KATHY CHUNG
I agree, in principle, that the academic discipline of theatre studies would benefit from Professor Knowles's suggestions for a greater integration and exchange of ideas between theatre practice and theatre study and the infusion of a historically specific materialist critique into both arenas. In this response, I would like to comment on Professor Knowles's description of the state of the discipline and, then, raise some pragmatic issues related to the practical achievement of his suggestions. I must remind the reader that what follows derives from my own position as a graduate student, a position which does not claim to speak for other students with different experiences and points of view.
Changes and improvements to the academic situation must begin with an accurate identification of present conditions, and I find Professor Knowles's description of both the academic and practical sides of theatre programmes a bit misleading. He writes that university "Drama programmes" across the country still tend to teach Aristotelian poetics, to promote the notion of universal unchangeable social conditions, to posit "transcendent truths about human nature, and . ... affirm the status quo." At the risk of sounding like an optimistic Pollyanna, I feel that the severity of this description does not correspond to my experience and sense of the state of humanities programmes. Values are changing. I find it difficult to believe that a student within (or without) a humanities programme (graduate or undergraduate) in the 1990s can fail to have encountered at least some of the decentering ideas of theories such as: deconstruction, feminism, post-colonialism, post-modernism, gay and lesbian studies, etc. Professor Knowles's description of the academy also leaves out the work of many professors and students who are analysing and questioning, in theory and through practice, the status quo and the notion of unchangeable social conditions. Perhaps Professor Knowles's extreme description is polemical, but I wonder if he might be in danger of obscuring the situation.
On the other side of the equation, I'm not sure how well the "'R & D"' model of theatre as industry, of theatre programmes as a training ground for industrial workers, reflect Canadian theatre and universities. Most theatre in Canada is not Phantom or Miss Saigon and surely the primary intention of university theatre programmes is to foster creative artists of the theatre, not robotic, uncritical workers. I doubt that many Canadian theatres or theatre programmes have the luxury to engage in technical research and development for industry, nor do they believe their instruction alone will produce theatre professionals. As lighting designer Robert Thomson remarked during the 1995 F.O.O.T. festival, technical innovations in theatre are coming out of rock concerts, not money strapped theatres and university programmes. This commercial, professional, "'R & D"' model of theatre also leaves out the many amateur and/or community theatres in the country.
I do agree that a materialist and self-reflexive critique of practice (and theory) is certainly beneficial and I am most intrigued by the promise in asking questions about the economic, social, and historical ramifications of practices in technical theatre. I also agree that the form and structure of the university institution is a formidable force in "contain[ing] our analysis, our criticism, or even our rage." One way to affect change is for committed scholars to continue to participate in administrative positions which are arguably frustrating, time consuming, and energy sapping.
I would like to raise further questions about what goals can be practically achieved and, as reminded by director Duncan McIntosh, I will attempt to offer solutions instead of merely identifying problems. First, given that an integration of theatre study and practice is valuable, what degree of participation and proficiency in either area is appropriate and reasonable? University programmes do not claim to train theatre professionals, and production work should be undertaken to illuminate, challenge, and clarify theory and criticism.
How can university funding organisations, promotion and tenure committees, scholarship committees entrenched in standards of academic evaluation which have traditionally valued research and publishing above community service, administration, and teaching, appropriately give credit to students and professors for practical work? The creative process and final product of theatre is illusive and transient. While it can never be fully captured, perhaps a systematic and more refined process of documentation for practical work needs to be established so that it may receive due recognition.
How do we ensure that practical work informs and is informed by academic research? Academic and production courses tend to be taught separately. (This is not unique to theatre studies. For example, literature and creative writing programmes in universities seem to experience the same bifurcation.) In addition, there are few history, criticism, or theory courses on design or technical theatre. Perhaps we need to conceive a genre of theatre course which will integrate both theory and practice in a parallel structure. Due to growing financial constraints, professors are asked to carry out a growing number of duties: to be actively involved in productions, to do research, to publish, to teach, and to participate in administration. Fractured subjectivity indeed! Perhaps we can explore a variety of teaching methods. Courses might be team taught with two or more instructors present during all classes. (I am, however, aware that there is a question of how effective this is in practice and how viable this is in our time of shrinking budgets.) Following the example of practical theatre, which is a group or collaborative effort, perhaps we can also explore group projects and co-authorship in the academic sphere. This approach would promote greater communication between students and scholars, and allow individuals to explore and to challenge, in practice, the notion of an independent subjectivity or singular world view, an exploration which Professor Knowles encourages. In addition, universities can and do invite guest instructors from the working theatre and it would be ideal if they could be invited for more than one term or year to allow the guest instructor to become more familiar with the academic environment and to build on their initial experience of establishing a course.
These are some of the issues and thoughts which Professor Knowles's essay has prompted me to consider. I know I have raised more questions than offered solutions. Other individuals will surely refine and enlarge this student's necessarily limited understanding of the state of the discipline. I am, however, hopeful for the integration of theory and practice since it is my experience and a matter of my constant appreciation that my university colleagues are active participants in both academic studies and production work, whether due to or despite the form and structure of the institution. I am reminded that theatre is a collaborative art and intrigued by the promise that collaboration can exist both within and amongst different facets of the discipline.