交媒体和其他所谓的“新媒体”的挑战和机遇的能力受到传统的戏剧学理解和以欧洲为中心的理解以及对技术的过分历史性理解的阻碍，因此，我们希望证明一些非常古老的戏剧方法表达了一种在舞台上和舞台外思考和使用技术的新的有用的方式。这篇文章是一个较大的书籍项目的一部分，解释了该思想的历史学和理论基础。

我们称这种方法为“系统戏剧”，我们认为这是学术和创造性实践浪潮的一部分，该浪潮极大地扩展了戏剧的概念，特别是我们如何理解戏剧与戏剧文本和戏剧制作的关系。系统戏剧学的前提是最好将剧院理解为人，地方，事物（脚本，道具，结构，工具，专业人员等）和过程（写作，演练，演练，方向，设计，宣传等），以一种有组织的方式（希望！）共同（希望地！）共同努力，以实现（尤其是希望地！）娱乐和教育观众的目标。剧院也是一系列相互联系的概念系统：解释系统，制作系统，教学系统和研究系统。

上面引述的新手和知识渊博的同伴之间的交流是在1996年Kyoden的花花公子《烤江户风格》（Edo umare uwaki no kabayaki）的演出中被无意听到的在印第安纳大学礼来图书馆的那一刻，当剧中的主人公第一次进入舞台时，他越过中间，并以一种平稳的动作改变了立场，将遮阳伞从左肩移到了右脚，赢得了阵阵掌声。理解并欣赏他们刚刚看到的内容的听众成员。歌舞uki的新手观众所面临的挑战是，要充分理解为什么人类演员会故意模仿木偶的动作，甚至是构成现代文乐剧场的极为复杂的木偶之一，也为案例研究提供了一个很好的起点。系统的戏剧性。歌舞uki的惯例具有挑战性，因为它们反映了不同的技术思考和制造方式。要发挥这种差异，[结束第25页] 我们需要了解...