I'm grateful to you for taking the time. I'd like to respond fully, which I can't do today, but hopefully by Friday. I agree with some stuff and disagree with some other stuff, but nothing on the loin-girding level.
Scott Walters
· 2 years ago
In response to your fiancee's question about the purpose, might I offer this response:
You say "that we need to focus on what we love about this art, what we want to do with it, what we want to do next, and how we can improve our methods on that path."
I say: it is very difficult to discuss those things without examining what the art isn't doing or isn't doing as well as it could. You can't focus on improvement without looking at what needs to be improved.
"The theatrosphere isn't interested in honest discussion of this stuff, they are interested in tuning their war drums and having at it with people they've (largely) never met." Good point -- we don't seem to be able to exchange ideas without bashing people. A passionate AND civil discussion seems to be a challenge.
Travis Bedard
· 2 years ago
Scott,
I say: it is very difficult to discuss those things without examining what the art isn't doing or isn't doing as well as it could. You can't focus on improvement without looking at what needs to be improved.
Agreed. But that is a conversation that needs to happen on a personal, company, and community level. For example: amending the showcase code may affect my future, but it doesn't effect my now (or immediate future). Improvements need to be made, but those aren't meta improvements.
I'm not sure why the defensiveness of this particular community.
My guess is that it's due to the insular nature of production, and the singularity of each artist's journey through this equaling a sort of surprise at the lack of understanding we have of each other and what we do... but that's really a guess.
For my part I simply read every blog post in the 'light most favorable' and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Given that and a wishy-washy POV on most things and I get out pretty clean.
Also, because I brought her up... you should check out my fiancee's work, she's very good
I agree it is a conversation that needs to happen at the local level. But sometimes starting the conversation on the macro-level can embolden people to talk about things they've only felt in their heart of hearts and not shared because maybe nobody else feels that way. I write what I do not because I want to depress everybody who is trying to keep their artistic head above water, but rather to encourage those who are dissatisfied and who feel there is little support for their viewpoints.
I enjoy your contributions, by the way. I wouldn't call you wishy-washy in the least. There seems to be a level of calm in the theatrosphere these days, at least partly because there seems to be an agreement to ignore what I say. Which actually is OK, because a bunch of new people are starting to speak and check in.
I agree it is a conversation that needs to happen at the local level. But sometimes starting the conversation on the macro-level can embolden people to talk about things they've only felt in their heart of hearts and not shared because maybe nobody else feels that way. I write what I do not because I want to depress everybody who is trying to keep their artistic head above water, but rather to encourage those who are dissatisfied and who feel there is little support for their viewpoints.
I think that the meta-discussion is useful, but this is where we bump up into the lack of shared experience and defensiveness. To broaden the discussion enough to include everyone, we get to the level of generalization that manages to offend most of them too.
I think that the current Theatre Ed. series from you and Tom is exactly what I would like the theatrosphere to be. Smart folks saying smart things about exactly what is going on in their part of the universe. I'm a smart enough human to put together how it applies to me and my universe, and because neither of you have told me how in advance I don't have to spend time arguing the point first.
Maybe it's the difference between being a columnist and being an editorialist? In this little galaxy snarky editorial and hyperbole is King, in stark contrast to simply reporting th facts on the ground so we can gain shared perspective, which I think you and Tom are doing beautifully. Actually I sent those links back to one of my old perfessers who I haven;t even spoken too in 10 years, I think they are a really valuable discussion point, one that TCG should probably pick up and run (even though it's too late for a Back-To-School festure)
Scott Walters
· 2 years ago
Thanks for the compliment, Travis, and if you hear back from your teacher, I'd be curious to know what he said. Drop me an email if you want. I'll have to think about your reasons for liking this series, mainly because in some ways it seems to limit me to only writing about theatre education. Or am I misreading that?
Travis Bedard
· 2 years ago
I'm sure it reads that way, which isn't intended. I think blogs should range as far afield as they can reach. But I do think that any post that is as close to the author's center as these are for you and Tom will be stronger.
And if he gets a chance to response I will definitely pass it on :)
All Comments
I'm grateful to you for taking the time. I'd like to respond fully, which I can't do today, but hopefully by Friday. I agree with some stuff and disagree with some other stuff, but nothing on the loin-girding level.
You say "that we need to focus on what we love about this art, what we want to do with it, what we want to do next, and how we can improve our methods on that path."
I say: it is very difficult to discuss those things without examining what the art isn't doing or isn't doing as well as it could. You can't focus on improvement without looking at what needs to be improved.
"The theatrosphere isn't interested in honest discussion of this stuff, they are interested in tuning their war drums and having at it with people they've (largely) never met." Good point -- we don't seem to be able to exchange ideas without bashing people. A passionate AND civil discussion seems to be a challenge.
I say: it is very difficult to discuss those things without examining what the art isn't doing or isn't doing as well as it could. You can't focus on improvement without looking at what needs to be improved.
Agreed. But that is a conversation that needs to happen on a personal, company, and community level. For example: amending the showcase code may affect my future, but it doesn't effect my now (or immediate future). Improvements need to be made, but those aren't meta improvements.
I'm not sure why the defensiveness of this particular community.
My guess is that it's due to the insular nature of production, and the singularity of each artist's journey through this equaling a sort of surprise at the lack of understanding we have of each other and what we do... but that's really a guess.
For my part I simply read every blog post in the 'light most favorable' and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Given that and a wishy-washy POV on most things and I get out pretty clean.
Also, because I brought her up... you should check out my fiancee's work, she's very good
meganreillydesign.com
I enjoy your contributions, by the way. I wouldn't call you wishy-washy in the least. There seems to be a level of calm in the theatrosphere these days, at least partly because there seems to be an agreement to ignore what I say. Which actually is OK, because a bunch of new people are starting to speak and check in.
Check out tom Loughlin's blog A Poor Player (http://www.apoorplayer.net/blog/) -- he's the real deal.
I think that the meta-discussion is useful, but this is where we bump up into the lack of shared experience and defensiveness. To broaden the discussion enough to include everyone, we get to the level of generalization that manages to offend most of them too.
I think that the current Theatre Ed. series from you and Tom is exactly what I would like the theatrosphere to be. Smart folks saying smart things about exactly what is going on in their part of the universe. I'm a smart enough human to put together how it applies to me and my universe, and because neither of you have told me how in advance I don't have to spend time arguing the point first.
Maybe it's the difference between being a columnist and being an editorialist? In this little galaxy snarky editorial and hyperbole is King, in stark contrast to simply reporting th facts on the ground so we can gain shared perspective, which I think you and Tom are doing beautifully. Actually I sent those links back to one of my old perfessers who I haven;t even spoken too in 10 years, I think they are a really valuable discussion point, one that TCG should probably pick up and run (even though it's too late for a Back-To-School festure)
And if he gets a chance to response I will definitely pass it on :)