tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post113416167963685634..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: ConservatismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1134700811017657362005-12-15T21:40:00.000-05:002005-12-15T21:40:00.000-05:00I think that theatricians (I like the new word, Je...I think that theatricians (I like the new word, Jess) should embrace <I>relationships</I> instead of product. We should stop seeing ourselves as "producers of plays" and instead see ourselves as "facilitators of a conversation."Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1134401125860750122005-12-12T10:25:00.000-05:002005-12-12T10:25:00.000-05:00If you stick your head in the sand and swear there...If you stick your head in the sand and swear there is no sky, is that an appropriate way to respond to "chicken-little-ing?"<BR/><BR/>Local communities are no longer set up to group-sustain its individual members/practitioners. Call it the WallMart effect.<BR/><BR/>"Successful" artists are able to trade nationally. Poets, musicians, authors, tactile and visual artists, film actors et. al. can trade nat'l'y--have been helped immensely (and, in some uber-pop cases, undercut immensely) by the internets.<BR/><BR/>Theatre cannot, I think, do this.<BR/><BR/>My people in Illinois cannot see my play in Atlanta (if I had one). Theatre cannot be nat'l.<BR/><BR/>Thus, for theatricians to continue to advance the art form it seems there is no other way than to embrace "process" over "product". <BR/><BR/>We must make theatre in and with our communities - viable in many venues, many expressive means.<BR/><BR/>The major hurdle? Making a living.<BR/><BR/>Local communities are no longer set up, or encouraged, to group-sustain its individual members / practitioners -- especially the local artist.<BR/><BR/>How can it be done? What are the first steps?oldphorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08218851053043166120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1134168369484096482005-12-09T17:46:00.000-05:002005-12-09T17:46:00.000-05:00I'm pretty sure, given my rant against cover tune ...I'm pretty sure, given my rant against cover tune classic shows, I'm not a conservative - plus, I agree that theatre can and should be done differently as time goes by - everything changes and grows, why shouldn't theatre?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1134166562829582222005-12-09T17:16:00.000-05:002005-12-09T17:16:00.000-05:00Your post really makes me think, Scott. I'm saying...Your post really makes me think, Scott. I'm saying to myself... me! conservative! Where's the tallest building! But it's true, I suppose, in some ways. We want to be innovative in the art form but not innovative in its, i guess, administrative execution (with the uber notable exception of MattF). <BR/><BR/>I think my major argument was how we can protect the things that drew us to the theatre in the first place, by still being innovative. It's a lot like the avant-garde discussion in so far as protecting the base and fighting the enemy. Maybe it would be useful for us all to have a little thought experiment, try and identify those things that drew us to the theatre in the first place, so that we know specifically what we need to change and what we need to preserve. Once again, looking backward to propel forward.MattJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15024391912705232207noreply@blogger.com