Brososkablog: Leaping Into The Fray
Randy offers a much, much more sober and less acerbic perspective.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Time in Art.
Having spent a week-long personal retreat in Banff at Interactive Screen 1.0, I have had some opportunities to experience an incredibly diverse range of interdisciplinary art. Admittedly, I have some frustration with some of the art that I experienced. This was more than the "that's not my thing" kind of frustration or rejection that we all encounter at some point. There was a disconnect for me, for some pieces.
First, understand that I have enough communication theory knowledge to make me dangerous, so if anyone has comments to offer that point me in the direction of sources for this area of the ideas presented in this article, please chime in!
At first I thought I was, in fact, experiencing the "I don't get" reaction that is often the case with artwork that is pushing the boundaries and exploring new territories of human expression. Still, this nagging feeling wouldn't go away. Then, during a panel discussion about the nature of art versus design, I began to reflect on my own practice of blending theatre and digital media. I realized that the artist defines a state for their audience.
The challenge for an audience is when they are presented with cues that tell them to expect a certain kind of performance. For example, when an audience is asked to arrive at a certain time, it implies a starting time for a sequence of events that will make no sense if the beginning is missed. If the audience is presented with an opening and closing time, then the implication is that the show has no beginning middle and end. The audience has the freedom to come and go independently of one another.
When artists present work that offer no beginning/middle/end structure when they have set up their audience, even with the most subtle of cues, to expect that structure, they are playing with fire. This can often backfire on the artist and people are left missing the point of their piece. An author would not randomize the pages of a book for effect, why do performance artists ignore the cues they give their audience.
In Banff, I encountered exactly that situation. I attended a piece created by Rory Middleton called "Meet Me in the Woods." In this piece, the audience encounters a musician in the woods. Much like encountering a rare sighting of an elk or deer, the audience is able to observe this musician without the musician's awareness. I had the opportunity to chat with Rory a bit and get a stronger sense of his intentions. I shared my thoughts about perhaps trying to set a range of time rather than setting a start time. That resonated for him because he really wanted to play against the feeling of "setting the stage." In fact, he wanted to turn off a spotlight (necessary because the event occurred at dusk) because he worried the effect made it too theatrical. I am curious to learn if he chooses to offer the time range and what result it has with the audience.
Performance art is a unique blend of the alinear arts (painting, writing, sculpting, etc.) and linear arts (theatre, dance, music). Some performance art places linear art behaviours in an alinear experience.
Time is such an important element in an artist's work. Thinking about the cues that you give an audience as an artist and how you can manage those cues in an effective way is vital. Much the same way an artist might manipulate typeface, colour palette, or tonal dissonance, so too the performance artist might manipulate the subtle messages they send an audience experiencing their work. Intentionally reversing expectations is fine, just be prepared for the ramifications.
First, understand that I have enough communication theory knowledge to make me dangerous, so if anyone has comments to offer that point me in the direction of sources for this area of the ideas presented in this article, please chime in!
At first I thought I was, in fact, experiencing the "I don't get" reaction that is often the case with artwork that is pushing the boundaries and exploring new territories of human expression. Still, this nagging feeling wouldn't go away. Then, during a panel discussion about the nature of art versus design, I began to reflect on my own practice of blending theatre and digital media. I realized that the artist defines a state for their audience.
The challenge for an audience is when they are presented with cues that tell them to expect a certain kind of performance. For example, when an audience is asked to arrive at a certain time, it implies a starting time for a sequence of events that will make no sense if the beginning is missed. If the audience is presented with an opening and closing time, then the implication is that the show has no beginning middle and end. The audience has the freedom to come and go independently of one another.
When artists present work that offer no beginning/middle/end structure when they have set up their audience, even with the most subtle of cues, to expect that structure, they are playing with fire. This can often backfire on the artist and people are left missing the point of their piece. An author would not randomize the pages of a book for effect, why do performance artists ignore the cues they give their audience.
