Laments for the content
I've been a little inattentive to the goings-on of the "theatrosphere" lately, so I've missed this big brouhaha that is apparently going on among theatre bloggers. I guess we're talking so much about the practical side of putting on plays (business models, rehearsal techniques, etc) that the people who are focused on the content of theatre are feeling left out. "The play's the thing" after all, isn't it?
For my two cents worth, I don't think you can separate form and content in theatre. One of the things I noticed many years ago when I was an over-worked, under-paid, borderline-slave of a Production Assistant, was that the conditions of production became the production. If we had to spend all night working onstage for four days straight then the show looked like crap. If we were able to go home and get a good night's sleep it meant that things were going well enough that the show generally looked pretty good. The harder you have to work, the dumber you are working, so it then follows that the quality of your work is directly related to the conditions, experience and assumptions under which you are working.
One of my profs told me one time (in a rare moment of agreement with me) that in theatre we are not "artists," but "artisans." We do not make theatre solely for personal reasons (though there may be a personal motivation to it) - we can only make theatre in a collaborative environment with our audience. I think it's up to them to dictate the content - what they see, like and understand is ultimately what puts food on the actor's/director's/producer's table, not some brilliant new business model for a theatre company. Our job is to fulfill our obligation in this partnership - to create content, yes, but not to judge it, except to improve it, and we can't do that without the feedback of the audience, who in giving back to us (be it through comments, critiques, or simply voting with their feet) are fulfilling their half of the partnership. Through this sybiotic relationship we collectively create the content as two equal players, rather than dictating content from a "master-apprentice" relationship, an idea that many of us seem to cling so desperately to in this business.
Your thoughts?
For my two cents worth, I don't think you can separate form and content in theatre. One of the things I noticed many years ago when I was an over-worked, under-paid, borderline-slave of a Production Assistant, was that the conditions of production became the production. If we had to spend all night working onstage for four days straight then the show looked like crap. If we were able to go home and get a good night's sleep it meant that things were going well enough that the show generally looked pretty good. The harder you have to work, the dumber you are working, so it then follows that the quality of your work is directly related to the conditions, experience and assumptions under which you are working.
One of my profs told me one time (in a rare moment of agreement with me) that in theatre we are not "artists," but "artisans." We do not make theatre solely for personal reasons (though there may be a personal motivation to it) - we can only make theatre in a collaborative environment with our audience. I think it's up to them to dictate the content - what they see, like and understand is ultimately what puts food on the actor's/director's/producer's table, not some brilliant new business model for a theatre company. Our job is to fulfill our obligation in this partnership - to create content, yes, but not to judge it, except to improve it, and we can't do that without the feedback of the audience, who in giving back to us (be it through comments, critiques, or simply voting with their feet) are fulfilling their half of the partnership. Through this sybiotic relationship we collectively create the content as two equal players, rather than dictating content from a "master-apprentice" relationship, an idea that many of us seem to cling so desperately to in this business.
Your thoughts?
Comments