Modern Socialization

Did TV, Film, Internet, and mass entertainment hurt the arts or did have people found new ways of socializing?

Often arts practioners moan and groan about how increased competition for people's attention has drasitically lowered attendence and made it very difficut to reach audiences. Needless to say we should be using these mediums to reach audiences - and we aren't doing that enough, but I want to pose a different hypothesis. What if what has really changed is how people socialize and how conversation about events is generated? And what do we do if the hypothesis is true?

Let's look at how over the years people have entertained themselves. It used to be that people would gather in someone's drawing room or home, and read, sing, and entertain one another. Or go to the theatre or the opera to see a performance. People sought out group experiences and these experiences lead to conversations.

What technology allows is for people to "experience" something individually but they can still maintain the conversation. The technoligy allows each person to expereince the same thing. This is what the solidiaryreading a book has always provided. We live in an ON DEMAND culture in a CONNECTED WORLD. TV shows, YouTube video, Blogs, and Movies (which most people watch at home or on netflix anyway) are experienced by individuals or in very small groups but they are the topics of "mass" conversations.

I recently joined facebook, twitter, plaxo and a whole slew of social networking sites. Even though I am a total technology junkie, it took me a long time to come around to social networking. I just didn't get it. But all of a sudden I am aware of what is happening moment to moment in friends and aquaintances lives. I am actually closer to several friends because of the technology. It was the same feeling I had when instant messaging became so popular or current day texting. It is a "live conversation" more often than not. Everyone has the story of some kids they know sitting within 3 feet of one another texting.

Live seems to imply in person, but really doesn't it mean real-time? If it does, what does LIVE theatre really mean? Look at the simulcasts that the MET is doing - it is changing the opera world. Is that a live performance. Do you need to be in the same room to have a live experience? Is it now true that an individual experience is also group experience?

Another must read! Can't wait for the showcase tomorrow!

I couldn't be more proud of our interns. I beg that each of you keep up the blogging and the conversations we have started this summer. You have given me hope for the future of theatre.

Another amazing post. This one is from our education intern, Laura.

http://westportinterns08.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-love-smell-of-theatre-in-morning.html

Another must read...

Another amazing moment for another intern. From their upcoming showcase on Monday, August 11 a poem from Ashley our electrics intern answering a fellow interns question - WHAT IS THEATRE?

Theatre should be . . .
a Forum;
a center for thought and the exchange of ideas.
Emotional;
a confrontation, a heartache;
Bittersweet, insightful;
abrasive and simultaneously soothing;
a haven and a beacon for the human story
which is stripped and laid bare
for all to see—
not to punish, but to bring us back
and show us
the something we’re all looking for;
the answer to a million questions
and the question to a million answers;
the stiff drink at the end of the day
and the jolt of caffeine to start the next.
Jaw-dropping.
Soulful.
Perfect imperfection, organized chaos.
Our vice and our virtue, heaven and hell
and everything between.
Our fall from grace, our Paradise Lost,
Pandemonium.
Our struggle, our redemption,
and ultimately
our Freedom.

Is casting theatre through a reality show the end of the world as we know it?

So for the last few weeks I have watched intermittenly High School Musical :Get in the Picture and Legally Blonde: The Search or Elle Woods.

First disclaimer: I worked at MCC Theater where Bernie Telsey was one of the Artisitc Directors. Telsey and Co cast the majority of the Playhouse's shows. I think Bernie is one of the most brilliant men in the business, and Telsey and Co is the best casting firm in NYC. Telsey and Co's Will Cantler who handled most of the shows I worked at three of my theatres and is the Associate Artisitc Director at MCC is one of my favorite people on earth and I trust his opinon on ANYTHING having to do with the industry. I consider many of the people who work at and have worked at Telsey and Co friends.

Second disclaimer: My husband is an actor, a working actor. But he is not a musical theatre actor.

Back to the shows...

I must admit from the first episode of Legally Blonde, I was proud of Bernie. It would have been so easy to find the traditional reality show sterotypes rather that finding a group of talented actresses.

