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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)