These two articles are fascinating. First, read the amazing Mike Daisey's thoughts, below:
http://sneakyfilters.info/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy50aGVzdHJhbmdlci5jb20vc2VhdHRsZS9Db250ZW50P29pZD01MDM4Mjk%3D
Then read TCG president Teresa Eyring's response.
http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/julyaugust08/exec.cfm
And now, discuss.
4.16.2008
And I quote...
This is from Iris Murdock's The Sea, The Sea.
"Emotions really exist at the bottom of the personality or at the top. In the middle they are acted. This is why all the world is a stage, and why the theatre is always popular and indeed why it exists: why it is like life, and it is like life even though it is also the most vulgar and outrageously facetious of all the arts. Even the middling novelist can tell quite a bit of truth. His humble medium is on the side of truth. Whereas the theatre, even at its most 'realistic', is connected with the level at which, and the methods by which, we tell our everyday lies. This is the sense in which 'ordinary' theatre resembles life, and dramatists are disgraceful liars unless they are very good. On the other hand, in a purely formal sense the theatre is the nearest to poetry of all the arts. I used to think that if I could have been a poet I would never have bothered with the theatre at all, but of course this is nonsense. What I needed with all my starved and silent soul was just that particular way of shouting back at the world. The theatre is an attack on mankind carried on by magic: to victimize an audience every night, to make them laugh and cry and suffer and miss their trains. Of course actors regard audiences as enemies, to be deceived, drugged, incarcerated, stupefied. This is partly because the audience is also a court against which there is no appeal. Art's relation with its client is here at its closest and most immediate. In other arts we can blame the client: he is stupid, unsophisticated, inattentive, dull. But the theatre must, if need be, stoop -- and stoop -- until it attains that direct, that universal communication which other artists can afford to seek more deviously and at their ease. Hence the assault, the noise, the characteristic impatience."
Discuss.
"Emotions really exist at the bottom of the personality or at the top. In the middle they are acted. This is why all the world is a stage, and why the theatre is always popular and indeed why it exists: why it is like life, and it is like life even though it is also the most vulgar and outrageously facetious of all the arts. Even the middling novelist can tell quite a bit of truth. His humble medium is on the side of truth. Whereas the theatre, even at its most 'realistic', is connected with the level at which, and the methods by which, we tell our everyday lies. This is the sense in which 'ordinary' theatre resembles life, and dramatists are disgraceful liars unless they are very good. On the other hand, in a purely formal sense the theatre is the nearest to poetry of all the arts. I used to think that if I could have been a poet I would never have bothered with the theatre at all, but of course this is nonsense. What I needed with all my starved and silent soul was just that particular way of shouting back at the world. The theatre is an attack on mankind carried on by magic: to victimize an audience every night, to make them laugh and cry and suffer and miss their trains. Of course actors regard audiences as enemies, to be deceived, drugged, incarcerated, stupefied. This is partly because the audience is also a court against which there is no appeal. Art's relation with its client is here at its closest and most immediate. In other arts we can blame the client: he is stupid, unsophisticated, inattentive, dull. But the theatre must, if need be, stoop -- and stoop -- until it attains that direct, that universal communication which other artists can afford to seek more deviously and at their ease. Hence the assault, the noise, the characteristic impatience."
Discuss.
2.12.2008
A little note on Collaboration
Collaboration is one of the reasons we do the work that we do in the theatre. Collaboration should elevate process. It is the thing that hovers in the center of a venn diagram -- it's what couldn't exist individually and appears only when our visions intersect at a point. Collaboration is transparency of expectation and information. Collaboration is what can make or break an experience in the theatre. It can mean the difference between learning something, creating the possibility of excellence, and going only as far as your ego will allow, which is usually just what's on the page. It is the ability to create the space in which something might happen. It is permission to ask why? and what? It is the ability to say no. It is the power to say yes.