Although the casting search was tied to the traditional reality formula - shove a bunch of strangers in a single living area and see what happens, the show did break the formula in many ways. First the challenges were about building endurance to be able to perform 8 shows a week on Broadway. Second, the living situation personality clashes were not centerstage - the performances were. Third, the shows contestants were able to be open and honest about being ACTORS due to the nature of the "contest." Fourth, the winner got a REAL job with a real contract (for the record so did the runner-ups which was very smart of the producers of the Broadway show). Fifth, we have no idea where Telsey and Co found the contestants - no televised embarassment of open calls in Americal Idol Style.

Of course many "dramatic" elements were added - the whole casting office element is non-existant in real auditions, an actor is usually not given a biting critic by a panel of judges. The audition process is usually two solidary session with a reader, not full production rehearsals - although maybe that is how it should be done!

Now over on Disney's traveling circus, youngsters are competing for a chance to appear in a VIDEO at the END of High School Musical Three. The dramatic tension is HIGH. Teens crying, their hearts and dreams broken. It is a giant open cattle call taped for the audiences enjoyment. (I admit I only saw a few episodes, whereas I did watch every episode of Legally Blonde).

Now I know they are doing several of these casting shows in England and Canada. We had that Grease You're the One that I want version on some network (obviously I didn't watch a single episode of it). And, I would have to be blind not to see all of the American Idol finalists and winners all over Broadway. Which is probably where the idea came from in the first place.

So the real question is...good thing or bad thing?

Well, I most note as anyone can see, this type of "stunt" casting (although I hate that term) is only being employed in musicals. Now someone outside of the industry or audiences, might incorrectly assume that it is because musicals require less acting skill or goodness forbid are easier to do. This is would be a negative. There are already enough people in the world who think anyone can get on a stage and act or even worse that he or she certainly could just hop up there and do it. Acting requires skill, talent and training. You can't learn talent. You have to have it. Acting is not something just anyone can do. For musicals it is not just about being able to hit the right note, you have to bring the song to life. These shows in a roundabout way reinforce the misconception that anyone can do it.

On a positive note, this kind of programming is basically a commerical for the show--if anyone is watching--they can help a show reach a larger audience. But what are we saying to that larger audience? Legally Blonde told us how difficult it is to get a show and to DO a show. It was the first time I had seen this expressed (even if it was done is a somewhat humorous way).

I think the answer is simple for some shows this kind of "stunt" makes sense. I thought the broadcast of Legally Blonde on MTV was a brilliant choice (that is a whole different blog topic). If these casting competitions are done even more realistically it would make sense for quite a few show even for High School Musical. But would it work for all shows--certainly not. Would it work for straight plays--I can't even imagine how.

But is it the end of the world? NO. It is just another way to go about it. And if it brings a little attention to the world of theatre is it really a bad thing.I applaud the folks at MTV for keeping the Elle search as realistic as is probably possible. It will be interesting to see if that process can be replicated ever again.

Why is entertainment a bad word?

Yes, I know many artists and theatre folks find the word entertaining a "bad" word. Some how entertainment has come to refer to work that has no value or is fluff. If it is entertaining it isn't art.

However I believe it is a very subjective word and unfortunatly as it often is individuals want to believe their individual interpretations are universal. Entertainment has gotten a bad rep.

Last year I was at lunch with a group of gentlemen from our local Y's Men group and this was basically the topic of discussion. I had given an overview of some of the Playhouse's plans for expanding programming in the building and on the internet, and after the presentation, a member of the group told me that he had been VERY bothered that I had not used the word entertainment when discussing our shows. I told him that I purposely avoided the word since I found it to be so subjective.

At lunch I asked each of the gentlemen what they found entertaining. It was not surprising to me that the answers ranged (and I am paraphrasing) from I want to laugh to I want to taken to another place to I like to be made to think to I love to have a good cry.

We have to admit as practioners and audience members that being ENTERTAINED isn't the same thing for each person and it IS NOT a bad thing for someone to leave the theatre feeling as if they have been entertained. There is no reason that art can't be entertaining.

Is email helping us or hurting us?

After that very positive post about technology, I have to explore something I think is really becoming an issue in the world – email.

I prefer to communicate mostly through email in all of my negotiations and communications. I realized while I was unable to type on my own, that I communicate almost exclusively through email or in person—more often through email. I use the phone to talk to my family, when I have to have an answer immediately, or when forced by the fact that someone else doesn’t have email (seriously in this day and age, it should be a rule that you have to have email). But for all of my own leanings towards the use of email, I think it is a detriment to a successful working environment. Everyone talks about it ruining the way people write, but I am talking about erosion of the work environment.

