CMU School of Drama


Sunday, September 07, 2008

The Future? Who Needs It?

LiveDesign: "After my week of conversation about interactive media on the stage, I’m forced to confront the possibility that today’s audiences might not care about interactivity any more than participative culture—that the creators will always be outnumbered by the consumers. If we are responsible, then, our job is to tell the stories that speak to them the clearest in the most concise possible way. That kind of communication is almost always easiest to achieve through prepared, non-interactive means. Or perhaps I just have to wait longer…"

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't think that you have to wait longer but to not try as hard to find faster, easier ways to reach audeiences. As a theatre student I think this is detrimental becasue it causes less people to get up and go see a production rather than having them sitting at home watching a show on their laptops.. Honestly, it is a bitter-sweet topic which could go either way. I simply just see it as a possible problem-causing error that could effect our society.

Sarah Benedict said...

I think that when you start talking about truly interactive screen media you begin veering more towards Disney, and father away from Broadway. I totally agree that projections and digital media in theatre is awesome, and the the wave of the future - if it is present more with the 4th wall in mind. "Interactive," to me, reflects the audience holding buttons, or wearing 3D glasses, or talking to characters directly - all of which are elements in theme park rides across the country. In theatre I think the digital media should be "interactive" in the sense that it gets the audience to think, reflect, and better understand the play - but not get them directly affecting the play.

NatalieMark said...

I would love to go see an interactive play (Like Shear Madness). Getting the audience in on the play and keeping it resonant or funny is a hard balance. But if done well the play will be more enjoyable and engaging. Watching an actor struggle is one thing, it is another to participate in his or her struggle, or even to help cause it.

Laura Oliver said...

I think that there are multiple reasons that interactive media isn't catching on like the writer apparently thinks it should. First of all, the efforts to incorporate new technology are often done in the name of the new technology, not because it is needed. Secondly, the only people who get notice as well as get excited by the new technology are insiders. Only lighting designers really care about moving lights, etc. Creative people are the target audience for interactive works. For everyone else, participatory experience is at best a novelty and at worst a chore

David Beller said...

With new technology every aspect of life is changing, and as artists, we must also. However, I believe that a line must be drawn. While interactive and technology aided theatre (now I know all theatre – or most – is technologically aided…) has its place, it will never fully replace the effect that a classic production has. While some productions are aided by interaction, others are successful because they restrict the control the audience has. So, while change is inevitable, we must be mindful to keep the technology aiding the production instead of the production being a stage for technology.

Sam Thompson said...

I think that the main reason interactive theatre hasn't caught on is that it runs counter to one of the main reasons people go to shows: for an escape. Many people watch theatre because it provides an escape for them from their everyday world, and because it allows them to sit back and let others work to entertain them. Interactive theatre would be less of an escape for the audience, who want to see other people's lives on stage, not their own. Furthermore, people don't want to have to build their own entertainment. They expect it to be created for them. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I think it's a really cool concept. I'm only suggesting a reason that it hasn't caught on.