10.18.2007
A little manifesto on putting it out there
In my time in a saturated, overstimulated market, I've made some valuable discoveries:
1. There is no excuse for mediocre work. The resources exist to always achieve excellence-- It can be an excellent failure, but an attempt to grasp for brilliance should be present.
2. Making work because there is a vision of its necessity or adventure or truthfulness of the times will create the opportunity for excellence. "Exposure" is no reason to put art in the world. It's self-indulgent and creates the glut of horrible theatre that erodes audience faith and attendance. Continuing to achieve excellence is what creates opportunity for exposure.
3. The work should provide something that doesn't already exist-- a greater purpose than "it's mine and that's what's been missing from the scene" must be attempted. Loving the material isn't enough-- knowing what it's doing in the world at this moment in time is necessary.
4. In a saturated market, there are so many wonderful companies doing wonderful work-- it's necessary to know who and what have come before. If there's a company already doing what an indivdual desires to do, create a connection. Let them be the conduit. Bring your excellence to theirs and see what energy flies.
5. The potential for change always exists. Asking how can I do this differently? (be it style, content, audience development, artist recruitment, financing) is crucial in an overstimulated environment. It's the only way to cause change and also requires the knowledge of #4.
6. Risk is scary. That's why it's called risk. BUT, risk is the only way to learn and expand limitations, stretch boundaries and engage in ways that you've only imagined. Risk is also hard. It takes a lot more hours of work than comfort, and you may find yourself doing a lot more than you bargained for.
7. Vision doesn't always get achieved the way you expect or the way that's been proven before. Allowing the knowledge of what's come before, the awareness of what is and the quest for change to inform process will open up pathways that didn't previously exist. Traditional routes will probably no longer apply or be helpful in the achievement of vision. But that's why it's vision.
1. There is no excuse for mediocre work. The resources exist to always achieve excellence-- It can be an excellent failure, but an attempt to grasp for brilliance should be present.
2. Making work because there is a vision of its necessity or adventure or truthfulness of the times will create the opportunity for excellence. "Exposure" is no reason to put art in the world. It's self-indulgent and creates the glut of horrible theatre that erodes audience faith and attendance. Continuing to achieve excellence is what creates opportunity for exposure.
3. The work should provide something that doesn't already exist-- a greater purpose than "it's mine and that's what's been missing from the scene" must be attempted. Loving the material isn't enough-- knowing what it's doing in the world at this moment in time is necessary.
4. In a saturated market, there are so many wonderful companies doing wonderful work-- it's necessary to know who and what have come before. If there's a company already doing what an indivdual desires to do, create a connection. Let them be the conduit. Bring your excellence to theirs and see what energy flies.
5. The potential for change always exists. Asking how can I do this differently? (be it style, content, audience development, artist recruitment, financing) is crucial in an overstimulated environment. It's the only way to cause change and also requires the knowledge of #4.
6. Risk is scary. That's why it's called risk. BUT, risk is the only way to learn and expand limitations, stretch boundaries and engage in ways that you've only imagined. Risk is also hard. It takes a lot more hours of work than comfort, and you may find yourself doing a lot more than you bargained for.
7. Vision doesn't always get achieved the way you expect or the way that's been proven before. Allowing the knowledge of what's come before, the awareness of what is and the quest for change to inform process will open up pathways that didn't previously exist. Traditional routes will probably no longer apply or be helpful in the achievement of vision. But that's why it's vision.
9.18.2007
By any other name...
When visiting Quincy this weekend, we were talking about reinvigorating our audience bases. I began to think about what the word AUDIENCE means and its etymology. I thought about the word audience's synonym, spectator.
audience (definition from Online Etymology Dictionary © 2001 Douglas Harper, www.etymonline.com)
c.1374, "the action of hearing," from O.Fr. audience, from L. audentia "a hearing, listening," from audientum (nom. audiens), prp. of audire "to hear," from PIE compound *au-dh- "to perceive physically, grasp," from base *au- "to perceive" (cf. Gk. aisthanesthai "to feel"). Meaning "formal hearing or reception" is from 1377; that of "persons within hearing range, assembly of listeners" is from 1407. Sense transferred 1855 to "readers of a book." Audience-participation (adj.) first recorded 1940.
spectator (Online Etymology Dictionary © 2001 Douglas Harper, www.etymonline.com)
1586, from L. spectator "viewer, watcher," from pp. stem of spectare "to view, watch" (see spectacle). Spectate (v.) is a back-formation attested from 1929. Spectator sport is attested from 1943.