First and foremost, the tone of an email is normally indecipherable. We add all sorts of hint to our readers as to what tone they should read the email with J, tee hee, L, ALL CAPS, etc. Yet each day I find myself puzzling over what someone might have meant when they said something really simple like “That’s great!” Do they really mean that is it great, are they being sarcastic and they are really pissed off? I waste hours on this weekly.

Second, I find myself and others I know employing email as an offensive strategy. I send emails to make sure I have it in writing and that the person I am sending it to knows a deadline, an interpretation, or an opinion. I often find when a staff member brings a problem to me, I say “well write an email so you have proof of what you were saying. It is back-up for some imagined future conflict – which I often think we will into fruition.

Third, reply all is the biggest contributor to misunderstanding and to endless confusion. People don’t read all the responses before replying. It makes conversations that should be had in person a confrontational environment for no reason, except that people frustrated, are up in arms, defensive, and plain old over it because of all the emails and confusion.

Fourth, people send out these large group emails to everyone they think should be involved in a discussion or decision or need to know when something is decided. This brings a whole group into discussion instead of going to the one or two people who should make a decision efficiently and then send the SOLUTION to all that need to know. This makes things simply drag on FOREVER. Or worse, people who didn’t need to be involved in the first place are mad at the fact they weren’t listen too. (Sorry folks the world can’t be run by a giant committee).

Fifth, who cares about phones, but when I am emailing with the person who is sitting in the next room shouldn’t I just go meet with the person and discuss it. Am I being lazy? Am I using it as an offensive stance to make sure that I have it in writing and there is no confusion and documentation? Am I afraid where the conversation will lead? If so, should I address that not hide behind an email?

I could go on and on and on about this, but I think we as leaders need to break free of the albatross.

From here on out:

I hope I can send emails to the appropriate person or people so that I can find the answer and then let the group know what the solution is.

I will try to break the reply all chain.

I will get out of my chair and seek out folks to have a conversation, and if necessary, we can take notes the old fashion way. Imagine writing with pen and paper!

If I feel I need to confirm something, I am going to actually confirm it with the person and make sure we agree and understand each other.

I will be conscientious of the “tone” of my email and try to be concise but kind.

The value of the artist?

Pulled from our intern Julie’s blog:

The necessity of suffering in art.

There is a chapter in Peter Brook's, The Empty Space--- and I'm sorry I can not reference it more directly right now---where he discusses the stigma surrounding artists asking for more financial compensation for their work. How theatre professionals don't feel as if they are "worthy" of or entitled to making money because it is necessary to fill the stereotype of "starving artist."

Wikipedia describes a "starving artist" as one who: sacrifices material well-being in order to focus on their artwork. They typically live on minimum expenses, either for a lack of business or because all their disposable income goes towards art projects. Some starving artists desire mainstream success but have difficulty due to the high barriers in art such as visual arts, the film industry, and THEATRE.

These artists frequently take temporary positions (such as waitering jobs) while they focus their attention on breaking through in their preferred field. Others may find enough satisfaction in living as artists to choose voluntary poverty regardless of prospects of future financial reward or broad recognition.

It is widely known that the theatre is not an extremely lucrative industy and we all have chosen this path with the knowledge that we will not be millionaires, we will not have as easy as a life as those who earn more money. We won't have normal hours, it may be years (if ever) we decide to "settle down," we will have to make sacrafices that people with desk jobs will not. But we make these choices to feed our hunger to create. But if theatre fills our emotional & psychological stomachs why is it so difficult to simultaneously feed our physical ones?

Is it necessary for the artist to suffer? I've talked to many of my friends and know from first hand experience, that we are most inspired to write or act or sing or dance or direct when we are upset or "starved." Theatre becomes a kind of outlet and great work usually comes from great misery.

Many of my theatre friends have experienced tragedy at a very young age: eating disorders, rehab, suicides of friends and family members, arrest, financial disparitiy, etc... and I, thankfully (?) have not. I get along with my family and they support me, I grew up comfortably, I have experienced death, but natural death. Because I've had less tragic experiences does that make me less of an artist? Because I've never tasted the aftershock of, for example, being arrested. Does that give me one less color to paint with?