In Banff, I encountered exactly that situation. I attended a piece created by Rory Middleton called "Meet Me in the Woods." In this piece, the audience encounters a musician in the woods. Much like encountering a rare sighting of an elk or deer, the audience is able to observe this musician without the musician's awareness. I had the opportunity to chat with Rory a bit and get a stronger sense of his intentions. I shared my thoughts about perhaps trying to set a range of time rather than setting a start time. That resonated for him because he really wanted to play against the feeling of "setting the stage." In fact, he wanted to turn off a spotlight (necessary because the event occurred at dusk) because he worried the effect made it too theatrical. I am curious to learn if he chooses to offer the time range and what result it has with the audience.
Performance art is a unique blend of the alinear arts (painting, writing, sculpting, etc.) and linear arts (theatre, dance, music). Some performance art places linear art behaviours in an alinear experience.
Time is such an important element in an artist's work. Thinking about the cues that you give an audience as an artist and how you can manage those cues in an effective way is vital. Much the same way an artist might manipulate typeface, colour palette, or tonal dissonance, so too the performance artist might manipulate the subtle messages they send an audience experiencing their work. Intentionally reversing expectations is fine, just be prepared for the ramifications.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Writing Theatre Reviews for Non-Reviewers.
In light of the recent altercation between non-professional bloggers and professional theatre producers, I thought I would offer up a few tips on how to write a review for those who are not professional reviewers. The challenge one faces is that there is no actual "professional theatre review" certificate or diploma to quantify what exactly constitutes the professional skills and knowledge of a professional theatre reviewer. That said, I have conducted extensive anecdotal research, several field surveys in the gathering places of theatre professionals, and support it with conclusions I have drawn from direct one-to-one interviews with consumers of professional theatre. As you can see, my perspective is well supported and should be taken with great severity and sobriety.
If you follow these simple steps you too can offer theatrical reviews that will avoid nasty acrimonious alacrity and alarm from those you choose to review.
1) Include a synopsis of the plot of the play. Do your research! Make sure you are clear on what exactly it is that you just watched. Don't let your direct experience of the piece fool you into thinking that what you saw is actually what you saw.
2) Praise first! Be sure to identify those who offered excellent performances. Be sure to include at least one main player, because to only single out the less important members of the company can cause serious stress to the crystalline emotions of other members. Comparisons between performers is a surefire way to fracture their tenuous connections. Avoid comparisons at all costs.
3) Make sure negative statements obfuscate your true meaning. When dealing out the inevitable "this sucked" comment, it is always best to wrap your naked truth in a cloak of ornate allegorical rhetoric.
4) Refer to external related (or unrelated) previous performances. These can be references to other productions of the show, or performances by the actors. (NOTE: be careful not to indulge in any direct comparisons, see point 2)
5) Use clever references to academic sounding research. One of the problems a non-professional faces is having to prove that their opinion is valid. The best way to do this is to refer to academic works. Be sure that your references are obscure enough to prove difficult to verify, but still sound smart.
6) Avoid any honest reflection or authentic sounding phrasing. One of the most challenging things a non-professional theatre reviewer faces is the messy aftermath of honesty. It is always best to quell any temptation to place yourself in the line of fire of a defensive artist.
7) Empathize with the artist. Work hard to understand that most artists don't spend time with their audience. They fear an invasion of their privacy and a distraction from their work. After all, if they spend all their time with real people, how could they possibly elevate the stories of the common man to the level required to present on the stage.
8) Be aware of the existing reputation of the actors and the company you are reviewing. If you are reviewing venerated members of the theatre community, be sure to apply a meticulous rigour to your comments to ensure you are not marring this veneration. You are only a non-professional and your opinion is only that of a regular audience member. One phrase amiss and you can topple years upon years of work to build up a house of cards for these players to stand on.
9) Analyze the educational background of the actors. This can provide vital clues to the sanctity of their reputations. For example, in Edmonton, graduates of the U of A's BFA Acting degree tend to have a greater priority to maintain the purity of their craft compared to the MacEwan Univeristy's less pure program. As a result, you can probably be more honest with a MacEwan grad.
