MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1990082080 · doi:10.1353/utq.2010.0189

Collective Creation, Collaboration and Devising (review)

2010· article· en· W1990082080 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Claire Borody

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueTheatre and Performance Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDramaRevelationSociologyMedia studiesArtVisual artsLiterature

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Collective Creation, Collaboration and Devising Claire Borody (bio) Bruce Barton , editor. Collective Creation, Collaboration and Devising. Playwright's Canada. xxxiv, 270. $30.00 Collective Creation, Collaboration and Devising, edited by Bruce Barton, is volume 12 in the series Critical Perspectives on Canadian Theatre in English, directed at what series editor Ric Knowles states as 'making the best critical and scholarly work in the field readily available to teachers, students and scholars of Canadian drama and theatre.' To that end Barton has collected twenty-three articles that contribute to an understanding of the practice of devised theatre. This collection is particularly significant given the fact that collaboratively conceived and devised performance work in English Canada has not received the critical attention deserving of such an important development. This anthology offers a [End Page 529] selection of articles that provides the reader with a sense of the diversity of the work that has emerged over the past four decades. In 1994 Alison Oddey published Devising Theatre: A Practical and Theoretical Handbook, a seminal attempt to identify and illustrate the breadth of devised theatre practice in Britain. In doing so, Oddey addressed a simple and direct truth: each devised performance was a tangible expression of the collaborators' fragmentary experiences of understanding themselves, their culture, and the world they inhabited. In this revelation, she illustrated the very personal nature of the creative process and thus the importance of making that process accessible/ visible for the spectator in the performance. In his introduction, Barton distills Oddey's identification of collaboration as 'the processual framework' governing devising with the following equation: 'collective = shared purpose and motivation, ideology; collaboration = self-imposed framework and structure, context; devising = adopted strategies and rules, process.' This equation provides the reader with a frame of reference with which to examine the collection of articles. The articles, arranged chronologically, represent a wide spectrum of both scholarly and practical interaction with collectively generated, collaborative, and devised theatre practice. Most of the articles have previously appeared in print and are either full or excerpted versions of the original material. The collection also includes four recent (2008) and previously unpublished articles. As might be expected, there are no definitive statements that speak to the whole. What exists is a mosaic that in its entirety provides a larger picture of the development of this stream of theatre-making in English Canada. What can be identified in all articles is the creator/performer's need to generate authentic and affecting experiences for the spectator. The collection begins with a series of well-known articles and excerpts from larger works written between 1982 and 1992, by Diane Bessai, Chris Brookes, Alan Filewod, Robert C. Nunn, Renate Usmiani, and Robert Wallace, that refer predominantly to 'the creative treatment of actuality' and other developments in collective creation occurring in the 1960s and 1970s. This grouping of articles represents a summary of early collaborative endeavours in English-Canadian theatre. The remainder of the collection serves a wide range of perspectives and issues from an even broader range of practice that includes writers (Plowman), dramaturges (Barton, Brask), directors (Bettis, Scott, McLean, Nolan), facilitators (Gallagher, Salverson), scholars (Knowles, Hurley, Little, Olaogun, Wasserman), performer/creators (Mojica, Wells), and participant/scholars (Freeman). A number of the contributors function in a range of roles in their professional lives but take on a singular perspective in relation to the content they discuss. The articles focus on particular aspects of collaborative performance creation in specific situations and include the creation of popular and applied theatre projects. [End Page 530] Barton's choice to set the entire collection in a chronological frame, rather than grouping the articles according to content, allows the reader to experience the sometimes seamless, sometimes abrupt shifts in content and focus that occur in the overall advancement of the art form over time. The diversity of perspective, structure, and tone of the observations is a major strength of the collection as a whole. It illustrates the fact that devised and collectively generated theatre continues to resist the containment of definition and homogenous analysis. While the anthology makes an important contribution to the study of collaborative theatre in English Canada, there are significant omissions in...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,055

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,205
Écart entre enseignants0,197 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlyMême sujetTheatre and Performance StudiesTravaux en français237 207