things to remember while making work:
Number eleven: Rigor
Two of the synonyms for rigor listed in the thesaurus are Conscientiousness and Meticulousness.
I'm looking for rigorous collaborators
I'm looking to make work rigorously
I feel like we as a class should increase our level of rigor.
If anyone reads this, please post a comment. Do you agree? Disagree? What are your thoughts about our level of rigor?
I look forward to having the discussion.
november twenty eigth, two thousand nine.
Things to remember while making work:
Number ten: Art is one thing contained in another
I've been thinking hard about what to say that could describe our conversation with Tim Crouch.
Perhaps its best to say simply that it was an inspiring experience and that I wish everyone could have the same opportunity.
A few highlights of that conversation:
1. What I will call "oak tree theory" In the tate modern there is a work called An Oak Tree (by michael craig-martin) it is a glass of water on a shelf and next to it is the following text:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ig206/oak_tree.html
Tim Crouch uses this conceptual art theory in his play, also called An Oak Tree. Simply stated, a thing is transformed simply by stating that it is transformed. (transubstantiation) And this, in Tim Crouch's eyes, is a central tenant - Art is one thing, contained in another.
This is a big, bold, beautiful idea - so pause here and read that again.
2. The play is a place where transformation takes place.
Anything we do to create that transformation before we meet the audience, thwarts that objective. In Tim's eyes this includes doing a warm-up. I love this idea. The primary attribute of theatre, its ability to be directly connected to an audience, is undermined a little bit everytime we add an element of distinction between audience and performer. Whether that's a warm-up, putting on make-up, et cetera. The idea is that the transformation should take place before the audience's eyes.
2a. It is better to transform the audience than the performer.
3. All theatre should be a challenge to the form.
This is an exact quote from Tim. He does some unusual work, formally speaking, especially in terms of audience engagement. To try to explain it all here would be futile - read a few of his plays, you'll understand....
4. Be unafraid of your own opinions.
Tim didn't say this - he exemplifies it. He talks like a steamroller. He has very strong opinions and presents them in a bold and forceful manner. I had to fight to maintain my own thinking in his presence because I often found myself being moved like a starfish by the tides.
5. To quote Tim "dreams and nonsense are peddled in places like this (referring to Central)"
I don't believe this to be true, and I found it frustrating that Duncan allowed this line to go on.
Yes, there are issues in arts education. Yes, there are way more arts students than there are jobs and resources for students. Yes, I'm biased because I've paid thousands of pounds to be here but it's just not the whole truth.
When we have a practitioner or tutor who gives us their opinion on a subject, that's no more nonsense than Tim's opinion is. When we're shown the standard hollywood plot, we kick and fight and push and pull and that's exactly what students should be doing - learning where they stand in relation to the practitioners and work that exist around them.
6. There is no help needed to create transformation.
The audience needs very little to believe a transformation has taken place. To give them all the typical theatrical trappings is to draw attention away from the miracle of the transformation.
Now....
Do I believe all of these whole-heartedly? I'm not sure. I'm learning. But so far these are by far the most potent ideas I've encountered while at Central.
Number ten: Art is one thing contained in another
I've been thinking hard about what to say that could describe our conversation with Tim Crouch.
Perhaps its best to say simply that it was an inspiring experience and that I wish everyone could have the same opportunity.
A few highlights of that conversation:
1. What I will call "oak tree theory" In the tate modern there is a work called An Oak Tree (by michael craig-martin) it is a glass of water on a shelf and next to it is the following text:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ig206/oak_tree.html
Tim Crouch uses this conceptual art theory in his play, also called An Oak Tree. Simply stated, a thing is transformed simply by stating that it is transformed. (transubstantiation) And this, in Tim Crouch's eyes, is a central tenant - Art is one thing, contained in another.
This is a big, bold, beautiful idea - so pause here and read that again.
2. The play is a place where transformation takes place.
Anything we do to create that transformation before we meet the audience, thwarts that objective. In Tim's eyes this includes doing a warm-up. I love this idea. The primary attribute of theatre, its ability to be directly connected to an audience, is undermined a little bit everytime we add an element of distinction between audience and performer. Whether that's a warm-up, putting on make-up, et cetera. The idea is that the transformation should take place before the audience's eyes.
