Yes, whatever the planetary alignment is, it has signaled for my silence. So I will post a quote and then comment on Quincy's thoughts on Monday. In the meantime, chew on this:
"When the aspiration and exclusiveness of high art were countered with the vigour and craft of entertainment, then the pretensions of the one and the sentimentality of the other were both under mutual surveillance, and it was somewhere there, in the middle of this collision that you were likely to find a healthy--a Shakespearean--kind of theatre."
Michael Blakemore, Arguments with England: A Memoir
7.27.2007
Socialist Theatre Tickets?
Buy tickets for you and your fellow man! Spend $200/seat at this opening night and you'll send a needy family to the show for free.
On despair...
TJ has been told by the stars to "still thy tongue", so here I am. I'm struggling with something I'll refer to as the "poverty-mentality" of the American theatre and the American theatre artist. I am so weary of working my evolutionary fingers to the bone for squat in my checking account. There are a million other professions out there that pay a living wage and allow you the freedom to go home at 5pm to your dog. So, I ask, why don't we demand more monetary respect for what we do?
I believe the fault lies in the institutions' hands, the unions' demands and the artists' lack of self-respect. Yet, I feel my business acumen is woefully lacking to truly understand the real economics at play. I use the phrase "poverty-mentality" to mean "oh, we'll never make enough money, so we might as well be grateful with the crust of bread we've got". To that I say, I'm tired of bread. I want champagne and oysters. I see younger organizations all the time emulating institutions founded on a subscriber-basis and putting their eggs in the "oh we'll get grants" basket in order to produce on a "we can't afford that" level, while those established institutions are generally far from fiscally sound. What about a model that has nothing to do with subscriptions? What about tiered ticket prices for the uber-rich and the struggling? (Think Rent's "starving artist" tickets or Wicked's lottery.) Or a model that's actually based on the sale of a product? I'm fascinated with De La Guarda and Cirque du Soleil for their astonishing theatrics, but also because of their business plans.
What about the idea of a small business model for theatre? Instead of a non-profit? Could this work? I think of the Starbucks guys or the neighborhood beauty-supply store-- those owners make a living, pay their employees and generally have nice benefits packages. I'm sick to death of the letter writing campaigns saying "believe in art and write me a check" -- let's put a product out there that's worthy of disposable income. I don't think I would mind becoming the "triple iced sugar-free vanilla soy latte" theatre of our time.
I may just get Tommy to open up on this one...Stars be damned.
I believe the fault lies in the institutions' hands, the unions' demands and the artists' lack of self-respect. Yet, I feel my business acumen is woefully lacking to truly understand the real economics at play. I use the phrase "poverty-mentality" to mean "oh, we'll never make enough money, so we might as well be grateful with the crust of bread we've got". To that I say, I'm tired of bread. I want champagne and oysters. I see younger organizations all the time emulating institutions founded on a subscriber-basis and putting their eggs in the "oh we'll get grants" basket in order to produce on a "we can't afford that" level, while those established institutions are generally far from fiscally sound. What about a model that has nothing to do with subscriptions? What about tiered ticket prices for the uber-rich and the struggling? (Think Rent's "starving artist" tickets or Wicked's lottery.) Or a model that's actually based on the sale of a product? I'm fascinated with De La Guarda and Cirque du Soleil for their astonishing theatrics, but also because of their business plans.
What about the idea of a small business model for theatre? Instead of a non-profit? Could this work? I think of the Starbucks guys or the neighborhood beauty-supply store-- those owners make a living, pay their employees and generally have nice benefits packages. I'm sick to death of the letter writing campaigns saying "believe in art and write me a check" -- let's put a product out there that's worthy of disposable income. I don't think I would mind becoming the "triple iced sugar-free vanilla soy latte" theatre of our time.
I may just get Tommy to open up on this one...Stars be damned.
7.26.2007
On Artifice
Quincy points out that Artifice in the definition of theatricality is troubling to her.
Why is artifice problematic? It's acknowledged artifice, meaning that everyone who goes to the theatre knows that what on stage is not "real" - the actors, set, lights, costumes are working to create an illusion that is acknowledged ((somewhat)) openly on either side of the footlights.
Realism for some reason attempted to overwhelm that artifice. I'm not sure how useful ignoring that artifice is any more.
It's fake. But that it's fake and we all KNOW it's fake is part of the uniqueness of the art form.
Perhaps we crave the space that artifice creates - the space to experience reality with just enough breathing room to interpret it as more significant than just reality.
Why is artifice problematic? It's acknowledged artifice, meaning that everyone who goes to the theatre knows that what on stage is not "real" - the actors, set, lights, costumes are working to create an illusion that is acknowledged ((somewhat)) openly on either side of the footlights.
Realism for some reason attempted to overwhelm that artifice. I'm not sure how useful ignoring that artifice is any more.
