On the question of terminological definition of the concept of author's theatre

By the logic of the language, any object of art has an author - albeit a collective one, as in folklore - and therefore, should be called an “author”. However, this does not really help in determining the exact place of a work of art in the system of art concepts and terms; but not every director manages to create an individual author's style. In Western theatre studies, at a linguistic level, the borrowing from cinema of such terms as “auteur theatre” and “the theatre of the director-auteur” is rather reflected. The concept of “auteur” turns out to be the most acceptable in describing a new type of director who actively adapts dramatic plays, intervenes in them and thus creates their own script based upon the other whilst developing their own unique style. Today new terms have appeared in theatre studies such as post-auteur and neo-auteur, which have not yet been investigated and are riddled with contradiction. The post-auteur theatre considers the work of the director-auteur, not as an expression of an individual genius, but rather as a meeting place, a point of assembly of his biography, intertext, context and specific historical situation. The post-auteur theatre puts the personality of the director-auteur in the background, putting in the first place the collective nature of the work to create a film or performance. The director exists today in another socio-cultural formation. That is why the concept of “neo-auteur theatre” (or cinema) that may become appropriate to describe a new approach to directing that is characteristic of the contemporary cultural situation. The neo-auteurism approach suggests that the director, in addition to the film or performance, creates a certain “added value”. Directors are fully involved in the advertising process to promote their performances on social networks, the media, participation in festivals, lecturing and other forms of public presentation and promotion. “Auteur” has become a marketing category, a label that is actively and not always deservedly assigned or distributed to directors. Anglo-American critics pay attention to such a sign of auteurship in the credits or on posters such as “film by” or “performance by”. This is a kind of trophy. In such a situation, auteurship turns out to be nothing more than a category of status in the hierarchy of social values, a purely external attribute of the “packaging” of a film or performance. However, it is important to consider the rise of a new type of director and to allow the rational identification of his or her conceptual activity; more often than not displayed in the work of such avant-garde directors as Edward Gordon Craig, Vsevolod Meyer-hold, Bertolt Brecht etc.