10) Reviews should sell tickets. In these times of economic struggle, it is getting harder and harder for theatre artists to earn a buck. As a result, the production quality is always threatened. Edmonton has gotten fat on the high value productions at a relatively low cost. Negative reviews will lead to even lower attendance to the struggling productions. If you want to ensure high quality productions, make sure the mediocre work is well supported.
There you have it. Follow these simple rules and you too can offer reviews that will pass muster with those who have sacrificed themselves to entertain you by showing you a better version of yourself.
Oh, one thing, I am a non-professional rule-writer. I have taken great pains to ensure that my rules have in no way offered a personal perspective, but have been verified through the research methodology discussed above. Any comments on this work that venture into the territory of suggesting that I am a professional, or any direct attacks on my personal reputation will be ignored.
If you follow these simple steps you too can offer theatrical reviews that will avoid nasty acrimonious alacrity and alarm from those you choose to review.
1) Include a synopsis of the plot of the play. Do your research! Make sure you are clear on what exactly it is that you just watched. Don't let your direct experience of the piece fool you into thinking that what you saw is actually what you saw.
2) Praise first! Be sure to identify those who offered excellent performances. Be sure to include at least one main player, because to only single out the less important members of the company can cause serious stress to the crystalline emotions of other members. Comparisons between performers is a surefire way to fracture their tenuous connections. Avoid comparisons at all costs.
3) Make sure negative statements obfuscate your true meaning. When dealing out the inevitable "this sucked" comment, it is always best to wrap your naked truth in a cloak of ornate allegorical rhetoric.
4) Refer to external related (or unrelated) previous performances. These can be references to other productions of the show, or performances by the actors. (NOTE: be careful not to indulge in any direct comparisons, see point 2)
5) Use clever references to academic sounding research. One of the problems a non-professional faces is having to prove that their opinion is valid. The best way to do this is to refer to academic works. Be sure that your references are obscure enough to prove difficult to verify, but still sound smart.
6) Avoid any honest reflection or authentic sounding phrasing. One of the most challenging things a non-professional theatre reviewer faces is the messy aftermath of honesty. It is always best to quell any temptation to place yourself in the line of fire of a defensive artist.
7) Empathize with the artist. Work hard to understand that most artists don't spend time with their audience. They fear an invasion of their privacy and a distraction from their work. After all, if they spend all their time with real people, how could they possibly elevate the stories of the common man to the level required to present on the stage.
8) Be aware of the existing reputation of the actors and the company you are reviewing. If you are reviewing venerated members of the theatre community, be sure to apply a meticulous rigour to your comments to ensure you are not marring this veneration. You are only a non-professional and your opinion is only that of a regular audience member. One phrase amiss and you can topple years upon years of work to build up a house of cards for these players to stand on.
9) Analyze the educational background of the actors. This can provide vital clues to the sanctity of their reputations. For example, in Edmonton, graduates of the U of A's BFA Acting degree tend to have a greater priority to maintain the purity of their craft compared to the MacEwan Univeristy's less pure program. As a result, you can probably be more honest with a MacEwan grad.
10) Reviews should sell tickets. In these times of economic struggle, it is getting harder and harder for theatre artists to earn a buck. As a result, the production quality is always threatened. Edmonton has gotten fat on the high value productions at a relatively low cost. Negative reviews will lead to even lower attendance to the struggling productions. If you want to ensure high quality productions, make sure the mediocre work is well supported.
There you have it. Follow these simple rules and you too can offer reviews that will pass muster with those who have sacrificed themselves to entertain you by showing you a better version of yourself.
Oh, one thing, I am a non-professional rule-writer. I have taken great pains to ensure that my rules have in no way offered a personal perspective, but have been verified through the research methodology discussed above. Any comments on this work that venture into the territory of suggesting that I am a professional, or any direct attacks on my personal reputation will be ignored.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Think Pink! (Daniel Pink that is)
"...in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school." - Daniel Pink
I am often inspired by TED Talks. I realize there is a trend for TED bashing and I occasionally participate in such things. I also find that while I disagree with some of what TED has become, I think that the individuals who share their stories and then post them for free are often inspiring and help me re-think. One of these is Daniel Pink's "The Surprising Science of Motivation." This talk makes a case for redefining work, management, and problem solving.