I feel that these words, which at their roots indicate watching and listening, are too passive for the new generation of theatre-goer, the person who attends the new wave of the American theatre.
The audience needs a christening: the spectator need a new name in order to fulfill their new role as active partners/participants in the theatrical event.
I want a word that connotes a conversation-partner, a participant, a theatre-maker, a collaborator, a peer, a responder.
Any ideas?
audience (definition from Online Etymology Dictionary © 2001 Douglas Harper, www.etymonline.com)
c.1374, "the action of hearing," from O.Fr. audience, from L. audentia "a hearing, listening," from audientum (nom. audiens), prp. of audire "to hear," from PIE compound *au-dh- "to perceive physically, grasp," from base *au- "to perceive" (cf. Gk. aisthanesthai "to feel"). Meaning "formal hearing or reception" is from 1377; that of "persons within hearing range, assembly of listeners" is from 1407. Sense transferred 1855 to "readers of a book." Audience-participation (adj.) first recorded 1940.
spectator (Online Etymology Dictionary © 2001 Douglas Harper, www.etymonline.com)
1586, from L. spectator "viewer, watcher," from pp. stem of spectare "to view, watch" (see spectacle). Spectate (v.) is a back-formation attested from 1929. Spectator sport is attested from 1943.
I feel that these words, which at their roots indicate watching and listening, are too passive for the new generation of theatre-goer, the person who attends the new wave of the American theatre.
The audience needs a christening: the spectator need a new name in order to fulfill their new role as active partners/participants in the theatrical event.
I want a word that connotes a conversation-partner, a participant, a theatre-maker, a collaborator, a peer, a responder.
Any ideas?
9.11.2007
Anti-company model? Or reinventing the wheel
There's an embryonic idea I'm working on for a company-- but it feels like it's at the edges of my brain and needs a catalyst for the AHA moment. So I'll rant a little
now and see what I come up with-- maybe one of you has an AHA response???
If part of my (our?) dissatisfaction with trends in American theatre today stems from the running of non-profit companies with subscribers and seasons, is there a way to break apart that model and build something else in response? Perhaps a company built on a project-to-project basis that attracts funding and audiences for each specific project? A company that knows it's temporary, like the show itself?
The company's project ideas are need-driven. Those needs can be broadly defined. (Ex: There's a need to bring light to the state of veterans affairs. Or there's a need to create event-style theatre pieces to help shake up the audience experience. Or there's a need to LIGHTEN UP during the election year. You get my drift.) Fundraising strategies get streamlined this way and different deep pockets can be picked with each topic that projects are based on.
Projects are given lengthy developmental processes (9months-1year for creation) and are built with an investment in the community that the need-based idea comes from. (Is this from interviews? Classes? Coffee shop readings?)Using the "Tipping Point" idea of "The law of the few" seems important here.
There is no single location for the company. The company locus moves to serve whatever community best fits the project. (Ex: I've got an idea for a project on Executive Assistants. The piece could take place in a midtown location during lunch or at happy hour during the week.)
(The more I write this, the more I'm thinking about En Garde Arts and Tectonic Theatre Project. I think I'm talking about a mash-up of the two models.)But how is there sustainability with a model like this? Does a company need institutional memory in order to have success? What are the administrative needs and is there a way to experiment with their structure without creating chaos or funding gaps?
I'm also thinking a lot about how to make changes in theatre that can cause audience excitement and artist invigoration. I want to change the way theatre is created and perceived in this country. Are these somewhat scattered ideas a pathway to that goal? Or is this just a rehashing of old ideas that have fizzled before?
now and see what I come up with-- maybe one of you has an AHA response???
