Bitter Gertrude: I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what theatre is and why we do it. It sounds like an easy thing to think about until you actually start thinking about it.
Someone I know recently referred to himself as a “provocateur” in how he creates his art, and that it’s not enough for him to just “do theatre.” I’ve known quite a few people who see themselves primarily as something along those lines– trying to “awaken” people, or provide some kind of “transformative experience.” And I think those can be laudable goals, to a certain extent. But what does it mean to “just do theatre”? Is being a “provocateur” more than “just doing theatre”?
4 comments:
This is a dangerous article that I'm sure people are going to dispute and argue about but think it's a topic that every theatre practitioner should think about. I've often sat through meetings that people say their goals for a production are to "provoke", or "awaken", or provide a "transformative experience"to the audience and I cringe a little on the inside when I hear these buzz words. Often I feel they are used when someone doesn't really know what they want from a production and so by throwing out these buzz words it sounds like they have a goal. Why is it never enough to just entertain the audience? Why do we need to provoke the audience and have them respond on a deeper level? Why can't we just go have fun and enjoy ourselves while at the theatre? I know I do theatre for the audience, not for myself or anyone around me. I want the audience to have the best experience that they can and that is who I do my job for. I think that the theatre is for the audience, and that many people forget about this.
I disagree with Tyler. When I hear someone say "why is it never enough to just entertain the audience?" I automatically think of human ignorance and selfishness. I think art is one of the most powerful (including dangerous) things on earth. It can manipulate people. No matter what, art will always be propaganda. An artist will try to "change" someone's way of thinking. When we mess with people's minds, we don't know how people will react. The mind is the most fragile thing on the planet, and a thought can be shattered by just one artist manipulating a mind. I wish I could say that I just wanted to create art for art's sake: to just entertain the audience. But I know too much about the world. I've seen things and heard stories that have shocked me. I know I want to change those things. I think it is selfish to ignore the world's problems and focus on our own entertainment. As artists, I believe it is our duty to at least try. Sometimes, I dream that my work can manipulate the minds of people so that they would like to fix the problems with me. But again, this is just a dream. No matter how much I try to convey my thoughts, the audience will always have their own opinion on what needs to be changed. Even if I showed them the horrors in the world, I cannot force them to take action. I start to think that no matter how hard I try, I cannot "change the world." This was just a dream. I do not do theatre for audiences. Yes, I am a storyteller, but I do theatre to make myself feel useful, I guess. I guess I do theatre because it keeps myself busy in my lifetime. I think that I actually am making a difference. Am I? Probably not. But what else am I supposed to do?
I see this issue from both sides.
People who don't think about why they do theater and do it to entertain people are not using the art form to it's best ability. While still a valid way to create art it is a little shallow and selfish.
People who want to provoke audiences may not get what they want. It is hard to get people to do something they don't want to do, or that they don't naturally do. You can't get people to talk about a play if they are just the type of people who don't talk about plays. In a way wanting to provoke an audience is manipulative and a little selfish too. You want the audience to see your point of view and argue with you if they don't.
So why make art at all? Is it just selfish to make something that isn't necessary and in the end is usually made just for selfish reasons? I think every theater practitioner should ask themselves that question.
It's interesting to see theatre evaluated, not in a sense of HOW it does what it does to its audience, but WHY it does that. The words they used were effective at describing how designers, actors, and directors feel about their work and what they want it do ultimately. I feel that, as people learning and working in the business, we need to think more about why we do what we do. We need to focus less on how we are going to go about something, and more on why we want to something to the audience. Why do we want them to feel?
Post a Comment