I struggle with management. I am a manager and I despise behaving in managerial ways. I am not a fan of "carrots and sticks" thinking. Much of my success in my career has come as a result of pursuing interests that I would pursue regardless if there was a paycheque or dividend attached. I have been fortunate enough to be able to monetize this kind of behaviour and break out of the mould of "work" that I used to have to do.
Pink's talk reminded me of a great book I once read called "First, Break All the Rules." After I read it, I changed many of the ways I lead. What was interesting was I began to get criticized for being too nice or too soft on those I was leading. Amusingly, even though I was easy-going, work got done, work happened just as fast or slow as it would if I had behaved differently, and I was less stressed out, less contemptuous, and less managerial (with all its negative connotations). Self-serving? Perhaps. I also believe that nobody can be responsible for your happiness, only you can.
So, what is Daniel Pink's big idea? I will summarize what I think he is saying. In today's knowledge economy, extrinsic motivators (carrots and sticks) are less effective than intrinsic motivators (internal drivers like passion and engagement). We are no longer a society of assembly line workers, we are paid to use cognitive skills, and the moment cognitive challenges are introduced to a problem, the efficacy of extrinsic motivators evaporates.
So, what do we do? How do we motivate people? Make sure you have the right people doing the right jobs (figure out what they care deeply about and get them to do that), give them the tools to get the job done without distraction, and get out of their way.
Daniel Pink's ideas reminded me of David Carson's TED Talks answer to the question, "what's definition of a good job?" The answer, his favourite, "if money didn't matter, would you continue doing what you are doing? If you would, you've got a great job. If you wouldn't, then rethink what you are doing because you're going to be doing it for a long time."
Lastly, all of this connects nicely to Nick Nissley's talk at the recent TEDxCalgary. His talked focused on an idea he has termed "narrative leadership." This is the notion that great leaders tell great stories. How these stories are told and what kind of vision they inspire can determine what outcomes are more likely. His example was the term "at risk" in the context of disenfranchised youth. The story of someone "at risk" is to say that they are always on the brink of disaster. Instead, what if the story was about youth "at potential." To tell the story of someone who is "at potential" is the story of someone who might fail once or twice, but because they are have potential, it only makes sense that, in this story, they would continue to realize that potential.
Daniel Pink's Talk - http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/the_surprising.php
David Carson - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_carson_on_design.html
Nick Nissley - http://www.banffcentre.ca/departments/leadership/faculty/nick_nissley.asp
I am often inspired by TED Talks. I realize there is a trend for TED bashing and I occasionally participate in such things. I also find that while I disagree with some of what TED has become, I think that the individuals who share their stories and then post them for free are often inspiring and help me re-think. One of these is Daniel Pink's "The Surprising Science of Motivation." This talk makes a case for redefining work, management, and problem solving.
I struggle with management. I am a manager and I despise behaving in managerial ways. I am not a fan of "carrots and sticks" thinking. Much of my success in my career has come as a result of pursuing interests that I would pursue regardless if there was a paycheque or dividend attached. I have been fortunate enough to be able to monetize this kind of behaviour and break out of the mould of "work" that I used to have to do.
Pink's talk reminded me of a great book I once read called "First, Break All the Rules." After I read it, I changed many of the ways I lead. What was interesting was I began to get criticized for being too nice or too soft on those I was leading. Amusingly, even though I was easy-going, work got done, work happened just as fast or slow as it would if I had behaved differently, and I was less stressed out, less contemptuous, and less managerial (with all its negative connotations). Self-serving? Perhaps. I also believe that nobody can be responsible for your happiness, only you can.
So, what is Daniel Pink's big idea? I will summarize what I think he is saying. In today's knowledge economy, extrinsic motivators (carrots and sticks) are less effective than intrinsic motivators (internal drivers like passion and engagement). We are no longer a society of assembly line workers, we are paid to use cognitive skills, and the moment cognitive challenges are introduced to a problem, the efficacy of extrinsic motivators evaporates.
