драматургия

Our dramatic authors in a number of their works reflected the new man in the context of modern life, of the construction of socialism. Our dramaturgy on a modern theme contained a number of socio-psychological and socio-critical elements. Its main feature was the denial of the then capitalist reality, the affirmation of the new that was coming. These works outlined the rapid development of socialist realism from the initial period after September 9 to the present day.

The viewer gains the right to like or dislike a drama very easily - in exchange for the detached control of his theater ticket. But who gave a critic the right to occupy readers at length with his impressions of one or another work? His acknowledged aesthetic taste Or his ability to present his considerations in an engaging manner? It has always seemed to me very immodest to some people to pass harsh judgments on the taste of others - this one did not have good taste, that one did! It is immodest because in such cases a person silently turns his own attitude towards art into a unit of measure of taste. How could you judge whether the critic's artistic sense is good if you yourself are not convinced that your aesthetic taste is not inferior to it? A significant work of art affects many people not because they have "unified" their tastes, but because it has discovered such an aspect of life that can excite people with the most diverse thoughts, feelings and moods. We often say that art is not a "world closed in on itself." But we do not always think to add that the work of art becomes "world for us" thanks to its ability to connect with the personal, unique life (emotional and intellectual) experience of each of us. And from this it follows: there is no "authoritative" personal taste. Personal taste is the inalienable right of the reader, viewer or listener to experience the work of art - to connect it directly with what he himself was, is or strives to be. This is why in art several different and yet correct interpretations of the same image are possible. Hence the rights of one's own opinion in criticism. It would be risky to demand from it a single "interpretation" of the work of art. But does this mean that there is complete relativity of critical assessments, almost reaching arbitrariness? Is there not a limit beyond which interpretations cease to be well-founded and correct?

Often in our arguments about contemporary Bulgarian drama we tend to fall into extremes. In moments of good mood we only praise it, in bad moods we pour reproach after reproach. The gesture of excessive tolerance in such cases suddenly turns into caustic and witty malice. However, if we abandon the paradoxes and one-sided analogies with the work of today's greatest European playwrights, we cannot help but acknowledge several important facts. First, after September 9, 1944, an internal explosion took place in Bulgarian drama. It came along the line of ideas, and this is already certain evidence of significant changes in the very nature of drama. Since drama is an active history of society, it could not remain aloof from the problems that were posed by the September 9th people's revolution. Even more. It found itself at the center of the socio-political struggles that decided the fate and future of the Bulgarian people. In this sense, it also appeared as a continuation of the basic spirit of our native dramaturgy - of its social tone and commitment. And yet, here one more circumstance must be taken into account. While in poetry, fiction, painting, even in the theater we had bright examples of ideological communist art - Smirnensky, Vaptsarov, Karaslavov, Zhendov, Danovski - in dramaturgy the peaks of social pathos after Vazov were marked by the art of Yavorov at the end of the ten years and that of St. L. Kostov in the thirties. That is, by the creativity that did not set as its goal the uncompromising and effective struggle against the bourgeois world, more precisely, that did not fight in the name of the most progressive ideal of the era. The only more categorical example in this regard is Vaptsarov's play "The Ninth Wave", but it, unlike his innovative communist poems, conscientiously follows the spiritual structure of the classical Ibsen line in modern dramaturgy.