It's fake. But that it's fake and we all KNOW it's fake is part of the uniqueness of the art form.
Perhaps we crave the space that artifice creates - the space to experience reality with just enough breathing room to interpret it as more significant than just reality.
The Basic Ingredients
What are the basic elements of theatre?
Live: both audience and actors are experiencing the story in the same space at the same time. This is different from a t.v. show broadcast live from in front of a live studio audience: the theatrical experience is meant to be experienced only First-Hand, not through the interpretive eye of a camera.
Acknowleged Artiface: we all know that the actors are pretending to be other people, in an environment that is artificial, under lighting that simulates "reality" or attempts to signal a mood or tone.
What are the other elements?
Does theatre need to:
tell a story?
have an audience?
use language?
have design elements?
start as text?
What is specific to theatre that is not possible in other forms?
Where do theatre and other art forms overlap?
Live: both audience and actors are experiencing the story in the same space at the same time. This is different from a t.v. show broadcast live from in front of a live studio audience: the theatrical experience is meant to be experienced only First-Hand, not through the interpretive eye of a camera.
Acknowleged Artiface: we all know that the actors are pretending to be other people, in an environment that is artificial, under lighting that simulates "reality" or attempts to signal a mood or tone.
What are the other elements?
Does theatre need to:
tell a story?
have an audience?
use language?
have design elements?
start as text?
What is specific to theatre that is not possible in other forms?
Where do theatre and other art forms overlap?
7.25.2007
The Fourth Wall
So is the fourth wall necessary? Why do we have that convention in the first place? And why do we keep audiences in the dark expecting them to be silent?
It seems to me that it might be worth investigating a modern movement away from a passive, darkened, silenced audience - a movement away from the pretense of the fourth wall to a place where the actor and the audience interrelate in a way that still contains the pleasures of voyeurism inherent in the passive spectator, but opens up the possibility for more dynamic conversation on either side of the footlights.
My (limited, cursory) research into Victorian and Edward melodrama for my last project brought to my attention that there is a direct correlation between the use of electric light in the theatre (which allows for concentrated and controlled use of lights) and the previous lighting techniques (making theatre outside to make use of daylight, using chandeliers to light the entire theatre as well as the audience). In short, the practice of holding the audience in the dark and the spectacle in the light is a new one - perhaps 150 years old at the most. Why is it still intact? Why might it be useful to investigate the effects that presence (through lights) have on audiences?
Here are some other musings on the issue:
It seems to me that it might be worth investigating a modern movement away from a passive, darkened, silenced audience - a movement away from the pretense of the fourth wall to a place where the actor and the audience interrelate in a way that still contains the pleasures of voyeurism inherent in the passive spectator, but opens up the possibility for more dynamic conversation on either side of the footlights.
My (limited, cursory) research into Victorian and Edward melodrama for my last project brought to my attention that there is a direct correlation between the use of electric light in the theatre (which allows for concentrated and controlled use of lights) and the previous lighting techniques (making theatre outside to make use of daylight, using chandeliers to light the entire theatre as well as the audience). In short, the practice of holding the audience in the dark and the spectacle in the light is a new one - perhaps 150 years old at the most. Why is it still intact? Why might it be useful to investigate the effects that presence (through lights) have on audiences?
Here are some other musings on the issue:
- When the audience was darkened, the theatre no longer could be a place "to see and be seen" - what does this mean for the socializing component of theatre?
- What happens to the status of the storyteller and the status of the listener when the storyteller is in the light? Why are the status differences important, or are they?
- it seems to me that the movement toward staging in the round comes from an attempt to keep the spectator conscious of his fellow spectators - but most of the shows that I have seen in the round, the audience behaves like a proscenium audience. I wonder if that was different when those theatres came into vogue, and if audiences were more participatory then than they are now in that configuration.
- Perhaps for my next project, we will keep the audience lit.
I'm sure that I will have more to ramble about on this topic in time, as I often leave a show wondering what my and my fellow darkdwellers experienced and what our relationship was to the piece and to each other in experiencing the piece. And since this space is about my musings on all things theatrical, I hope to be writing about them here.
7.24.2007
Theatricality
I rant and rave quite a lot about my personal mission of inherent theatricality in my work and the work that I produce. But what exactly does that mean?
Here's the definition of THEATRICAL from the American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theatricality):
the·at·ri·cal (thē-āt'rĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key adj.
Of, relating to, or suitable for dramatic performance or the theater.
Marked by exaggerated self-display and unnatural behavior; affectedly dramatic. n.
Stage performances or a stage performance, especially by amateurs. Often used in the plural.
theatricals Affectedly dramatic gestures or behavior; histrionics.