So, what do we do? How do we motivate people? Make sure you have the right people doing the right jobs (figure out what they care deeply about and get them to do that), give them the tools to get the job done without distraction, and get out of their way.
Daniel Pink's ideas reminded me of David Carson's TED Talks answer to the question, "what's definition of a good job?" The answer, his favourite, "if money didn't matter, would you continue doing what you are doing? If you would, you've got a great job. If you wouldn't, then rethink what you are doing because you're going to be doing it for a long time."
Lastly, all of this connects nicely to Nick Nissley's talk at the recent TEDxCalgary. His talked focused on an idea he has termed "narrative leadership." This is the notion that great leaders tell great stories. How these stories are told and what kind of vision they inspire can determine what outcomes are more likely. His example was the term "at risk" in the context of disenfranchised youth. The story of someone "at risk" is to say that they are always on the brink of disaster. Instead, what if the story was about youth "at potential." To tell the story of someone who is "at potential" is the story of someone who might fail once or twice, but because they are have potential, it only makes sense that, in this story, they would continue to realize that potential.
Daniel Pink's Talk - http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/the_surprising.php
David Carson - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_carson_on_design.html
Nick Nissley - http://www.banffcentre.ca/departments/leadership/faculty/nick_nissley.asp
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Growth
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you too can become great." - Mark Twain
I have a friend who is going through a struggle. Her family is more than happy to belittle her ambitions. What a sad thing when your own family can't offer the safe haven from the trials of the world. I have been blessed to have a family who supported me even though some of my choices have been hugely risky and beyond what most would expect a profoundly hard of hearing person to tackle.
Growing up, the idea that I was somehow not the same as all the other little kids in the playground simply didn't happen. In every way I was exactly the same. My only difference was the fact that only heard 20% of what others heard without my hearing aids and with them, I could hear 80% or so, but the missing 20% happened to be the sound frequencies of consonants, birds, high pitched sirens, watch alarms, and really bad speakers. I lived (and still do) in a world of vowels. Imagine a world where everyone talking to you sounded like they had a dental dam in their mouth. Perhaps I should've been a dentist... :)
What amazes me is that, for me, my options and opportunities were limitless. I dreamed of being an astronaut. My family didn't say, "Oh, Owen, you are hard of hearing, you can't EVER be an astronaut." Heck no. My dad packaged up my drawing and designs for a spaceship inspired by SPACE:1999 and sent them off to NASA. We were all stunned when NASA sent back a GIANT package of posters, information cards, and a personal letter encouraging me to continue my studies, work hard and I could be a part of the space program one day. They didn't know I was hard of hearing. All they knew was I was a kid who had a dream and the last thing they were going to do was crush it.
This is why I am saddened when I hear stories about people putting limits on each other. For me, family is supposed to be the safety net that catches you when you fly too close to the sun. For me, family is there to celebrate your victories and help you recover from your wounds.
My kids watched Forrest Gump the other night for the first time. I was reminded what made that movie great. The relationship between Forrest and Jenny is beautiful on many levels. For me, the unconditional love between them make my heart swell. This is what family is. Isn't the world harsh enough? Don't we owe it to each other to just be that safety net?
The next time someone tells me they are going to do something crazy, I will tell them that they absolutely can do it and if it doesn't work out, I will be here for them. I guess that's what Twain was talking about. Why tell a couple of brothers they can't fly rather than cheering them on? Why tell a hard of hearing kid he can't be an astronaut when you can send him a big package of posters and information cards? Why limit someone when you can help them become who they dream to be?
I always tell people, when I am trying to explain empathy, that everyone is a hero in their own story. The next step is to become the hero in someone else's story. When you support, encourage, cajole, cheer or celebrate someone you care about, you take the first step to being a hero in their story. You begin an upward spiral, and you become truly great.
I have a friend who is going through a struggle. Her family is more than happy to belittle her ambitions. What a sad thing when your own family can't offer the safe haven from the trials of the world. I have been blessed to have a family who supported me even though some of my choices have been hugely risky and beyond what most would expect a profoundly hard of hearing person to tackle.
