Monday, September 26, 2011
Audiences see theater in the making with Attack's 'What?'
Post Gazette: Risk is an accepted part of the dance business. Most people think about the physical part of it, although artistic risk can ultimately be the most satisfying. But how about the next step -- to expose the artistic process, warts and all, to an audience?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
These shows that are created on the convention that they are made in a cramped amount of time are interesting if you understand what has to happen in that amount of time, but I'm not sure an audience member seeing the final product would understand the significance. I also am concerned that the sacrifice in developed art that can be done with a longer amount of time can make a mediocre show out of one that could be much better if it had time to develop and time for the bugs to be worked out.
The idea of bringing audience members in as you are creating a production is an interesting one that Attack Theater has explored in "What?". Getting the audience involved as your building the play is an interesting process and helps you to get more outside feedback and maybe get an understanding of what is and isn't coming across about your play, and also having them being involved in dramatically changing the play and giving it a different direction. While, as Calvin note, the shortened development time could have hurt the play to some degree, I think seeing what came out of this collaboration between audience and performers would be pretty cool
The development process for "What?" is one that is becoming more prominent today. There are much more devised works, and works that come about through the reactions of individuals not involved in the company. Seeing the final product of a show that has such a short period to make its product is fascinating. Whether the work is mediocre or not, if it has come to a state that is presentable and mind captivating then the work would be a success. I agree with Calvin and AJ that a work might be better if there is more time, but seeing the collaboration between the audience and performers would be cool. There is always a possibility to develop the piece after the initial presentation.
I think it's really great that Attack theatre brought audience members in for the rehearsal process. I'm sure it was really useful to be able to hear the audience members responses during the rehearsals. Also, I think it is great that the audience got to see what goes into making a production. It's very easy to be an audience member and just take all the work that goes into making a production for granted. Also, I agree that the shortened creative process could hurt the production, but I feel like for this situation, the trade off made sense to be able to have audience feedback through out the process.
It is interesting to consider allowing the audience within the rehearsal space. A large portion and protection that the rehearsal room provides is freedom to do and try new things without fear of criticism. At CMU, we work very hard to make the rehearsal room a safe space both physically and emotionally. Bringing the audience into this space takes away the nature of what it is intended to do. This rehearsal room will no longer be a free think-tank of ideas, but it will now be an examination of a process that creators go through.
On the other hand, maybe this group of artists is able to disregard the audience, and maintain the security of that environment. I'd be interested to attend one of these rehearsals, and see how much audience involvement is present. I'd also be interested to see the audience dynamic, and who is interested in this sort of examination.
I agree with Liz. I think that in a situation like this, you are not going to get the full potential out of the performers if there is an audience watching, judging, the entire process. It is possible that the performers chosen for this process don't feel uncomfortable with the audience there, after all, I'm sure they were aware of the idea before they signed on to be a part of it, but I'd bet they still might hold back a bit.
I think a similar idea that would increase the potential of the show would be to have a few regular rehearsals, and then open it up to an audience for feedback. Then the company could take the feedback, adjust, and open it up once again. That way it would still be using audience participation to a degree, but would also give the performers time to feel comfortable to try new things without being watched the whole time.
Post a Comment