2a. It is better to transform the audience than the performer.
3. All theatre should be a challenge to the form.
This is an exact quote from Tim. He does some unusual work, formally speaking, especially in terms of audience engagement. To try to explain it all here would be futile - read a few of his plays, you'll understand....
4. Be unafraid of your own opinions.
Tim didn't say this - he exemplifies it. He talks like a steamroller. He has very strong opinions and presents them in a bold and forceful manner. I had to fight to maintain my own thinking in his presence because I often found myself being moved like a starfish by the tides.
5. To quote Tim "dreams and nonsense are peddled in places like this (referring to Central)"
I don't believe this to be true, and I found it frustrating that Duncan allowed this line to go on.
Yes, there are issues in arts education. Yes, there are way more arts students than there are jobs and resources for students. Yes, I'm biased because I've paid thousands of pounds to be here but it's just not the whole truth.
When we have a practitioner or tutor who gives us their opinion on a subject, that's no more nonsense than Tim's opinion is. When we're shown the standard hollywood plot, we kick and fight and push and pull and that's exactly what students should be doing - learning where they stand in relation to the practitioners and work that exist around them.
6. There is no help needed to create transformation.
The audience needs very little to believe a transformation has taken place. To give them all the typical theatrical trappings is to draw attention away from the miracle of the transformation.
Now....
Do I believe all of these whole-heartedly? I'm not sure. I'm learning. But so far these are by far the most potent ideas I've encountered while at Central.
november twenty fourth, two thousand nine
Things to remember while making work:
We have two ears and one mouth and we should use them proportionally.
this is what we did in practitioner study today:
Sound and fury by jampatmulligan
Tom from Sound & Fury gave us a great introduction to his work. He's a lively and engaging speaker and his investigations strike me as rigorous and well-focused.
This is why I was a bit frustrated with the second half of the class in which we turned off the lights, each person took up a noise-maker, and we explored their sounds.
you can tell by the recording that there was little focus or well structured investigation.
That fortunately evolved into a event in which Tom asked us to make specific soundscapes, which, as an exploration, was much more exciting. Though, I wish that instead of just saying, make the sound of the desert and letting us do what we want, he would ask us to make it, listen to it, revise it, and make it again and listen again.
I have to say that there were times when I was feeling like I did this level of work in my bachelor's degree and that I hope we get pushed and challenged a bit harder.
But there were other times when I was very much engaged. Tom brought up the idea of "imaginary sounds" in my opinion this was by far the most interesting part of the afternoon. These are sounds that we do not actually hear but we perceive anyway.
For me there are a few sounds associated with my wife, or with watching people on the tube (while listening to headphones) that fall into this category. I'm very interested in exploring this further.
There's an old saying that we have two ears and one mouth and we should use them proportionally. I was reminded of this today.
Also, Listening takes effort and we should not take it for granted that we are good at it just because we have ears.
Looking forward to the rest of the week!
We have two ears and one mouth and we should use them proportionally.
this is what we did in practitioner study today:
Sound and fury by jampatmulligan
Tom from Sound & Fury gave us a great introduction to his work. He's a lively and engaging speaker and his investigations strike me as rigorous and well-focused.
This is why I was a bit frustrated with the second half of the class in which we turned off the lights, each person took up a noise-maker, and we explored their sounds.
you can tell by the recording that there was little focus or well structured investigation.
That fortunately evolved into a event in which Tom asked us to make specific soundscapes, which, as an exploration, was much more exciting. Though, I wish that instead of just saying, make the sound of the desert and letting us do what we want, he would ask us to make it, listen to it, revise it, and make it again and listen again.
I have to say that there were times when I was feeling like I did this level of work in my bachelor's degree and that I hope we get pushed and challenged a bit harder.
But there were other times when I was very much engaged. Tom brought up the idea of "imaginary sounds" in my opinion this was by far the most interesting part of the afternoon. These are sounds that we do not actually hear but we perceive anyway.