Growing up, the idea that I was somehow not the same as all the other little kids in the playground simply didn't happen. In every way I was exactly the same. My only difference was the fact that only heard 20% of what others heard without my hearing aids and with them, I could hear 80% or so, but the missing 20% happened to be the sound frequencies of consonants, birds, high pitched sirens, watch alarms, and really bad speakers. I lived (and still do) in a world of vowels. Imagine a world where everyone talking to you sounded like they had a dental dam in their mouth. Perhaps I should've been a dentist... :)
What amazes me is that, for me, my options and opportunities were limitless. I dreamed of being an astronaut. My family didn't say, "Oh, Owen, you are hard of hearing, you can't EVER be an astronaut." Heck no. My dad packaged up my drawing and designs for a spaceship inspired by SPACE:1999 and sent them off to NASA. We were all stunned when NASA sent back a GIANT package of posters, information cards, and a personal letter encouraging me to continue my studies, work hard and I could be a part of the space program one day. They didn't know I was hard of hearing. All they knew was I was a kid who had a dream and the last thing they were going to do was crush it.
This is why I am saddened when I hear stories about people putting limits on each other. For me, family is supposed to be the safety net that catches you when you fly too close to the sun. For me, family is there to celebrate your victories and help you recover from your wounds.
My kids watched Forrest Gump the other night for the first time. I was reminded what made that movie great. The relationship between Forrest and Jenny is beautiful on many levels. For me, the unconditional love between them make my heart swell. This is what family is. Isn't the world harsh enough? Don't we owe it to each other to just be that safety net?
The next time someone tells me they are going to do something crazy, I will tell them that they absolutely can do it and if it doesn't work out, I will be here for them. I guess that's what Twain was talking about. Why tell a couple of brothers they can't fly rather than cheering them on? Why tell a hard of hearing kid he can't be an astronaut when you can send him a big package of posters and information cards? Why limit someone when you can help them become who they dream to be?
I always tell people, when I am trying to explain empathy, that everyone is a hero in their own story. The next step is to become the hero in someone else's story. When you support, encourage, cajole, cheer or celebrate someone you care about, you take the first step to being a hero in their story. You begin an upward spiral, and you become truly great.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Games as theatre.
Games have always, for me, been a great way to tell a story. What's interesting, is how gaming naturally gravitates to archetypes that can be traced all the way back to ancient forms of theatre like commedia dell'arte. Characters that we expect to see in every form of entertainment can trace their origins back to the archetypes echoed in commedia. And rightly so. Readers of Joseph Campbell will often find themselves seeing the same stories played out over and over across the history of humankind.
What's wonderful about the commedia is that it was improvised. Characters had lazzi that they would perform, but depending on the city or town they were performing in, the various characters would take on protagonist or antagonist nuances. If a town was sympathetic to the plight of il dottore de bologna, then he would be the bumbling kind-hearted professor, who stumbles in at the right moment to save the heroine, or if the troupe was performing elsewhere, the good doctor would become the accomplice of the nefarious Pantalone.
This is where gaming offers some wonderful opportunities to explore this notion of character perspective. Depending on who and how you choose to play, you can immerse yourself in the empathetic perspective of the characters who might otherwise be seen as villains. Sports is very much like this. Edmonton hockey fans have seen their dream team go from top of the heap to the role of underdog. This perspective is very different for native Calgarians who have always seen the Oilers as the evil empire that must be toppled. Who is "right." That all depends. Where are you from?
As an actor, I have had to play characters whose perspective I did not share. It was my job to figure, understand, and empathize with that character. This is a very intense and world-altering thing. What did I get from those experiences? I realized that everything is not as it seems. Good guys are sometimes not all good, and bad guys are sometimes not all bad. I learned that people do horrible things because they think they are doing the right thing. For me, in life, I have learned to let the story play out a little before I begin to form alliances and take sides. It isn't easy, but patience is great for revealing things are otherwise hidden.
