September 15th at Battersea Arts Centre
Hosted by Improbable
Facilitated by Lee Simpson
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written up for the issue, click on the listing to read the report.
There are lots of women in the room- why are there still so few on the stage?
The action of 'nothing' & not knowing. Preparation has reached _____________ _____________.
This is the most spontaneous thing I've done this year- is it improvisation?
Improv ⇔ Funny. From the audience's point of view
Should short-form comedy/gag-based improv be treated separately ti longer-form, story-telling based improv.
How can we make impro better theatre?
Lets play your favorite impro game
My story Your story
My group seems to have left our audience in Edinburgh. Where/how do we find them? (in London)
Making theatre through improvising- am I just being too lazy to write?
Is Impro not mainstream because of the audience or the impro
What is threatening about abandoning structure
It's not often this many people who care about improvisation are together.
What's the one thing we would like to make sure happens and commit to is?
Improv + finance - how do we make money from improv?
Non-theatrical applications of improv
Who wants to start and impro school in London
Who wants to play the Life Game with Phelim Mcdermott?
How can I make you look good?
For many impro = comedy. Why? How do we feel about this? Do we do anything about this? If so what?
Handcuffs or Blindfolds?
Is our acting good enough? If not, why?
Impro/v: The North/South divide (AKA come and take part in the Manchester Improv tournament this October)
Monday, 26 September 2011
The action of ‘nothing’ (not knowing) Preparation has reached: _____, __________.
Spoken form of the session:
The action of ‘nothing’ and not knowing.
(Hands covering ears, head looking down) Preparation has reached: 41, I am your anti-matter.
Written form of the session:
The action of ‘nothing’ (not knowing)
Preparation has reached: _____, __________.
Convenor:
Li E Chen (Full report with images: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
People who attend the session:
Paul
Un-edited Notes:
No action, there is no action.
But it is an act with structure. A structure: a structure of not knowing.
“A structure of 3 on nothing”
Are you waiting for an idea to come along? Don’t wait, it will be too late.
Just keep doing, keep doing, not stopping, don’t worry, don’t even have time to worry, don’t even have time to think. Nothing makes senses. Doesn’t make senses at all.
John Cage’s 4”33 – “Nothing” is structured in the action of (Nothing). Silent performance/music. Player – Not Knowing -?
Just did it.
Just do it.
(no time to worry about it, no time to feel scared, no time to think.)
Actions to take:
1. Seeing a white crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the floor.
2. Drawing the shadow of the crumble ball on the paper.
3. Taking the piece of paper and crumble ball home.
Actions after the session:
4. Recorded the crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the bus. (Link: http://vimeo.com/29526332)
5. Revisited John Cage’s exhibition “Everyday is a good day”, 18 September 2011, at the Hayward Gallery (Link: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
Discussion/un-edited notes of someone else’s session “What is threatening about abandoning structure?”
- Abandoning: Give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking)
- Formal structure
- Emerging structure
- Short forms (Bored with the same structure, doing the same structure again and again.)
- (Complication dynamic)
- Structure – good dangerous – dangerous
- Structure=formal (less interesting)
- Structure comes without knowing
- Expectation – Going to be so shit (can also be so brilliant)
- No structure at all?
- Drama schools/educations system & learning
- Impro: How do you solve the problem? But it is more than that?
- Fuctional result, education system.
- Bored/Bored with your own structure.
- Some creative people do not like structure or learning improvisation through structure.
- Your ego is always need to completely ‘let go’ and ‘free’ (completely not worry about it.)
- We are creature of structure with no structure at all and allow structure to emerge.
- Just keep doing it and doing good work, not to worry whether audience like it or not, etc.
- Ref: Keith (Being afraid of the structure; Killing the structure.)
- Other way: you know everything happening, but actually nothing really happen.
- A structure becomes a story that you tell.
- How do you ask your whole self? = (Body)
- Not being worried about things going wrong, not being worried about audience not like it.
- John Cage “Structure without life is dead. But Life without structure is un-seen”
- Noticing yourself your ego. Just noticing your ego is there.
- “Structure without life is dead. But life without structure is un-seen.” John Cage
The action of ‘nothing’ and not knowing.
(Hands covering ears, head looking down) Preparation has reached: 41, I am your anti-matter.
Written form of the session:
The action of ‘nothing’ (not knowing)
Preparation has reached: _____, __________.
Convenor:
Li E Chen (Full report with images: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
People who attend the session:
Paul
Un-edited Notes:
No action, there is no action.
But it is an act with structure. A structure: a structure of not knowing.
“A structure of 3 on nothing”
Are you waiting for an idea to come along? Don’t wait, it will be too late.
Just keep doing, keep doing, not stopping, don’t worry, don’t even have time to worry, don’t even have time to think. Nothing makes senses. Doesn’t make senses at all.
John Cage’s 4”33 – “Nothing” is structured in the action of (Nothing). Silent performance/music. Player – Not Knowing -?
Just did it.
Just do it.
(no time to worry about it, no time to feel scared, no time to think.)
Actions to take:
1. Seeing a white crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the floor.
2. Drawing the shadow of the crumble ball on the paper.
3. Taking the piece of paper and crumble ball home.
Actions after the session:
4. Recorded the crumble ball of paper on top of another piece of white paper on the bus. (Link: http://vimeo.com/29526332)
5. Revisited John Cage’s exhibition “Everyday is a good day”, 18 September 2011, at the Hayward Gallery (Link: http://wp.me/pWz4M-xS)
Discussion/un-edited notes of someone else’s session “What is threatening about abandoning structure?”
