tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post5914232566148834977..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: Andrew Taylor on NPACUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-48316020133340768632008-06-20T13:35:00.000-04:002008-06-20T13:35:00.000-04:00Scott,I'd like to follow-up on Andrew's point abou...Scott,<BR/><BR/>I'd like to follow-up on Andrew's point about the need to tell stories well and your emphasizing this need as well.<BR/><BR/>Coming from the dance side and not the theater world, I'm constantly encouraging dancers and dance companies to tell their stories about their companies and works in new and more meaningful ways.<BR/><BR/>I get very frustrated going to one website after another where way too brief descriptions are given of new dance works, little context is provided and there's no much for audiences to grab on to.<BR/><BR/>This is a real lost opportunity, I believe, because the Internet offers so many great ways to share stories through text, pictures and videos.<BR/><BR/>I've always had trouble understanding this lack of interest in providing a more compelling context for helping audiences better understand dances that they are about to see.<BR/><BR/>The easiest answer is that many choreographers and dancers simply want their work to speak for itself and are not inclined to explain something that is designed to be experienced.<BR/><BR/>But I always thought there should be a better or, at least, an additional answer.<BR/><BR/>Overall, how do theater companies do in telling their stories? How do they go about it? What are the best examples? Clearly from your post above, I take it that a better job can be done? What do you and your readers recommend?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-18975602170650715862008-06-20T13:12:00.000-04:002008-06-20T13:12:00.000-04:00Art, Idon't think that those who are surviving/bei...Art, <I>I</I>don't think that those who are surviving/being propped up under the current system are necessarily more deserving or innovative. <BR/><BR/>They're bigger. More money is given to prop up large institutions because of their largesse. It is telling how many foundations gifts are structured around operating budgets. The larger the budget, the larger the grant.<BR/><BR/>Where the Boston Foundation report seems to err (from what I can tell, not knowing the front-lines as it were, it seems a load of dung) is the automatic assumption that it is the small and mid-sized companies that need to go away to make room for bigger organizations, not flailing ones needing to clear room for ones with growth potential.<BR/><BR/>To use the forest example, it's most often the largest carcasses that spawn the greatest growth.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean that large institutions can’t grow and change, (for ex. Steppenwolf stumbled for a bit as they became an institution, but is back with a vengeance) but there's very little reason for some to do so right now.Tony Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02141675073979325374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-8447060966644053662008-06-20T12:51:00.000-04:002008-06-20T12:51:00.000-04:00Tony,Let me just add a caveat to your comment. I f...Tony,<BR/><BR/>Let me just add a caveat to your comment. <BR/><BR/>I find there can sometimes be a resignation that goes along with the "healthy forest" line of thinking.<BR/><BR/>For instance, the thinking starts to undergo a casual acceptance: "Oh, well, they died off for the good of the whole." <BR/><BR/>Fair enough, but there is an insidious side to this. Namely, the casual acceptance that the organizations who remain and thrive are necessarily deserving ,or the best thing for the whole.<BR/><BR/>In Boston, one of our largest grant givers, The Boston Foundation, released a report suggesting that small arts organizations SHOULD die off for the good of the whole. Their thesis was that if you can't innovate or play this new landscape well, you probably are better off closing your doors.<BR/><BR/>Thomas Garvey, another blogger here, did a few posts on the details of the report. He found that the organizations the Boston Foundation was holding up as examples of small companies that have survived in the RIGHT way, were, quite simply, companies that were leveraging political and economic contacts and taking advantage of access and largesse in the TRADITIONAL ways.<BR/><BR/>It's not that I am contradicting, I just wanted to throw this into the discussion.Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04845394320537913576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-56193229751063507612008-06-20T11:40:00.000-04:002008-06-20T11:40:00.000-04:00Tony -- I agree totally -- theatres need to die (I...Tony -- I agree totally -- theatres need to die (I like the healthy forest analogy). I was speaking more about the struggle that most theatre people engage in every day to put a roof over their head and food in their mouths while trying to do their art. <BR/><BR/>Don -- I agree with you, too! This is not an either-or thing. And while people like me can serve to remind artists, eventually artists themselves need to internalize the impulse, rather than relying on some Jiminy Cricket on their shoulder reminding them to connect to community. To be honest, it really isn't a compromise -- some sort of theatrical vegetable to be forced down instead of a pizza. Connecting to one's community can be as artistically rewarding as doing what might be considered a "traditional show" -- hell, MORE rewarding.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-7734101984173167042008-06-20T11:21:00.000-04:002008-06-20T11:21:00.000-04:00"When you are struggling for your life, your visio..."When you are struggling for your life, your vision narrows to a pinpoint in order to block out everything except what will save you." <BR/><BR/>This will probably sound heretical, but most times I think we need to be willing to let some organizations die out, so that new ones can adapt and grow. (That's one big difference between a healthy forest and an unhealthy one.)<BR/><BR/>Don--how does the "artist being the artist" and the individual voice jive with the "shaman and the idiot"? <BR/><BR/>Or are the artists voice and the wider sense of our world already there side by side--even if one or the other is neglected by most of us?Tony Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02141675073979325374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-73263195570346903952008-06-20T08:15:00.000-04:002008-06-20T08:15:00.000-04:00In reading this latest post, I'm coming to realize...In reading this latest post, I'm coming to realize that, in my position that artists need to be artists and concerned primarily with their own specific voice and your position that their needs to be a broader understanding of how those individual voices both address and serve the outlying community, we're both absolutely correct.<BR/><BR/>I think the seeds of the solutions are in the landscape already - artists should be artists but should rely, in some degree, on the guidance of community-minded advocates (like yourself) for reminders of how they can be more involved in performing within their own communities.<BR/><BR/>It's not as big a stretch as it may seem - most artists adjust their art to reflect the desires of the commercial marketplace or bend to will of their board members - I say that the advise given by an advocate of a more community-involved art-scene is at least as sound (and absent all the "money-making mentality) as those influences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com