A fine definition for the layperson, but it seems that there are plenty of plays put on in the theatre that are "suitable for dramatic performance in the theatre" but that do not in fact meet my personal requirements for inherent theatricality.
The question that must always be asked is: why tell this story using the medium of theatre? Why theatre and not film, photograph, novel, graphic novel/comic, song, painting, dance, television, computer program, animated serial, magazine article, rant on a blog, text message, sporting event, town hall meeting, presidential election, virtual reality, circus, etc.?
More importantly: what constitutes theatricality here in the 21st Century, when there are so many more things to define the art of the theatre against?
I see and read a lot of work that I think is cinematic or literary, but not necessarily theatrical. I have seen plays that were cinematic on the page transformed into theatrical experiences through the director's keen eye and imagination. I have seen literary works adapted for the stage to be vital, theatrical experiences and seen the opposite true as well.
Is theatricality something that can be determined on a case-by-case basis? Or is it a larger, over-arching concept that can be penned and used like a mission statement? Can the components of theatricality be broken down and then reconstituted to reinterpret inherent theatricality for the 21st century?
I think so. It's a multi-faceted concept and one that will be a central theme to the manifesto in the making, and one that I think is (and has been, always) central to the evolution of the art form.
Here's the definition of THEATRICAL from the American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theatricality):
the·at·ri·cal (thē-āt'rĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key adj.
Of, relating to, or suitable for dramatic performance or the theater.
Marked by exaggerated self-display and unnatural behavior; affectedly dramatic. n.
Stage performances or a stage performance, especially by amateurs. Often used in the plural.
theatricals Affectedly dramatic gestures or behavior; histrionics.
A fine definition for the layperson, but it seems that there are plenty of plays put on in the theatre that are "suitable for dramatic performance in the theatre" but that do not in fact meet my personal requirements for inherent theatricality.
The question that must always be asked is: why tell this story using the medium of theatre? Why theatre and not film, photograph, novel, graphic novel/comic, song, painting, dance, television, computer program, animated serial, magazine article, rant on a blog, text message, sporting event, town hall meeting, presidential election, virtual reality, circus, etc.?
More importantly: what constitutes theatricality here in the 21st Century, when there are so many more things to define the art of the theatre against?
I see and read a lot of work that I think is cinematic or literary, but not necessarily theatrical. I have seen plays that were cinematic on the page transformed into theatrical experiences through the director's keen eye and imagination. I have seen literary works adapted for the stage to be vital, theatrical experiences and seen the opposite true as well.
Is theatricality something that can be determined on a case-by-case basis? Or is it a larger, over-arching concept that can be penned and used like a mission statement? Can the components of theatricality be broken down and then reconstituted to reinterpret inherent theatricality for the 21st century?
I think so. It's a multi-faceted concept and one that will be a central theme to the manifesto in the making, and one that I think is (and has been, always) central to the evolution of the art form.
7.20.2007
The Death of Divas
". . . the prima donna is not the figure she once was,- perhaps partly because the overall position of women in society has advanced to such an extent that her achievement no longer seems remarkable or heroic.
Fifty years ago, it was different: a girl had to fight to make a career in opera, and, in a business dominated by flattering yet patronising men, even the biggest stars had to assert themselves aggressively - hence the prevalence of the sexist myth of the difficult diva."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/07/18/baarts118.xml
What does it mean to be a female artist today? What, if anything, is the balance you strike between your femininity and your role as a leader? As a collaborator?
Fifty years ago, it was different: a girl had to fight to make a career in opera, and, in a business dominated by flattering yet patronising men, even the biggest stars had to assert themselves aggressively - hence the prevalence of the sexist myth of the difficult diva."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/07/18/baarts118.xml
What does it mean to be a female artist today? What, if anything, is the balance you strike between your femininity and your role as a leader? As a collaborator?
Cultural Evolution?
I am developing a rant on the preservation, propagation and generation of American culture. A tirade about accessibility, provocation, and subversion. A rant about art as the mirror mirror on the wall. A rant that ties together the brand-blandness megacorporate capitalism to the bare-shelved flatline of communism, and the place of boutique experience in a culture that fakes freedom of choice.
How to incite Evolution? How to start the seismic shift ?
****
"When virtually all of a culture's celebrated figures are in sports or entertainment, how few possible role models we offer the young. There are so many other ways to lead a successful and meaningful life that are not denominated by money or fame. Adult life begins in a child's imagination, and we've relinquished that imagination to the marketplace. "
-- DANA GIOIA, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010352
How to incite Evolution? How to start the seismic shift ?
****
"When virtually all of a culture's celebrated figures are in sports or entertainment, how few possible role models we offer the young. There are so many other ways to lead a successful and meaningful life that are not denominated by money or fame. Adult life begins in a child's imagination, and we've relinquished that imagination to the marketplace. "
-- DANA GIOIA, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010352
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)