Games play an important role, for me, in offering everyone an opportunity to discover the same things I did as an actor. What I would like to see is the game storytellers begin to bring this richness to their work. The Sith are not necessarily evil. It's a matter of perspective. The Jedi are not necessarily good. What if a game featured a Jedi suicide bomber... what if...
What's wonderful about the commedia is that it was improvised. Characters had lazzi that they would perform, but depending on the city or town they were performing in, the various characters would take on protagonist or antagonist nuances. If a town was sympathetic to the plight of il dottore de bologna, then he would be the bumbling kind-hearted professor, who stumbles in at the right moment to save the heroine, or if the troupe was performing elsewhere, the good doctor would become the accomplice of the nefarious Pantalone.
This is where gaming offers some wonderful opportunities to explore this notion of character perspective. Depending on who and how you choose to play, you can immerse yourself in the empathetic perspective of the characters who might otherwise be seen as villains. Sports is very much like this. Edmonton hockey fans have seen their dream team go from top of the heap to the role of underdog. This perspective is very different for native Calgarians who have always seen the Oilers as the evil empire that must be toppled. Who is "right." That all depends. Where are you from?
As an actor, I have had to play characters whose perspective I did not share. It was my job to figure, understand, and empathize with that character. This is a very intense and world-altering thing. What did I get from those experiences? I realized that everything is not as it seems. Good guys are sometimes not all good, and bad guys are sometimes not all bad. I learned that people do horrible things because they think they are doing the right thing. For me, in life, I have learned to let the story play out a little before I begin to form alliances and take sides. It isn't easy, but patience is great for revealing things are otherwise hidden.
Games play an important role, for me, in offering everyone an opportunity to discover the same things I did as an actor. What I would like to see is the game storytellers begin to bring this richness to their work. The Sith are not necessarily evil. It's a matter of perspective. The Jedi are not necessarily good. What if a game featured a Jedi suicide bomber... what if...
From the ashes...
Well now, never say never. I am officially returning to this blog, and you can thank Empire Avenue for that.
It was really more practical than anything. I enjoy blogging and post on my company's blog (http://www.gurudigitalarts.org) but I don't really have a personal outlet, and it is time that the stuff that I want to personally share is presented separately from Guru's blog. Not to say that the tone of the blog at Guru will change. It's just nice to have a place for more personal perspectives.
That said, I am returning to this blog and all its stuff. I plan to keep to the theme of the thespian perspective, mainly because it is where I tend to bring my thoughts from. I start from the "when I was in theatre" and connect that perspective to whatever I am doing now.
I am working with understanding motivation and what makes people do what they do. I often say, "people are the hero in their own story." I think this is what leads to conflict and tension. One person thinks they are doing the right thing, another person thinks that too. When they realize the things they are doing don't fit together, we get tension and conflict. Simple right?
There is a great deal of talk about empathy. Do people really know what that means? Are people truly empathetic? Empathy can lead to a complete reversal of strategy. Are companies really prepared to do that? Perhaps the courageous ones are.
Empathy is a bit thing, I want to write more on this...
It was really more practical than anything. I enjoy blogging and post on my company's blog (http://www.gurudigitalarts.org) but I don't really have a personal outlet, and it is time that the stuff that I want to personally share is presented separately from Guru's blog. Not to say that the tone of the blog at Guru will change. It's just nice to have a place for more personal perspectives.
That said, I am returning to this blog and all its stuff. I plan to keep to the theme of the thespian perspective, mainly because it is where I tend to bring my thoughts from. I start from the "when I was in theatre" and connect that perspective to whatever I am doing now.
I am working with understanding motivation and what makes people do what they do. I often say, "people are the hero in their own story." I think this is what leads to conflict and tension. One person thinks they are doing the right thing, another person thinks that too. When they realize the things they are doing don't fit together, we get tension and conflict. Simple right?
There is a great deal of talk about empathy. Do people really know what that means? Are people truly empathetic? Empathy can lead to a complete reversal of strategy. Are companies really prepared to do that? Perhaps the courageous ones are.
Empathy is a bit thing, I want to write more on this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)