Showing posts with label Value. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Value. Show all posts
, , , , , ,

Invisible Productions

Sunday, October 18, 2009 2 comments

Rob Weinert-Kendt has a great post about the most produced playwrights at TCG's Member Theatres* (with a few Broadway productions thrown in to boot). Maria MacCarthy has a follow-up looking at the gender ratio of the list; 99Seats and Parabasis widen that lens further; all good reads.

These posts got me wondering about productions at the rest of the theatres in the country. Do Samuel French or Dramatists Play Service ever release the number of productions they license? I'm not sure of any other way to survey the other 2,000+ theatres in the country, and it seems as important as measuring what our leading institutions are producing.

For example, my most widely produced plays are written for Equalogy, a theatre for social change. Twice a year for the past ten years, two 1-act plays I wrote on dating violence and acquaintance rape have toured colleges of the Northeast, performing for thousands of students. I have no doubt that nothing I've written has had as positive an impact as those plays. And yet, in that world of theatre we call "the field", those plays are essentialy invisible.

I'm sure this is true for many, many other productions, performed in the streets and prisons, cafeterias and gymnasiums of this country. I wouldn't be surprised if the impact on their communities is just as profound as the work of the larger institutions, and yet when theatre's measure is taken, they are often invisible.

A fully inclusive metrics of real value...what would that look like? Is it even possible?
*TCG is my goodly employer Read the full story

, , , , , , , ,

Viral, Tolstoy, Rattlers and Imaginative Empathy

Friday, August 21, 2009 0 comments

(Photo: Deborah Alexander)
“The awful, terrible act of his dying was, he could see, reduced by those around him to the level of a casual, unpleasant, almost indecorous incident…and this was done by that very decorum which he had served his whole life long.”
–from The Death of Ivan Ilyich, by Leo Tolostoy

"Since you're already planning to take your own life, there's something you can do that will make a lot of lonely people very happy."
-From Viral, by Mac Rogers

"I built up this little fantasy for myself. That she suffered. You know? That she knew she was going to die and she couldn’t stop knowing it. And she tried to find peace in the lord, but she was too scared. I saw her laying on the asphalt in a pool of her own blood there knowing she was going to die, like a train was headed for her and she couldn’t get out of the path. And I almost couldn’t live thinking she suffered like that."
-From Rattlers, by Johnna Adams
“How can they still have war?”
It took me a few seconds to leap across the conceptual gap between the highly personal and particular conversation we’d been having and this eternal conundrum.
“They couldn’t,” I told her, “if they felt the loss of each life the way you are feeling this one."
How could that happen? How could those who make and profit from war be given the opportunity to experience the fullness of loss created by their enterprise?
-From Arlene Goldbard's talk at the NET Summit
(Cheery start to a post, no?)

First, go see Gideon's production of Mac Roger's Viral. There are liable to be some spoilers in what follows, but it's a play worth much discussion. Here I want to talk about how it mirrors The Death Of Ivan Illyitch, and how these works, and Johnna Adams Rattlers, serve as one possible answer to Arlene's question.

For more on The Death Of Ivan Illyitch, go here. Done? Then let me add that reading this novella my Freshman year of college was a shattering experience. The terror Ivan feels at the certainty of his death and the waste of his life haunted me for weeks. The uneasy truce I'd made with my own mortality years back was broken, and I felt again, keenly, the size of loss in a single death.

Viral is a mirror of Ivan Illyitch: where Tolstoy gives Ivan a Christian rapture, Mac gives Meredith a secular redemption; where Ivan runs from death, Meredith runs towards it; where Ivan's death causes his estrangement from his community, Meredith's draws her into one; where Ivan's dying is linked to spiritual awakening, Meredith's is linked to sexual awakening.

Both stories, however, do not sugar coat the terror of death, sought or not; and both make the audience feel the full and final loss of a single life. It is their unyieldling focus, and there is no refuge of sentimentality to soften the blow.

Why? Why shatter that truce with mortality and open our mind to that terror and pity? Because these plays stand in direct opposition to the way death is portrayed in our mainstream culture. Heroes stride through fields bloodied with faceless villains; detectives stoically unravel violent crimes with those who bear the loss treated as scondary characters; grandparents are carried off by flights of angels all singing "it was their time". Death and murder are portrayed as necessary, even heroic, parts of life; and little time is spent with the nameless, faceless dying; unless of course, they die with violins and a twinkle of wisdom in their eye.