If part of my (our?) dissatisfaction with trends in American theatre today stems from the running of non-profit companies with subscribers and seasons, is there a way to break apart that model and build something else in response? Perhaps a company built on a project-to-project basis that attracts funding and audiences for each specific project? A company that knows it's temporary, like the show itself?
The company's project ideas are need-driven. Those needs can be broadly defined. (Ex: There's a need to bring light to the state of veterans affairs. Or there's a need to create event-style theatre pieces to help shake up the audience experience. Or there's a need to LIGHTEN UP during the election year. You get my drift.) Fundraising strategies get streamlined this way and different deep pockets can be picked with each topic that projects are based on.
Projects are given lengthy developmental processes (9months-1year for creation) and are built with an investment in the community that the need-based idea comes from. (Is this from interviews? Classes? Coffee shop readings?)Using the "Tipping Point" idea of "The law of the few" seems important here.
There is no single location for the company. The company locus moves to serve whatever community best fits the project. (Ex: I've got an idea for a project on Executive Assistants. The piece could take place in a midtown location during lunch or at happy hour during the week.)
(The more I write this, the more I'm thinking about En Garde Arts and Tectonic Theatre Project. I think I'm talking about a mash-up of the two models.)But how is there sustainability with a model like this? Does a company need institutional memory in order to have success? What are the administrative needs and is there a way to experiment with their structure without creating chaos or funding gaps?
I'm also thinking a lot about how to make changes in theatre that can cause audience excitement and artist invigoration. I want to change the way theatre is created and perceived in this country. Are these somewhat scattered ideas a pathway to that goal? Or is this just a rehashing of old ideas that have fizzled before?
9.04.2007
On The Audience
This is a quick little spit of a rant:
I think one of the deadliest things to say to oneself is "will The Audience understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this idea"?
The Audience. What the hell does that mean? WHO is The Audience? Most of us don't really have a clue who our audience is (outside of our friends and colleagues - but even then we cannot begin to guess what each of our nearest and dearest are going to get out of a certain moment). So how can we guess what The Audience will think or understand about a piece?
I keep coming back to Quincy's citation of Foreman's philosophy of making theatre only for three specific people. I think that all theatre artists (especially directors, playwrights and designers) should strive to focus on communicating to his or her own private, specific audience - even if that audience is, say, one's 8-year-old self, one's inner angry young man and one's dead grandmother.
Specificity of intention is what communicates, not generality. I am firmly against telling yourself NO to an idea, a moment or a story-telling method because of the anticipated reaction of The Audience. Of course, not all ideas are good, and not all ideas communicate. But you can't guess what comes across the footlights until you have a real live breathing audience of individuals in the room with you. Once you're in previews, if your Actual Audience (as opposed to your theoretical audience) does not understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this moment, then you can adjust accordingly.
I think one of the deadliest things to say to oneself is "will The Audience understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this idea"?
The Audience. What the hell does that mean? WHO is The Audience? Most of us don't really have a clue who our audience is (outside of our friends and colleagues - but even then we cannot begin to guess what each of our nearest and dearest are going to get out of a certain moment). So how can we guess what The Audience will think or understand about a piece?
I keep coming back to Quincy's citation of Foreman's philosophy of making theatre only for three specific people. I think that all theatre artists (especially directors, playwrights and designers) should strive to focus on communicating to his or her own private, specific audience - even if that audience is, say, one's 8-year-old self, one's inner angry young man and one's dead grandmother.
Specificity of intention is what communicates, not generality. I am firmly against telling yourself NO to an idea, a moment or a story-telling method because of the anticipated reaction of The Audience. Of course, not all ideas are good, and not all ideas communicate. But you can't guess what comes across the footlights until you have a real live breathing audience of individuals in the room with you. Once you're in previews, if your Actual Audience (as opposed to your theoretical audience) does not understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this moment, then you can adjust accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)