Highlights Post

I’m so encouraged by the thoughtful responses these questions prompted, there seems to be common thread of optimism in our theatrical future and the ability to embrace the growing technological elements with grace. Here are some of the standouts.

Ashley Adams writes from a personal experience on her own solo show that one person productions have to compel the artist and somewhat abandon form for what they want to do. She makes a point that many successful solo performance artists fall into the “masturbatory” category because they do what pleases them and abandon form, which in some ways, is the most affective approach because it keeps the artist present through personal commitment to the work.

http://suecoatesthtr4130.blogspot.com/ argues that Frankenstein is a great example of using technology to support a show that is a “theatre” piece and not in danger of being performance art, and goes on to say that the use of advancement doesn’t have to take over live performance just as television didn’t end the movie experience.

Inhttp://thegingyboosha.blogspot.com/, he says “Cinema may move us but live performance, compelling works, literally change us because we experience it with the performers…there is a give and take during live performance.” He links us to a performance to a clip of a Wooster Group performance that impacted him, but that he didn’t quite understand. It incorporated the use of media and technology, but it was the juxtaposition between the technical aspects and the physical presence of the actors that made the piece land the way that it did, and goes even further to remind us that while we can see the clip of the performance, it will in no way have the same impact that it did live.

Maggie and http://powerpackedpunch.blogspot.com/have a similar take on the issue: Maggie mentions that theatre is dialectic, continuing on a wheel where everything comes back around, so change is just around the corner even if we’re bogged down by the inundation of technology now. She finishes with a lovely statement that “The thing about theatre that I think will ensure its escape from extinction is the presence at its core, the truth. No matter how advanced or spectacular technology can be, it cannot be as powerful as simple human connection and presence.” Scott says that while he isn’t concerned about technology overtaking live performance, he makes the point that if it does, we might again experience the simulacrum effect of technology being the established norm, it becoming its own copy, and by identifying the body as the antithesis of technology, the cycle will come back around to live performance. In opposition to these opinions, SanChavis takes a very different point of view saying that yes, theatre is in danger of being diluted by film and technology, but if it becomes the only form of present expression, then we might as well embrace it.

In my opinion, Andie says simply what we all seem to intuit but haven’t said yet- cinema is an individual experience, theatre breeds a culture of community and human connection. There is constant interaction between everyone in the room, therefore it has a pull that film can’t ever accomplish. So while it might be in danger of evolving, there is a reason it has stayed around for as long as it has, and that reason is a need for basic human connection.

Tastefully and respectfully, Tim abandons the prompt for a deeper investigation of the relationship between theatre and technology and muses that the issue isn’t an available access to technology, but a growing “abstraction of embodiment”. The rest of his post draws on his background on philosophy, which is really interesting and poignant, so I recommend reading his post because my attempt to summarize it would be insulting and ineffective.

Garrett speaks to the increasing difficulty for our generation to connect without the use our smart phones and this desire to record events rather than live them in the present and sums this feeling up by noting that “in order to enjoy the moment we are experiencing we now have to satiate the need to record in order to remember first and foremost”.

In response to the prompt about Imagined Memory, Yvette made a very interesting statement that brought up other questions for me- “Art is carefully crafted like this as well to convey a specific message that the audience will perceive and to shape the audiences thoughts on any given issue.  The media's tactics are mirror images of artist's tactics.” – does this make us manipulative and cheapen what we do by being really selective of what and how we show our work?

Maggie shares that imagined memory can have a huge impact on the theatre because the preconceived ideas we have from our access to media coverage become ingrained in our system, but she isn’t certain if this is a bigger obstacle or asset in out work. If the theatre strives to break conventions, general conceptions, and unsubstantial judgments”, they have to exist in the first place.

Alexandria links us to Highland Coffees and Teas closing, which hits close to home to many of us, explaining that while she is a patron, her experience of reading about it through many filters and lenses through the use of social media and online news sources, she found herself being affected by the words of others rather than honoring her own pleasant memories.

Lauren Graham makes an interesting connection to home videos and memories, noting that her experience of events in her past are actually memories of a video, which made her a third party observer of her own experience.

Several of you spoke about experiences with 9/11, but for Joe mentions that as a young man who observed the early stages of the event through media coverage, his reaction to the tragic event gained meaning when he moved to NYC years later and visited ground zero. He feels that his sensitivity to the event was much more in tune because he felt connected to it because of the live feed. He follows up his personal experience by noting that technology has the ability to be incredibly moving, especially in live performance if it is used wisely, but if it isn’t treated with finesse has the potential to become white noise.

As a native of Colorado who moved to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, Amanda talks about her fears of moving to the South because of the events shown on television and the significant focus on derelict and impoverished areas rife with crisis. Relocating to this area, she learned how much the media skewed reality by only showing a portion of the aftermath of this natural disaster. She comments that the media has a “large hold” on our opinions and reactions, and by showing just one part of the story, the partial truth becomes a developed reality.

Michael also talks about Katrina, but from a native’s perspective. Even though he was familiar with the city, the devastation, and the effects the storm took on the lives of many habitants of the city, he says the constant coverage and repeated imagery made it too easy to separate from the issue and watch as a bystander. He ties this back to his response of to the first question, which you should read here, and reflects that with the media “there's a separation, a comfortable distance that changes the way you view and feel about art…No amount of media sensationalism can give you what it's like to actually be somewhere witnessing and experiencing something.”