RESPONSE FROM JODI:


I think Julie raises an important issue about the value of the artist. Here is the comment that I posted in response to her post:

First and foremost - you are quoting my favorite book. I even recommended to one of the other interns (90% sure it was Laura without checking). The book defines clearly in the final section what I think is the crux of the theatrical experience and the true reason to create theatre--that moment when you feel the audience connect with the actors on stage and can SEE them being stirred to response.

But back to your post. I think without question that the arts draw "damaged" or "abused" (society's critical labels not mine) for a reason. There is not a question as to whether these types are drawn to the arts, they are.

But the reason is that they have to find a way to channel the pain, sort through the difficulty and come out on the other side. Most probably don't - I say most because we hear of a lot that do and we see a handful of high profile of stories of those that don't. However these are the ones we hear about. Imagine how many there must be.

Now I am not an advocate of anyone having ANY kind of difficulty in life but that just isn't the reality of life. If people who have experienced these difficult or often horrible experience are able to work through them by exploring them and translating them into art AND they allow us to experience it through their workm they have given us and society a gift. We, the audience, can grow and learn from the artist's work and ideally we will be stirred into some form of action or awareness.

Now do you have to have had a miserable life or experience to be an artist? I don't think so. Espiecally as the interpreter (actor, director, designer) or facilatator (producer, stage manager, markerter, fundraiser). I don't think that even the creator has to have the direct experience, but to be open to the experience.

To be willing to bare one's soul and explore the darker side of life certainly takes courage. Should we therefore suffer for our art? Suffer for providing enlightenment? Should we be underpaid because we love what we do? No to all of the above.

If a doctor said he loved practicing medicine would we say well then he doesn't need to be paid? Absolutely NOT.

The biggest problem is the value we place on the arts in the growth of indiduals and society. They are disposable. They are a luxuary. We have lost perspective by classifying things as "art," rather than championing artistic expression. The artist is not guilt-free in this. For generations many of us thought we were entitled to support simply because we declared our product ART and ourselves ARTISTS. We lost the need to be relevant; to be a part of our community rather thinking ourselves above it; and to be on the frontline of examining changes in our world including new technologies.

Several self proclaimed artists brand those who have found "commerical" successes sell outs - but if you had the chance to reach a world-wide audience wouldn't you? And look at the effect of the world of film and television - yes they produce a lot of crap, but I certainly have seen a lot of bad theatre as well.

Will we or should we be millionaires? I don't know. But we should be able to eat, to pay our bills, and to raise children.

Now, that brings up a really difficult topic, are we talking about living wages for those who have created a career in the arts or those who want a career in the arts? Just like any field there are some who will make it and be successful and those who won't. Sorry to say there are a lot of factors involved in that and the last one is talent. Just like every profession, you can get ahead by who you know, where you grew up, where you go to school, etc. Talent, determination, perservance are a necessity but they actually don't get you to the "top." They just keep you going.

I am going to pull this into my discussion to my blog as well, but Eric as important a conversation as this is for artists, I don't know if it is right for the official website.

Technology can make life easier!

First and foremost, I must admit I love my blackberry.

In the age of the I-phone , I am utterly torn between my loyalty to the device that changed my life and a new design revolution.

Most people would find my statement that my blackberry changed my life SAD. But for someone who is constantly worried about being out of touch or not knowing what is going on it is a relief. It is the same comfort that I take in living less than a mile from the theatre. Because I am so close and because everyone can reach me via email to let me know what is going on, I am comfortable enough to leave the office, to step away. I am even getting very good about how often I check my email because in a situation where I am needed people can call me, email me or heck even drive over to my house to find me (this has happened actually several times when I spend a day in the garden). I have actually learned to turn off the world precisely because I know it can be turned on so quickly!

Additions to the blog

Should note - I learned how to add twitter updates to the blog. I also figured out how to put delicious bookmarks on the blog (however can't figure out why it cuts the b in blog off on the tags). Both are on the right as you scroll down.

For interns and apprentices the links to theatre and industry may be very helpful!

Almost Better

So it has been a full week with no communication. Mostly because my arm has been in a sling due to a torn muscle in my shoulder. This weekend is tech. I promise a prolific weekend of blogging.