Guardian Professional: All manner of artists have done well out of Web 2.0. There are countless examples, from comedian Bo Burnham to indie duo Pomplamoose, of undiscovered creatives coming into prominence through canny use of online platforms. Oh, and some singing Canadian kid called Justin. Broadly speaking though, theatre makers haven't benefited in the same way.
3 comments:
The idea of critiquing art in its process is always a debatable topic I feel. While some believe art is something meant to be raw and fresh to an audience at first site, others believe that audience participation in the making of the art is just as important as their initial witness of it. As far as theatre, I think it is something meant to be completed before an audience sees it, otherwise the "magic" of being taken to another place and time and introduced to new ideas loses its element of surprise. For other works of art however, like installations or musical pieces, I think the Scratch idea could be a very effective way of creating a community with an art interest, or at least bringing art into the community that exists.
If could be a great tool for artist and theatre if the theatre was operating more on the business end of theatre. This could give art and artists a fluid chance to change and grow making it more desired by the public, however, I do not think it should be used in such a way. It seems to me that this would much more useful in media as a way to bring audiences attention into the show before it starts. This would still be a difficult topic to discuss topic because once art is put on the internet anyone can view it, making it almost impossible to remove and possibly making it more difficult for artist's style remain their distinct style. I agree with the creator about taking the integration process slow at first until we know just how this will affect theatre.
I don't think it will work, well, not for theater anyway. The power of theater is symbiotic - its relationship between the a live audience and live performers. Music, digital media, or other plastic arts may be benefit by a service like this that allows artists to share their wares mid-process. It could be a good way to develop interest for a project and begin the collaborative process of feedback from an audience to an producing organization. But for theater that is different.
There's an analog counterpart to this in the real world: staged readings of new plays. That is a process a lot of people find difficult because we are so used to viewing theater as a powerful & transformative experience. When you are looking at something leading up to that it's harder to be moved or respond to it - you are aware you are looking at an incomplete product. But there are some who love the staged-reading development process. There is something to be said about hearing the words in a room in front of your peers, or in our case with New Works of seeing the potential in a piece physically manifest itself. But take away the live human interaction?
How does one respond to a digital performance? Putting something on a screen somehow trivializes the experience. It becomes something seen and not felt, a novelty. Especially now in the current technological information as commodity iPhone cultural climate it could become harder and harder to respond to something digital. Feedback during this process may be limited to a thumbs-up "Like" or a re-tweet. It takes more to nurture a piece of artwork than that, right?
Post a Comment