It's no wonder - it feels better to think of death and murder as necessary - but only one of them is inevitable. In our urge to take the sting out of death, our stories have taken the sting out of murder, and war persists as an inevitable and heroic thing:
"War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner."
-Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
History bears out the Judge's claim. But maybe the imaginative empathy I experienced through Viral and The Death Of Ivan Illyitch, those experiences that make me seemingly incapable of watching action movies without uneasiness and pain, maybe they can (as Arlene believes) actually save us.

Which brings us to Rattlers, Johnna's play that feature two men dealing with the death of the woman both loved more than the world itself. The quote above comes too late, of course - the murderer finds the remorse of empathy only after the fact - only when he is alone with her dead body. And maybe that's what we need more of in the theatre, painful as it is - plays that take all the wounded and dead together and put them in the room with us; so that we cannot escape witnessing their question.

This is not a license for bleakness - far from it. Rattlers and Viral only work because they are filled with humor, light and hope. Nor am I calling for an end to action movies. But we cannot deny the extraordinary power the stories we tell each other have over our actions. And right now, I think we need more stories like Rattlers, Viral, and The Death of Ivan Illyitch.

So go see it! Read the full story

, , , , ,

Finding Core Values

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4 comments

Flux is heading next week on our annual retreat at Little Pond, and we have an ambitious schedule for a week of relaxation, balancing internal questioning with play development.

One of the major goals is to begin articulating our Core Values into clear, evocative, actionable items. To do so, we're not only looking inward and sharing our own personal values, but also identifying successful models in the field.

Here are three ways you can help:
1. Do you know of any theatre companies with clear and evocative values that are truly reflected in their actions? If so, please post links to their values web page in the comments.

2. Have you gone through the process of articulating core values for your company? If so, do you have any advice on useful tactics or pitfalls to avoid?

3. Do you feel strongly that Flux should list a certain value among our Core Values? This may be a quality you already see present in how we work, or may be a goal you feel we need to work towards.

Though all Fluxers are currently preparing for this session of the retreat by answering more detailed versions of these questions, sometimes an outside eye can see things we miss, so please post your thoughts in the comments below.

For further detail, here is our working definition of Core Values:
VALUE: Something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable
CORE: a basic, essential, or enduring part; the essential meaning; the inmost or most intimate part
A Core Value are those values that Flux holds as basic, essential and enduring. Our decisions and actions emanate from and are measured by these values.

Two examples of strong Core Values statements:
Cornerstone Theater Company
Oregon Shakespeare Festival

Please comment away! If you're feeling especially inspired, why not check out our earlier post regarding our evolving aesthetic and comment on that? This will be another big session for us, and any feedback or thoughts you have going in will be very helpful. Hopefully, you'll be seeing the fruits of these sessions in September. Read the full story

, , , , , ,

Wallace's Engaging Audiences, or, Don't Fear The Amateur

Monday, August 10, 2009 0 comments

Andrew Taylor at the Artful Manager has posted a link to the PDF of the Wallace Foundation's Engaging Audiences, a report that came out of their Grantee Conference in Philadelphia this April. Some parts feature the uneasy truisms of social media; other parts feature interesting anecdotes of one time fixes to long term problems.

But one section stood out: the relationship between the professional and amateur artist. Here is an excerpt:

"(Wolf) Brown cited several surveys of audience members that indicate a strong correlation between the extent to which people engage in various forms of musical, theatrical, dance and artistic experiences in their lives and their propensity to attend professionally-presented events.
For example:
ƒ -Among current subscribers, former subscribers, and single ticket buyers across six orchestra audiences surveyed, 71 to 77 percent reported experience singing or playing a musical instrument.
ƒ -Among a sample of Steppenwolf Theatre Company patrons, 43 percent reported frequently or occasionally reading plays for their own enjoyment and 12 percent reported frequently or occasionally writing, performing in or working on plays or musicals.
ƒ -People taking music lessons or classes, acting lessons, performing dances as part of a group, or visual arts or crafts classes at least once a week were much more likely to attend performances of these art forms than people who had less or no personal involvement in the practice of music, theater, dance and visual arts."
This is not new - Scott Walters has been working with the importance of this idea for some time, including one of my favorite posts regarding the decline of piano sales and the rise of radio here.

But sometimes you have to listen to something a number of times before you actually hear it. Now I've heard it. And the first question I have is why is there such a divide between the professional artist and the amateur?

