Fw: Encyclopedia and Debate

[Dorothy Hadfield]

I agree totally with Peter and Karen on their postings. The whole Romantic
"artist"  mentality sidesteps the very important issue of the pragmatics
of production and the politics of making theatre historically visible.

As to Denis Johnston's earlier argument about whether anyone is likely to
look up a famous stage manager, I think an equally compelling argument can
be made the other way around. Since the format of history dictates its
function, no one is likely to look up a "famous" stage manager as long as
all our theatre histories implicitly communicate that stage managers
are not even significant, much less famous.

If the web version of the encyclopedia is truly to have a more dynamic
value than the 1988 Oxford Companion, perhaps it could also challenge the
"artistic" representations of theatre that delimit the writing of theatre
history. Even a single site on stage mgmt might be a good start.

Dorothy Hadfield

On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Peter Freund wrote:

> I don't see why this debate revolves around deciding who is or is not an
> "artist."
>
> Doesn't your encyclopedia have a place for people who have made or are
> making significant contributions to theatre who would never describe
> themselves as artists. Managers and administrators might be one example -
> academics and theorists might be another.
>
> Peter Freund
> Her Majesty's Theatre
> Ballarat
> Australia
>