Friday, October 10, 2008

Performance art update part the third update

I took notes in a little journal when I was at the round table.  Basically I was blogging for later to put up here, but I didn't have it at work until today.  PS I really can't wait until the workshop on Saturday!  So at the "How Theatre Failed America" Round table at the MCA--here were my thoughts in the theatre:
 
Mike Daisey was actually at the round table!  He spoke as did many of the the other theatre artists, but he struck me as passionate, empathetic, and humble.  Listening to this was very interesting, but I wanted to speak too (as I bet did many other audience members).  Especially when it came to the question of would you invite the business-y staff to speak to the artists on the art itself.  Like would/should they have the perogative or ability to give notes?  The Chicago area artists seemed to be saying well of course not.  I disagree.  Why couldn't, why shouldn't the staff comment on the art?  Yes, true they don't have the specific training and vocabulary.  But they CAN speak with their heats to what the see, saw, felt or experienced.  I think they should speak, and I think the artists should consider their thoughts.  I mena obviously this is criticism and commentary that should be weighted and looked at in context as an audience response rather than a fellow professional response.  But, yes consider it, yes open a dialogue.  Criticism is not and should not be the word of God or something.  It should be, it is food for thought.  Something for the brains of the artists to chew on.  Some sort of mirror to reflect back what they are doing.  Ok maybe sometimes it is a funhouse mirror, but just because it may not be an "accurate" perspective or a photo-real perspecitve does not make it useless.  It makes it useful in a different way from the professional opinions.  Processing it can lead to revelations of value, even if they are not those intended by the amateur who was responding from their lack of highly involved theatrical knowledge. 
 
I say this because my family knows very little about theatre, and they have been the bearers of the most useful and the most useless criticsms I have ever received.  Useless when I cannot get them to understand that The Rivals was a way better show, but useful when their naivety about theatre causes the to consider a path or a problem from a perspective I would overlook because my expertise has gotten in the way of having a truly open mind.  So yeah, sometimes what they say may well be ridiculous, but shutting them out without a consideration can shut out something you might need.  So why create any false wall before their art.  I would imagine the businessy people who choose to work in the arts (as opposed to more lucrative business worlds) understand that they do not operate on the same artistic level as the artists, but they participate in the art as audience and they choose that line of work (I hope) out of a love of being an audience member.  And feeling connected to the work is what brings audience members back, so connect your first audience, really connect them.
 
 

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't know... Every time I've seen the "businessy" people get involved in the art making process, it gets cheapened and commercialized and the groundbreaking stuff goes right out the window. I can think of several theatre companies within my own realm of experience where this happened. The desire to appeal to the broadest possible audience for the sake of making money means catering to audiences, rather than bringing them up a level. Because catering is easier and cheaper, I think. And that is frequently the main thing on the business partner's mind.

One of the reasons Slings and Arrows was so wonderful is because that frustrating tension between art and money was presented so truthfully and accurately.

Heather K said...

Well, I agree that they shouldn't be involved as an art maker or guider. I could see that being disaster.

But what I got from the discussion was that they shouldn't even be allowed to comment on like a preview showing or near final dress rehearsal were they privy to watching it. Like their comments were obviously going to be completely ignored, so why even let them speak about it. That attitude irked me a little.

Heather K said...

To bring an analogy, clearly if I was the receptionist at an architecture firm, I should have nothing to do with the drawing up of plans. But if I had an opinion on the overall effect of the model/drawing/rendering of the final thing, I would think that my opinion (although uninformed) should at least be allowed to exist. I would not expect them to redo everything because I thought the windows looked funny. But I would probably want them to briefly float on why I thought the windows looked funny EVEN if they conclude that I have different taste than them. Which is absolutely expected.