Fear, probably; when professional arts organizations perceive their value in a state of siege, they must draw rigid lines to protect it. Logical allies are pushed aside out of fear their amateur status will somehow contaminate the brand. The idea of a professional artists' quality over the audience must take precedent to their value to the audience.

But, as Lynne Connor states later in the report:
"I believe what today's potential arts audiences most want out of an arts event is the opportunity to co-author meaning. They don't want the arts; they want the arts experience....They want to retrieve sovereignty over their arts-going by reclaiming the cultural right to formulate and exchange opinions that are valued in the community."
The second question is, of course, what can be done about it. It has to go beyond blog posts and comments (though if you saw Volleygirls, please do comment!) and education programs (though they are important). I think it will ultimately take a reconsideration of the value of ownership of the arts; a reframing that does not diminish the awareness of quality, but places it in its proper context. To re-purpose Byron, the professional artist must be among them AND of them; the amateur must be an equal partner at the table; the audience must be empowered by excellence to create themselves.

How to apply that practically? I don't know. I do know that an excellent example can be found in the work of the SITI Company. For all the recent talk of experimental versus traditional structures, SITI Company has created an immensely devoted following for very experimental work. How? Anne Bogart says:
"An acting student at Columbia once told me that her father is a surgeon and that surgeons have a saying: "Study one, do one, teach one". When I heard this, I jumped with the knowledge that this formula is exactly true for me, too."
Teach one, study one - it's not enough to simply do one. How this will play out in Flux's work, I don't yet know. But I am coming to believe that this is one of the essential steps we need to take as artists - to expect more from our audiences so they will expect more of us. Read the full story

, , , ,

Arlene Goldbard on Imaginative Empathy

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 0 comments

I had meant to post a link to Arlene Goldbard's talk at the NET Summit in San Francisco some time ago, but time keeps on slipping, slipping. However, now is still as good a time as any, maybe more so after posting Ellen McLaughlin's commencement address on the twin births of theatre and democracy.

Both are concerned with art's role in civic life, and both engage with that concern by widening the possible/necessary in exciting ways. Read together, they offer one compelling answer to the question of value I raised here.

Here is an excerpt from the talk to tempt you into going to her website and downloading the whole thing:


"Now it’s up to us to apply this knowledge to the problem of national recovery and the challenge of building a humane, sustainable civil society right here in the United States. Now is the time for a radical re-understanding of the social role, the critical importance, the public interest in creativity, specifically artistic creativity. We can close the gap in understanding that has prevented so many people from seeing that artistic and cultural creativity is not just a nice thing to have around, and a really special amenity when you have the resources to invest in something extra, but a necessity for recovery, survival and sustainability.

How do we do that? We have to begin by enlarging our own thinking, speech and action. I estimate that I have been in about a trillion conversations, read about a billion arguments, that end in the slogan, “support the arts.” Accustomed to long-term deprivation, conventional arts advocates tend to think small, focusing on saving the tiniest government agencies, on hoping not to lose too much more this time around. Many conventional arts-support arguments are silly; for example, the “economic multiplier effect” of buying theater tickets: people who go to the theater may eat in a restaurant or pay to park their cars, they may have a drink after the performance. Each additional expenditure multiplies the economic impact of a dollar spent on tickets. That’s the economic multiplier effect, and, yes, it all adds up to jobs. But so what? Going to a dog show or a football game or lady mud wrestling has the same economic impact. And that’s one of the strongest conventional arts-support arguments! After decades of this stuff, conventional arts advocates have worn themselves thin stretching a point, with almost nothing to show for it. Adjusted for inflation, even the recently expanded 2009 NEA budget is worth only a bit more than half its value in 1981, the year of Ronald Reagan’s first budget cuts.

In a time of economic crisis, when people are worried about surviving, when it is hard to fund schools, housing and medical care (but still not so hard to finance war, unfortunately), arts support arguments become even more half-hearted and desperate, and therefore even less effective. You don’t need me to tell you what’s happening to your own organizations and your own communities right now. I am reminded of the dream of right-wing crackpot Grover Norquist, who said, “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” That is what has happened over the last three decades to the arguments for arts support, which are circling the drain as I speak.

The remedy isn’t more shrinkage but the opposite, to think big. Conventional arts advocates claim art enriches, beautifies, expresses and entertains. These are important social goods. But the elephant in the room right now, the large, unacknowledged truth that we had better hurry up and shout from the rooftops, is that in a uniquely powerful way, art can save us.

