Tracking Deaf Aesthetics in Deaf Spaces
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dramaturgy for plays featuring scripts developed with deaf actors, or by deaf playwrights, brings a layered and complex set of considerations about increasing accessibility in theatre productions for the cast, crew, and audience. These considerations include (1) making deliberate decisions about the languages the actors use; (2) addressing linguistic repertoires of the audience; (3) supporting or expanding sensory repertoires; (4) discussing the role of technology; and (5) incorporating deaf themes that are rarely known or understood by nondeaf audiences. Using a deaf aesthetics theoretical lens, the article explores dramaturgical decisions made by deaf playwrights, directors, and performers regarding four theatre and dance theatre works that were produced or are in progress in midwestern Canada between 2020 and 2025. The article also provides a performance ethnography of a staged reading for a script in progress developed by a deaf-led team of actors, a director, and a playwright. The performance ethnography relies on data collected from multiple sources: imagination-based activities resulting in artwork; steps within an adapted playbuilding model; video recordings of workshop sessions; the devised script; a video of the staged reading; and interviews with the deaf research team and participants. The data indicates that deaf aesthetics theatre practices drive accessibility strategies which are interwoven into the script. Plain Language Abstract (adapted by Kelsie Acton with Daniel Foulds) Dramaturgy is a way of making meaning and making people feel. People might see, hear, smell, or feel performance. So, dramaturgy is about making meaning and feeling through the senses. Dramaturgs are the people responsible for dramaturgy. When dramaturgs work on plays with deaf actors or with deaf writers they need to think about access. They must think about: The language the actors use. Will the actors speak or sign? The language the audience uses. Do they speak or sign? How many other languages do they use? How to help the audience use more than one sense. Will the play ask the audience to see as much as listen? How to use technology to increase access. How to explain the deaf experience to nondeaf audiences. This writing talks about four plays from midwestern Canada. These plays all took place in the last five years. We study a reading of a script a deaf playwright is working on with a team that is led by deaf people. We look at art made to develop the script, video of workshops, the script, video of a reading, and interviews with the deaf researchers and artists. We think about these things with deaf aesthetics theory. Deaf aesthetics theory says that deaf people should teach and make art for other deaf people. It also says art for deaf people should think about seeing and touching more than hearing. We found that deaf theatre makers don’t add access. Deaf theatre makers put access in the script from the start.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».