Since its establishment in 1993, the Historiography Working Group has aimed to encourage critical debate on methodological and epistemological problems related to the history of theatre and performance.
The Historiography Working Group considers itself as an open forum for debate and reflection that values exchange on methodological issues and the discussion of research. Historiographical questions discussed by participants may be illustrated through specific case examples, and there are no restrictions on the historical time or place a proposal might involve or on the kind of historiographical approach explored.
The Historiography Working Group works by circulating papers to members in advance of the conference for in-depth discussion in sessions at the conference. Any FIRT/IFTR member is welcome to attend, observe, and submit a proposal. Submissions are normally linked to a research project that the author currently has in progress. We welcome papers in all stages of development: from nascent 'thought' pieces to completed book chapters, although members may find it more useful in this forum to discuss earlier rather than later drafts. Writing on the year's theme is not required, but it is helpful for readers to know the goals and context of the work and what type of feedback the author desires. There are two possibilities:
a) Scholars share a work in progress, usually an article or book chapter excerpt (5000-word limit), framed by historiographical questions.
b) Scholars share a short essay (2000-word limit) that takes up a specific historiographical problem, possibly in response to the conference or convening theme.
The aim of the discussion is always to be constructive. It is a way of working that has been found helpful by young scholars inexperienced in presentation, and by scholars whose first language is not English, but it has evolved because it suits the needs of those who are working on a larger project, which is often seen to be growing from year to year.
For Call for Papers and more information see: http://theaterhistoriography.wordpress.com.
There was a huge interest in the work of the group since the conference focused on critical perspectives on “Presenting the Theatrical Past”. The WG had a total of 23 participants in three formats: the working group’s regular meetings, the curated panel and the round table “The Future of the Past”. The round table aimed to discuss the discipline of historical research and the particular challenges and opportunities of theatre historiography today within and across national paradigms. It was decided to try out a new format of circulating short essays (2000-word limit) in São Paulo as another possibility in addition to the regular 5000-word-papers.
São Paulo 2017
Funding issues meant that only 13 of our originally selected 21 papers were presented in São Paulo, but nevertheless the group had a very productive meeting and was pleased to welcome a number of new members to our discussions both as presenters and as spectators. We were particularly pleased to welcome a number of Brazilian colleagues to the group for the first time. Papers presented were focused on different questions of historiographic method and approach across a range of different historical periods and geographical regions; [we also discussed publication practices and plans including the forthcoming Bloomsbury Companion to Theatre History and Historiography which will include work by a number of members of the group.]
This year our working group had 22 participants in four formats: the working group’s regular meetings, a Historiography sponsored General Panel and two special sessions ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ and ‘Methodologies’ comprising of 4 papers respectively. While the ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ panel comprised of papers of varying length (2,000 or 5,000 words), the ‘Methodologies’ panel comprised of 2,000 word papers. It was agreed that the shorter papers in the ‘Methodologies’ panel worked very well and that the ‘Methodologies’ model should be followed in subsequent years.
Mechele Leon, “The Environment of Theatre: Power, Resistance, and Commerce.” In A Cultural History of Theatre in the Age of Enlightenment. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
Mechele Leon, “Before Jacques Copeau: Le Théâtre Français d’Amérique of New York, 1913–1917.” In La Scène en Version Originale, edited by Julie Vatain-Corfdir, 115–126. Presses de l’université Paris–Sorbonne, 2015.
Aldo Milohnic, “How to Reconstruct Dead Chicken? On Theatre Reconstructions in Slovenia.” In Ars Academica 3:4 (2016), pp. 51-68. http://www.fdu.ukim.edu.mk/pdf/ArsAcademica_004.pdf
Laura Monrós-Gaspar, Victorian Classical Burlesques. A Critical Anthology. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.
Janne Risum, “Press Reviews of Mei Lanfang in the Soviet Union, 1935, by Female Writers: Neher Versus Shaginyan.” In CHINOPERL: Journal of Chinese Oral and Performing Literature, 35:2 (2016), pp. 114-133.
Cia Sautter, “Ending in Dance: Ethics, Religion, and Staged Movement.” In The Performance of Religion: Seeing the Sacred in the Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Jo Robinson (email@example.com) to 2019
Rashna Nicholson (firstname.lastname@example.org) to 2020
Ruthie Abeliovich (email@example.com) to 2021
For more information about this Working Group