Does the grandiosity of that assertion make you uneasy? Just give me another ten minutes before you make up your mind whether to listen to your uneasiness or to your hopes."
Read all of it here - and it's worth the read. Read the full story

, , ,

Ellen McLaughlin on Theatre and Democracy

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1 comments

Recently, my friend (and amazing playwright/actor) Ellen McLaughlin sent me the commencement address she'd written for the students at A.R.T. This address came out of their collaboration on Ajax In Iraq, a harrowing play about the trauma of the Iraq war mirrored through the story of Ajax.

The address itself looks at the twin births of theatre and democracy in Athens, and how the gift of empathy from the former enabled the creation of the latter. For me, it further articulates some of the ideas living here, and continues the difficult work of talking about value begun here. It is an eloquent, moving call for theatre makers to consider our essential responsibility to civic life.

The address is 15 pages in total - it begins with words specific to the occasion, and ends with contextualizing the central ideas within the opportunities of our current political climate. I have excerpted (with her permission) pages 4-11, which constitute the heart of this particular agon. Please read and respond with your own thoughts!

"Don’t forget that when you’re feeling flattened and thinking why oh why did I choose this ridiculous, humiliating profession? Remember what you’re really part of when you’re engaged in a life in the theater. Times like that, you might find it heartening to think about the Greeks, because they basically came up with the profession you’re entering into, and while they were at it they came up with, well, Western civilization. And they did it at about the same time, in the same city and with the same hammer and nails. Theater seems to have come first, but not by all that much. The city of Athens birthed two extraordinary local creations: democracy and theater. And essentially she gave birth to them as twins. Coincidence? Probably not, as anyone who has ever worked in the theater can attest. Theater, like democracy, by definition can only be done in collaboration. Both must be responsive to the needs of the moment, and they happen in the present tense. Both are done on the breath, in public; both are dependent on speech and the mysterious human grace of empathy. They must happen right now, in front of us, and we all share the same air.

The Greeks didn’t come up with the rudiments of theater: ritual and storytelling. Remnants of early Greek civilizations show us what we see everywhere in the beginnings of human societies: people dancing and singing, often in groups, telling stories and talking about gods and heroes. The innovation happened when one particular singer or speaker--tradition has named him Thespis--became what we must call the first theater artist when he turned from the people watching him and spoke to another person on the stage, who could then respond in kind. Something momentous and essential to theater was created in that moment: dialogue. Greeks called that splitting of voice in dialogue or debate the agon, and once they’d invented it,
they fell head over heels in love with it. Ultimately, they would use the agon for everything and everywhere, from classrooms to courtrooms to halls of government, but its first home was the theater, and there it defined the form. Without agon or dialogue, what’s happening on the stage may be many things, but it’s not theater. It’s ritual, it’s storytelling, it’s one voice speaking one authoritative truth to a passive audience. It’s a useful form, and we need it. (I need it right now.) But it ain’t theater. Because when dialogue enters the world, something profound changes in the dynamic with the audience. I like to think that when Thespis broke all the rules and spoke to another actor, everyone watching sat forward for the first time, and they’ve been sitting forward ever since. Because suddenly they had a job to do. Much would be asked of them. Theater, like democracy, makes demands. We, as an audience, have to do more than show up and get our orders. Theater turns an audience into citizens instead of just spectators. With the advent of dialogue, the truth no longer belongs to any single speaker. The truth must be found in the exchange. An audience has to follow the agon, the debate, enter into a sympathetic understanding with one speaker and then another, try out each position in order to discover what’s really going on. It’s confusing. There are times when everyone seems to be right, just as there are times when no one in the forest of voices is saying what needs to be said and it’s everything we the audience can do not to warn the actors on the stage or comfort them or just yell at them for being so blind to the truth that would be apparent to them if they were only sitting outside it as we are, listening to the agon and watching the mess onstage.

This is what theater looks like, but it’s also what democracy looks like. The theater teaches us that the validity of ethical principles, beliefs, and laws must be debated in full view of everyone concerned, in the open air of the public space. Theater teaches us that the struggle to make sense of things is what we are here to do. And we must do it together if we are to do it well. It is our work. And we do it in public.

There is a kind of brilliance to the light in Greece that you don’t find elsewhere. Something about the angle of the sun. Things are simply more visible there than they are anywhere else. So it’s not surprising that Greek thought is filled with notions of visibility and hiddenness.

