“Redundancy” usually refers to “the state of being not or no longer needed or useful”; to be more specific, it means that “the state of being no longer in employment because there is no more work available” or “the inclusion of extra components which are not strictly necessary to functioning, in case of failure in other components”. (Redundancy) In the text of the book Dramaturgy in Motion by Katherine Profeta, the word “redundancy” implies “waste within a putative Taylorist system for efficient artistic labor”. (Profeta)
Katherine ran into this word when she tried to define “the dramaturg as a singular, non-dispersed role”, because its definitions “easily overlap with existing institutionalized roles: director, choreographer, critic, producer development director, literary manager, audience outreach coordinator”. (Profeta) From this perspective, it seems that the existence of the dramaturg is “redundant” or not necessary. However, according to Katherine, “play and possibilities spring” out of redundancy. She quotes from Hildegard De Vuyst that “because if it feels like I’m not necessary, in fact, then I have a sort of freedom and a playground to stand on.” In other words, the redundancy of dramaturgs actually allows them to fully engage in the art piece without any limitations or worries. What is more, “the creative ferment of evolution can only achieve complexity via phases of multitasking and redundancy.” (Profeta)
I find the word interesting because such a derogatory word is regarded as an advantage by dramaturgs. It reveals that in the system of contemporary dance and theater, dramaturgs’ redundancy actually could be beneficial or even crucial. It could be recognized that all artistic processes are micro-evolutions that thrive on the redundancies and flexibility that dramaturgs offer. (Profeta) Therefore, to have a better understanding of redundancy could help us better investigate into the essence of dramaturgy.
Bibliography
“Redundancy” Oxforddictionary.com. Oxford Dictionary 2018. Web. 5 January 2018.
Profeta, Katherine. Dramaturgy in Motion: At Work on Dance and Movement Performance. University of Wisconsin Pres , 2015.
Hi Yaozhong,
A few writing issues to resolve first. Work with the writing center to learn to cite properly – (page numbers in parentheses only if you are quoting from one source that is cited at the end of the essay in a works cited – and if there are more sources, you need to look to your style guide to cite properly). Also you use many quotes to make your point. But a quote is not self-evident to the reader – you need to explain/unpack its meaning. If I am a naive reader, I’m not sure why the quote about a Taylorist system is there. You need to explain.
Which leads me to the interest you have in how art values redundancy. This simple notion should be said clearly in your second and their paragraph. You note how many of Profeta’s job task are replicated in other people’s work. So, as you investigate, what is the point of replication? Yes, art values it – but what EXTRA value does replication add? You say it’s “beneficial” or even “crucial” — and here I would ask you to dig deeper. Profeta does note that the work would probably staged even if it didn’t have a dramaturg. But the dramaturg gives everyone a second change to stop and think about what they thought about once and then executed. The redundancy allows people to see what they’re doing with fresh eyes and get critical distance which they can’t do when they’re so immersed in the process. Redundancy isn’t efficient – but it may make for a more profound project.