tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post113630139849178572..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: After the ShowUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1136468915997296922006-01-05T08:48:00.000-05:002006-01-05T08:48:00.000-05:00The Met does "talkbacks" during their shows on Sat...The Met does "talkbacks" during their shows on Saturday afternoon - but they are rarely discussions. Rather, interviews, like you describe, or brief introductions of their artists with questions posed to such by a moderator.<BR/><BR/>I like the idea of small group discussions following a performance. I wonder if this is a small indicator of creating theatre for and with a community? Maybe the discussion need not occur after the show at the theatre? Maybe the discussions are ongoing, the play is simply a highlighting experience during a longer, group discussion?oldphorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08218851053043166120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1136344644694118622006-01-03T22:17:00.000-05:002006-01-03T22:17:00.000-05:00Josh -- I agree with you totally. I don't think t...Josh -- I agree with you totally. I don't think the value of post-show discussions lies in what it tells the artists. That's why I propose this alternate model, which focuses on the ideas, images, and issues raised by a work of art rather than how the artists could improve their work. Now, that said, I think artists should participate in these conversations to get to know those in the audience, and forge a relationship with them. Converstaions, even artistic conversations, are deeper when it doesn't happen between strangers!Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1136338872106663312006-01-03T20:41:00.000-05:002006-01-03T20:41:00.000-05:00Regarding post-show comments and critique, this is...Regarding post-show comments and critique, this is my experience - I've attended hundreds, both as a spectator and as a participant, the past twelve to fifteen years, both for workshop productions and readings. I've even mediated some of them myself. <BR/><BR/>I've probably had a least a hundred of them featuring work I've written myself. That's a conservative estimate, the number is likely higher (staged readings are handed out like candy here, it seems) and probably is. <BR/><BR/>What I've learned about post-show audience critiques is this. The author and other artists involved rarely, if ever, learn ANYTHING of value from post-show audience critiques and comments. Mostly you hear people going about themselves, rather than the work, and arguing with each other around what the play meant for them, individually. Not always, but almost always. <BR/><BR/>The really valuable thing we learn from the audience generally comes during the performance of the piece. You learn the most from the audience by listening to how they react to the work<BR/><BR/>Now, don't take this to mean that I don't need and value feedback. I do, but when it's people whom I know, dramaturgically (directors I've worked with, other writers who know the craft, etc) - I absolutely need that kind of feedback, but it needs to come from someone with some sort of dramaturgical POV that I can communicate with . . . just because folks can feel the experience of a piece of work in theatre, feel it fully and gueninuly, doesn't mean that they can be articulate about it. Hell, I work in theatre and I ain't always articulate about it, either. I never understood why we put this onus and burden on audiences, asking them to break it down via comments and critique after they just sat through it. It's almost never been of value to this playwright, the post show audience comments. <BR/><BR/>Generally you know if an audience likes a piece because they're involved, breathing with the performers. If they don't like it, they're asleep. <BR/><BR/>Again, this is just what I've experienced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com