For me there are a few sounds associated with my wife, or with watching people on the tube (while listening to headphones) that fall into this category. I'm very interested in exploring this further.
There's an old saying that we have two ears and one mouth and we should use them proportionally. I was reminded of this today.
Also, Listening takes effort and we should not take it for granted that we are good at it just because we have ears.
Looking forward to the rest of the week!
november eighteenth, two thousand nine
Things to remember while making work.
Number eight: Common courtesy is even more important in a group setting
I very much appreciate both Nick and Mischa mentioning the issue of punctuality to the group. I've been experiencing some frustration with the way things are going and its my hope that we can use this as an opportunity to improve the situation - to everyone's satisfaction, not just my own.
In my humble opinion, the classroom should be like the rehearsal room. People should be ready to go at the call time - not walking in the door a couple minutes after and then spending another five minutes getting their belongings in order.
Its worth noting that it happens to everyone, including Nick and Mischa - and myself. A policy which draws a hard line at the start time of the session may not really be practical but some kind of late seating system to absorb some of the grief could be very useful. A few thoughts to that end:
We could leave a few empty chairs by the door, so latecomers can sort of sneak in the back.
We could ask latecomers to prepare themselves outside the room (taking off coats, getting out notebooks, et cetera) so that when they walk in the disturbance doesn't last as long.
We could arrange a late-seating time as they do in the theatre. Say, for example, all late comers have to wait until 15 minutes past the hour so they all come in at once, rather than trickling in one by one.
People who are going to be late could text a few people so that we have some clearer expectations about who to expect and make room for.
Those are just a few off the top of my head. If people have other thoughts, lets get them on the table and talk about them.
There are some who will argue that the only person affected by one individual's lateness is that one individual. I think that's absolutely untrue. Watch the room the next time someone is late - most people turn their head. It affects my ability to focus and follow the speaker's train of thought. But then again, I do have a small brain.
OH - AND LASTLY - When you're late, don't open the door slowly (especially room Y) it just makes the squeak louder and longer. Open the door quickly - for everyone's sake!
Number eight: Common courtesy is even more important in a group setting
I very much appreciate both Nick and Mischa mentioning the issue of punctuality to the group. I've been experiencing some frustration with the way things are going and its my hope that we can use this as an opportunity to improve the situation - to everyone's satisfaction, not just my own.
In my humble opinion, the classroom should be like the rehearsal room. People should be ready to go at the call time - not walking in the door a couple minutes after and then spending another five minutes getting their belongings in order.
Its worth noting that it happens to everyone, including Nick and Mischa - and myself. A policy which draws a hard line at the start time of the session may not really be practical but some kind of late seating system to absorb some of the grief could be very useful. A few thoughts to that end:
We could leave a few empty chairs by the door, so latecomers can sort of sneak in the back.
We could ask latecomers to prepare themselves outside the room (taking off coats, getting out notebooks, et cetera) so that when they walk in the disturbance doesn't last as long.
We could arrange a late-seating time as they do in the theatre. Say, for example, all late comers have to wait until 15 minutes past the hour so they all come in at once, rather than trickling in one by one.
People who are going to be late could text a few people so that we have some clearer expectations about who to expect and make room for.
Those are just a few off the top of my head. If people have other thoughts, lets get them on the table and talk about them.
There are some who will argue that the only person affected by one individual's lateness is that one individual. I think that's absolutely untrue. Watch the room the next time someone is late - most people turn their head. It affects my ability to focus and follow the speaker's train of thought. But then again, I do have a small brain.
OH - AND LASTLY - When you're late, don't open the door slowly (especially room Y) it just makes the squeak louder and longer. Open the door quickly - for everyone's sake!
November fourteenth, two thousand nine
Things to remember while making work.
Number seven: You have to earn the trust of your audience. (I'll get to this in a minute....)
And, Try things before saying no to them.
I know you don't always time for this. But, when you have the time, agree to look at things before dismissing them.
