When I was in grad school, my program had a definite and overt opinion about the theatre versus drama divide (so explicit that the program was called "Drama/Theatre for the Young," e.g. they couldn't even decide on the name and so threw an inelegant slash in there), and, as it was taught to me, the dichotomy was so real that I think I inadvertently assumed that everyone accepted it universally.
Whether it's true or not is, of course, debatable, but here's how I internalized it:
There seemed to be two camps: those who identified as "drama" teachers and those who considered themselves "theatre" teachers.
In this particular environment, I felt the differences very viscerally, and I will illustrate them with (intentionally) broad stereotypes.
The "Theatre" folk seemed to look across the chasm at the drama folk and stereotype them thusly: lots of games and processes, culminating in almost nothing as far as product. The "drama" label was applied to use of the art for self-exploration and or understanding of the world, but without much focus on the audience or aesthetics. The negative stereotype, then (from the point of view of the theatre camp) was that drama was fluffy, navel-gazing, and crunchy.
The drama folk, in my estimation, saw the theatre folk as being all about "let's put on a show!", a bunch of Mama Roses standing in the wings yelling "sing out, Louise!" Thus, the negative stereotypes associated with "theatre" (from the "drama" folks vantage point) were that theatre was surface-y and glamour focused.
(Full disclosure, I identified as a member of the Theatre camp because, for me, the public, communicative component of the art has always seemed like an essential part of the art form's transaction, e.g. all of that work needs to lead toward some form of sharing.)
As with most dichotomies, there's, of course, a false opposition here. Again, I'm not providing prescriptive definitions here, just describing my perceptions within a certain environment. Of course, when we're facilitating the best art, we're attending to both the process AND the production. Exploring self and the world and putting that message out into a greater community (and, dare,I say, being entertaining and engaging to boot) are not mutually exclusive acts.
STILL, even within this academic minutiae, here is one point that has stuck with me that helps me when navigating the tensions of process vs. product. I'm sorry that I don't remember when I picked it up or from whom, nor have a I really checked its veracity, but I find it useful nonetheless. The root of the word "drama" is "To Do" and the root of theatre is "the seeing place." When I, on my good days, remember this etymological distinction, it definitely helps me to understand (and give due attention to) the twin needs to DO the art and have it SEEN
-------------------------------------------
Ryan Moore
Ferndale MI
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-05-2014 12:32
From: Stephen Thompson
Subject: "Theater" vs. "Drama"
I've been thinking more about this recently and, though usage is often nebulous, I think " drama" seems more like what happens in middle school and high school with games and exercises meant to hone those skills we use to orient ourselves, discover physical and verbal ways to create and communicate, tell stories using tableau, pantomime and improvisation.."theatre" seems to be the act of actually making a production happen...for this reason I think our class that meets daily to warm up, do exercises and learn about the stage is called "drama" and where we put it all together after school is "theatre". ... Not "theater"-the space that we perform and present but "theatre" the people, process and production of art in action. Not everybody's distinction, perhaps, but the one that seems to suit us.
-------------------------------------------
Stephen Thompson
Paris AR
-------------------------------------------