Ajax himself, not exactly an introvert, has a speech about how it is inevitable that all things will come to light eventually. For the Greeks this was not just an unavoidable truth, it was something of an injunction. “Know thyself” was the singular command and warning of the Delphic oracle, after all. Whether we will or not, the truth insists itself. It wants to be known.

Our natures are mysterious and terrifying. We all know this. There is a personal darkness we are familiar with inside us, even if we have never had to stare it in the face. We can shut it deep within us, but we’ve heard it thumping around in there on quiet nights when we are alone with the worst of ourselves. We all need help with that. The Greeks had this rather outlandish notion that if we could see ourselves from the length of an auditorium, look at ourselves outside ourselves, as played by actors, doing the awful things that we, human beings, know we are capable of doing, and suffering the worst that we can imagine, we might be purged of our own darkness by the terror and pity such experiences in the theater provoke in us. It’s not surprising that theater festivals were frankly religious events for the Greeks. That ancient notion that there is a spiritual component to what happens in theaters won’t strike this crowd as odd, I trust; there’s a reason so many here have chosen this profession. We’ve all felt it, onstage and off, that transformative thing that can happen as we watch actors, those intimate, necessary strangers, acting for us and as us out there in the merciless light.

What are actors after all? You are the spelunkers. The rest of us are standing in the open air above the ground, trying to guess at what’s beneath our feet—all that scary unfathomed darkness and intricacy and danger. Playwrights come up with maps of what we can make out of the hidden terrain beneath, but we give them over to the actors because actors are the ones who will strap on the headlights and throw the coiled ropes over their shoulders and go down into the deeps for us and thread their way through that blackness to find out what’s really there. We call them actors because they act for us. They venture into other selves and show us what they find. There are bumper stickers that say something like, “Got freedom? Thank a soldier.” I would suggest we campaign for a bumper sticker that says, “Got self-knowledge? Thank an actor.”

Of all the things the Greeks teach us, perhaps the most essential for our purposes today is that there are worse things than failure. If I could give you only one piece of advice today it would be to live by their example and risk failure. Just look at those plays. Look at the size of what they are grappling with—they’re sounding the depths of what it is to be human; time and again, the dilemmas they pose just seem impossible to contend with, yet they take them on. These are plays of astonishing ambition and they never cease to humble me and inspire me to reach farther and risk more as an artist. Why not try to address the hardest things? The alternative is to make nice, neat plays that offend no one and do nothing much because they don’t attempt anything much. Why not risk failure and try to make, well, art? What is stake other than the size of my soul?

Finally, I want to talk about empathy. The Greeks didn’t invent it, but with the creation of dialogue, they came up with a form that demands it and makes a home for it. With the invention of dialogue, an audience can move freely from one mind to another on the stage, entering different perspectives and judging their validity by holding them one by one against our own hearts. We must empathize in order to make sense. I have to put myself in her shoes, then his, then hers, and through that radical spiritual exercise I arrive at a new understanding of the world that I simply can’t reach when such demands are never put upon me. And the Greeks don’t make it easy for you. Often the characters who at first glance seem to be obviously in the right, or out of it, become figures of ambiguity or disturbing familiarity and pathos when we bring the force of empathy to bear upon them. Hundreds of years of use and scholarly analysis of these plays and still they defy reduction. They work an audience hard and wrack our hearts as we feel through them, searching for ethical balance as we struggle to find it in our own lives.

But that’s what civilization asks of people. It asks them to work. Civilization doesn’t let us get away with waiting passively to be told what to think. We have to engage with dialogue and connect with one embodied truth and then another and another. With the invention of dialogue, I realize that your pain is my pain because I am free at last to feel it. And as a participant in the world, as a citizen in this civilization, it is my right and my duty to feel it.

It is the act of empathy that teaches us how to be civilized. It is the act of empathy, which the invention of theater taught the people of ancient Greece, that makes civilization possible because it makes democracy possible. If you can learn, through the theater, what it is to leap empathetically out of the tiny circle of your own needs and concerns and enter into the souls of those apparently different from you, then you realize that the sufferings and desires of others are like your own. In theaters, we feel through the human dilemma together, in collaboration and breathing the same air. Here and now, we learn to make it up as we go along with this new knowledge of the connection between us.

It’s a strange profession you’ve chosen and no mistake, this alchemical business of what happens when one actor on a stage turns to another. So remember that when you engage in making theater, you are engaging in the business that began it all.
You are making civilization."
-Ellen McLaughlin, excerpted from her 2009 Commencement Address to the students A.R.T. Read the full story