This week was spent working with Julian Maynard Smith of Station House Opera. In our de-brief after the showings he mentioned a scene that, in description did not work for him. But then when we saw it, he was more than persuaded.
Two people sitting in chairs with balloons tied to them, seen from the window, having an argument over the phone? It doesn't sound like much but seeing is believing.
I may or may not have thought the whole scene was compelling but what was undeniably thrilling was sitting down in front of a window and then discovering two fellow students seated outside, well-lit, and then suddenly we hear them on the phone with each other. It was beautiful, surprising, and best of delightful.
At the end of the scene we get up and turn around to find to similar chairs behind us. Who knew something could be so lovely.
Why did this work for me? I'm not sure. I think it was a constellation of factors. First, we the audience had the joy of the discovery. We were only told to sit at the window, not that there were performers out there. Second, it was a striking composition. Unfortunately I didn't get a picture so you'll just have to trust me - Kudos to the lighting designer on the piece.
Sometimes all you can say is that it just worked. It instilled a trust in me immediately. They could have done anything after that.
This leads me to my first point of the blog: You have to earn the trust of the audience. but once you do, they will go wherever you take them.
The bulk middle of this piece could have used a lot of work - I realize this isn't the point, it was a workshop meant to explore means of telematic performace. I bring it up only to highlight the fact that the opening moments worked so well for me I was willing to go through an event that I otherwise might not have.
The first picture above is from my notebook and illustrates the work of my group prior to rehearsal. We took a long time to get to this stage but in a sense it worked out better than I expected.
The idea of the scene was, I believe, quite well crafted. However, I think we failed to gain the trust of the audience in the first moments. We were under-rehearsed - plagued by technology problems and this made the event a little flaccid. Had we devoted a bit more energy to the beginning we may very well have come up with a better opener.
There were a lot of other ideas in the room that, in hindsight, we should have tried. Maybe they would have worked as well as the people seated outside. We'll never know.
november tenth, two thousand nine
Things to remember while making work
Number six: Developing collaborative relationships takes time.
I have, for many years, been a fierce advocate for collaboratively devised theatre. Today that belief was challenged more profoundly than I thought possible.
I have had the great pleasure of a collaborative partner with whom I shared a certain mysterious connection. I'm not sure I could ever explain why we were able to make work together. We certainly had our disagreements but we always had faith in the other's vision.
Today I was reminded, very harshly, that you cannot jump into a room with strangers and expect that connection, or any fraction thereof, to be present.
We are trying to work together, but we have no idea how. We have no model to base ourselves on and no time to talk through the process before jumping in. If we throw out the old hierarchical structures, what replaces them? I had a method in my company in San Francisco but I'm having a hard time adapting it to these short projects.
We worked with a variety of artists from different mediums and had them all respond to the same stimuli - space. Then we asked them all to develop scenes in response. That scene could be anything, action, object, or music, as long as it had a beginning, middle, and end.
That way, each collaborator was responsible for a certain portion of the show, then we, the co-directors, wove the scenes together with theatrical action and from that characters and narrative began to emerge.
In these shorter projects, however, we're essentially being asked to create a whole piece in one scene.
So how do seven people make one scene?
Should seven people make one scene?
Can seven different sets of politics and tastes be made to fit together?
Today, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm having a bad day, I don't think this is wise, productive, or advisable. here's why:
Ideas rarely get the time they should to grow into something fruitful.
Groups are often forced to use a majority-rules democracy, which votes out good ideas simply because one idea has to win and one idea has to lose.
People are incapable, including myself, of hearing someone out completely before jumping in with their own variations or substitutions.
Ideas are extensions of our person and so it is nearly impossible not to take it personally when an idea is shot down.
People often sit at the table with different levels of investment, but assume everyone has the same level of investment.
Questions of style and politics rarely get the time they deserve - everyone has different thoughts on what's important but we don't take the time to address our differences.
Making decisions collectively is extremely difficult. When an idea is proposed and discussed and one person says "ok, can we agree on that?" and they get some blank stares, a yes, a no, and someone else seems to be texting..... what can you do?
