Friday, September 23, 2011
Teaching Avant-Garde Theater: Should We?
TheatreFace: In a comment on my recent post in which I solicited topics to blog about, Richard T. Young posed the following question: When we in the academy do weird avant-garde theatre, as wonderful as it might be, are we really preparing our students for the real world of trying to make a living as a theatre artist? I read about a University production of Measure for Measure that had been so "modernized" that they even changed the title to "Tit for Tat." The production included Idi Amin and a host of Tele-evangelist. Fun stuff. But what part of the real world of theatre, especially commercial theatre are those students being prepared for? Can you steep a student in Artaud and then send her out into the real world to do Weber?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I don't think this is going to affect our education enough either way to lose sleep over. Personally, I think it could be as simple as, "If we want to do an avant-garde show and it has good timing and will be a good show for the community, do it. If not, don't."
We will gain tons of useful experience either way, and I don't see this being a deal-breaker for an employer. But I could be wrong.
I think that one of the great things about Playground is that it provides an opportunity for students to work on Avant-Garde theater. At most, I think establishments should attempt to equip students with tools to approach avant-garde theater and not be lost. Providing the tools and the education to deal with situations like these would be extremely beneficial.
Teaching Avant-Garde theater certainly isn't going to hurt anyone - so long as it isn't the focus of a four year curriculum. It exists. It's real. It should be acknowledged and taught even if just minimally. Ignoring it completely is a bit ridiculous. Exposure to different types of theater is really beneficial to students. Why leave it out?
I believe that avant-garde theatre is an important part of any school curriculum. Learning about traditional methods of practicing theatre are important, but learning what is up and coming in the world is equally so. It would not do the educational system justice to leave out the opportunity to create and experience new works. It provides a window into what a large part of the industry is currently doing as well as a chance to express themselves by using their on experiences and known theatrical techniques.
Theatre students should definitely be exposed to Avant-Garde theatre, but I do not think that it should be the focus or too large a part of the curriculum. Realistically, most of the work we will be doing after we graduate will be on traditional theatre pieces, so it is important that we have a firm grasp on that before focusing on avant-garde work. Also, the concepts that we learn in a more traditional curriculum could easily be applied to avant-garde if need be. As Ariel mentioned, Playground gives us the wonderful opportunity to apply our education to avant-garde works, and helps us get experience in alternative theatre.
Interesting to read the comments and ponder this question because I think this is one thing that CMU suffers greatly from. Take a glance at our season and the shows we pick to produce. Apart from the Musical and a Shakespeare, we are not preparing our students to work and perform in the avant-garde theatre. Yet we produce plays/productions and take a very stylized approach to the pieces. And most of these plays are very hard to watch and difficult to digest. Not because the style is too grotesque or the subject matter is too shocking but because our actors cannot act in these pieces. It seems we are training graduates to work on Broadway and television. You an almost see the archetypes and stock characters from network dramas and television shows walking around Purnell.
I think there is some value to teaching avant-garde styles to our conservatory students: you can understand a lot about a Picasso when you know how to paint a realistic portrait. I don't know what the curriculum is like on the 3rd floor. I just know the types of praise alumuni get when they land certain roles suggests a type of approval, like they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. But I can speak for the performances I've seen: kids who want to be the next Glinda or star on Mad Men trying to make sense of Lady Han or Dream Play. The two don't coalesce.
I don't understand what the big deal is. Teaching Avant-Garde theater is dangerous to anyone. It give theater practitioners and students to really think outside of the box. And the great things about our school is that a lot of great Avant-Garde theater comes out of our Playground festival each year. It's a part of theater history and if we deny it to students than we are limiting their knowledge of their future careers. Even if you don't like Avant-Garde theater doesn't mean you shouldn't teach it. There are a couple of types of theater I don't like but it's still important to learn about them. It broadens our minds and skills.
I believe that this back and argument could be quite relatable to a conflict I know very well: that of a fine arts curriculum. Throughout my life I have known all to well the typical beginning arts assignments, middle school through high school, summer camp and after school art classes. We always begin with the basics: "lets practice lines" "make a color palette", or even draw a still life. Though as a committed art student these "foundations" to art seemed all to repetitive and tedious, without them I would not be comfortable exploring a more abstract style in painting, something that was only made confident through with those little baby steps and pieces of knowledge to help my work progress. I think that a set design curriculum works the same way. For me, I am ever so grateful that we are starting from the basics, classic theater design, because this for me is a whole new world I am still assimilating too. Therefore, I think that we should not condemn a classic approach to a theatrical design education. Even so, I feel that we should neither condemn the more avante garde theater classes, they should not at all be dismissed but instead encouraged. I believe that such an instruction should come in small doses, only until all the basics are learned and we are equipped with enough tools and information to learn of alternative theater routes. But after the basics are taught, I see now problem in including avante garde teaching as a part of a well-rounded theater curriculum.
I think that this article brings up a hugely important point: should an educational theatre institution be teaching its students how to adapt TO the world of theatre as it currently is, or should it be teaching its students how to change the world of theatre as it currently is into what they want it to be? In my opinion, there's a balance between the two. I absolutely think that a theatre institution should teach students what the "real world" is like and how to survive as an artist in it. That means doing the commercial, sometimes cheesy musicals and the established works. However, a theatre institution should also expose its students to the "other" side of the theatre world. Devised work is exploding in popularity and avant-garde theatre is on the rise. It's necessary to have experience in both of these sides to understand the theatrical world, and I think that focusing solely on the "real world" of commercial theatre does students a disservice.
It is weird to say that teaching Avant-Garde theater is not preparing students for the "real world". There is plenty of really out there theater that is pushing boundaries and making statements in the real world, this is even true in commercial theater occasionally. If you are taught the basic tenets of theater then you can expand on them (i.e. avant-garde theater) and I think most people that are in a theater school know the basic tenets, and pushing them is really preparing them for what they are going to be doing.
I find this article really applicable to this season's, and last season's, choices for the School of Drama. Many of times I've heard students complain about the avant-garde production being put on at the school and how it unrealistic to expect student to not work on classical shows. Although a part of me agrees with the perspective of my fellow students, I can't help but think that college is a time to experiment. Especially in theatre, where classical pieces are done dry, doing avant-garde is a wonderful opportunity to try new techniques and work out challenges. However, I am approaching this response through the perspective of a designer, where avant-garde theatre often provides me with the opportunity to delve into fantasy and abstraction like never before. From the perspective of a performer, I can see where avant-garde pieces in which meaning is lost is the absurdity. However, I still think that it should be taught ALONG WITH other styles of performance.
A good balance of Avant-Garde and commercial seems the most beneficial for a student studying theatre. Avant-Garde is both educational historically but also helps with the development of the creative process. It is just as important, though, to learn within a commercial theatre setting since that is most likely the type of theatre waiting in their future, and they need to be prepared for that.
I think that the process of theatre is the same regardless of if it is Avant-Garde. The processes of different theatrical production are variations on a norm, just as the process on a "avant-garde" production is a variation.
The teaching should provide a bag of tools that can be used on any number of variations and the only way to exercise those tools is to try various variations.
This brings up an interesting point of professional development v. career preparation. I think the ideal theatrical education has a good balance of both but what is that balance?
First off, to eat food we need jobs so the program cannot be lacking in that respect. Once there is a solid amount there then the program can work on professional development such as avant-guarde theatre to make us grow as theatre artists.
My next question would be is where does CMU fall on this scale? Are we in a good balance, we do a good job of producing avant-guard/educated theatre but perhaps we should do some shows that are purely commercial?
Post a Comment