(by the way - if any of my classmates are reading this - this is not my exact description of what happened today. it is a collection of things I've been thinking about since we started 5 weeks ago.)
this list could go on and on but I'll try to summarize by saying that if we persevere and develop these relationships over time, things will get better.
But today I really just feel like having a glass of wine and turning on the television.
Number six: Developing collaborative relationships takes time.
I have, for many years, been a fierce advocate for collaboratively devised theatre. Today that belief was challenged more profoundly than I thought possible.
I have had the great pleasure of a collaborative partner with whom I shared a certain mysterious connection. I'm not sure I could ever explain why we were able to make work together. We certainly had our disagreements but we always had faith in the other's vision.
Today I was reminded, very harshly, that you cannot jump into a room with strangers and expect that connection, or any fraction thereof, to be present.
We are trying to work together, but we have no idea how. We have no model to base ourselves on and no time to talk through the process before jumping in. If we throw out the old hierarchical structures, what replaces them? I had a method in my company in San Francisco but I'm having a hard time adapting it to these short projects.
We worked with a variety of artists from different mediums and had them all respond to the same stimuli - space. Then we asked them all to develop scenes in response. That scene could be anything, action, object, or music, as long as it had a beginning, middle, and end.
That way, each collaborator was responsible for a certain portion of the show, then we, the co-directors, wove the scenes together with theatrical action and from that characters and narrative began to emerge.
In these shorter projects, however, we're essentially being asked to create a whole piece in one scene.
So how do seven people make one scene?
Should seven people make one scene?
Can seven different sets of politics and tastes be made to fit together?
Today, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm having a bad day, I don't think this is wise, productive, or advisable. here's why:
Ideas rarely get the time they should to grow into something fruitful.
Groups are often forced to use a majority-rules democracy, which votes out good ideas simply because one idea has to win and one idea has to lose.
People are incapable, including myself, of hearing someone out completely before jumping in with their own variations or substitutions.
Ideas are extensions of our person and so it is nearly impossible not to take it personally when an idea is shot down.
People often sit at the table with different levels of investment, but assume everyone has the same level of investment.
Questions of style and politics rarely get the time they deserve - everyone has different thoughts on what's important but we don't take the time to address our differences.
Making decisions collectively is extremely difficult. When an idea is proposed and discussed and one person says "ok, can we agree on that?" and they get some blank stares, a yes, a no, and someone else seems to be texting..... what can you do?
(by the way - if any of my classmates are reading this - this is not my exact description of what happened today. it is a collection of things I've been thinking about since we started 5 weeks ago.)
this list could go on and on but I'll try to summarize by saying that if we persevere and develop these relationships over time, things will get better.
But today I really just feel like having a glass of wine and turning on the television.
november sixth, two thousand nine
Things to remember while making work.
Number 5: pursue the ideas you are passionate about.
After spending a week with Analogue and listening to Liam and Hannah talk about their process, I'm reminded of how damn hard it is to make theatre.
They'll spend two years on a project. Have I ever been passionate about something enough that I would spend two years working on it?
Someone once told me that ideas are like children. They have to be nurtured, fed, and raised to maturity. I think I disagree. I'd never kill my own child, but sometimes, often, ideas need to die. Maybe ideas are more like trees. Some have to be cleared so there can be new growth.
I recommend a book called "free Play" by a violinist named Stephen Nachmanovich. (sp?) he talks beautifully about freeing yourself from inhibition in order to let creative impulses rise to the surface. Interestingly, once you start getting good at that, having the ideas is no longer the hard part, its deciding which ones to pursue that can kill you.
So - if you are going to go through all the effort of making a performance, finding the resources, going through the headaches, getting into the fights, struggling with yourself, your collaborators, your loved ones - then its worth taking a minute to ask yourself - how do I feel about this idea? Am I passionate about it? Do I love it? Do just not have anything better to do during the day?
I'm intrigued by the idea that Analogue might spend two years on an idea for one performer and one audience member. I'm not sure I'd ever do that.
But I'm glad they are. They've been a lot of fun to work with and I'm glad they had fun, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)