- Abandoning: Give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking)
- Formal structure
- Emerging structure
- Short forms (Bored with the same structure, doing the same structure again and again.)
- (Complication dynamic)
- Structure – good dangerous – dangerous
- Structure=formal (less interesting)
- Structure comes without knowing
- Expectation – Going to be so shit (can also be so brilliant)
- No structure at all?
- Drama schools/educations system & learning
- Impro: How do you solve the problem? But it is more than that?
- Fuctional result, education system.
- Bored/Bored with your own structure.
- Some creative people do not like structure or learning improvisation through structure.
- Your ego is always need to completely ‘let go’ and ‘free’ (completely not worry about it.)
- We are creature of structure with no structure at all and allow structure to emerge.
- Just keep doing it and doing good work, not to worry whether audience like it or not, etc.
- Ref: Keith (Being afraid of the structure; Killing the structure.)
- Other way: you know everything happening, but actually nothing really happen.
- A structure becomes a story that you tell.
- How do you ask your whole self? = (Body)
- Not being worried about things going wrong, not being worried about audience not like it.
- John Cage “Structure without life is dead. But Life without structure is un-seen”
- Noticing yourself your ego. Just noticing your ego is there.
- “Structure without life is dead. But life without structure is un-seen.” John Cage
There’s lots of women in the room, why are there still so few on the stage?
D&D : Improvisation, September 2011
Title of session : There’s lots of women in the room, why are there still so few on the stage?
Called by : Stella
Attended by :
Phil W, Matilda, Sarah Jane, Kirsty, Mary, Alex, Neil H, Chris, Lucinka, Mufrida, Avena, Teresa, James, Dylan (and about 6 others I didn’t get names for) and Jim in not-presence (he said if he could have, he’d have been at the sessions and stayed to listen, just listen.)
Summary of discussions :
- is it a comedy thing? A feeling there might be more push in standup for new women performers, and not yet in impro/v?
- having more women helps a show, a feeling there’s more ‘heart’ in the show with more women (this was said by one of the men)
- Unscripted (US – LA) has load of women in cast and it’s/they’re brilliant.
- Not only, or not so much, about men needing to make space for women on stage, but also about women needing to step up, be brave, make those leaps themselves.
- Older men are useful? Useful because/when they’re less ‘punchy’?
- Women don’t always give themselves time/space to be brilliant.
- Basic male/female biology/attitudes/society still not giving women as much space as men (cf front benches, media, CEOs etc)
- Is it worse than 25 years ago? Is there less of a gander balances? (possibly, if 25 years ago there were several companies with 3 men and 2 women, and now there are several companies with 7 men and 2 women, then yes.)
- Women are sexualized, in the world anyway, so it makes it hard to step on stage – women, especially if only 1 or 2 in a company, are sexualized by the audience before they do anything.
- Women need experience of knowing being on stage just as themselves is enough.
- Because we have aligned ‘risk’ with a male model of risk (eg big, brave, open to fail, open to look stupid), it can be difficult for women to take ‘risks’ of those risks are defined by a male model. What would women’s risk-taking be like? Is there a possibility it might be different to men’s? what is a risk for a woman???
- “I’ve got better at deciding I’m not rubbish YET”
- it’s hard to send yourself up when you’re young (and women’s drop out rate being higher, so women get less practice?)
- women’s fear is different to men’s
- the difficulty for young women (and older!!) of not looking good on stage, in a society that places such very high value on women’s looks.
- We need to teach audiences and teach men as well as women that we’re better TOGETHER.
- The culture of scarcity that means women can enjoy being the one or two women in a group (partly because it can feel ‘special’, also partly, in a culture that casts women as wives and girlfriends rather than heroes, once the wife and girlfriend and mother roles are gone, there’s nothing left for the women to play)
- We have a culture (dame role) of finding men dressed as women funny, but not vice versa. The Dame gets a laugh, before doing anything, just because of the dress up, the status ‘drop’, the Principal Boy does not. (To do with perceived status – the man, usually high status, drops status to play women, so is funny,. The women, usually low status, raises status to play man. Not so funny.)
- Also the archetypes women are so often presented as are so traditional (the wife/mother ting) – so what Do we do when on stage if not those roles?
- Impro doesn’t reward niceness or chivalry (no? an uncertainty about this, some types of impro perhaps)
- In 20 years it doesn’t feel like it’s changed much (22 year old woman saying the same stuff a 48 year old women said 20 years ago) – it reflects the world we live in.
- It’s possible that we might do an amazing thing, with an all women impro company, a thing that’s never been done before, without trying we can’t know what it is.
- Matilda talked a little about world-work, ghost roles : that is a woman is not on stage, there IS sill a woman there, as a ghost role, and therefore it’s an invitation to be on stage. (this was said at the point where there were no men in the session, so perhaps there were men there, as ghost roles??!!)
- The history of women making fools of themselves in public is less than that of men. Getting women to play with status is a different leap than getting men to do the same.
- Something about what do we do with the content once we’re ON stage – that is, it’s not only about standing up; it’s also about using the space, using the time, being present.
ACTION – Stella is going to support Matilda in calling that women’s impro/v workshop that’s been talked about for a while now.
So ... Matilda??? xx
Title of session : There’s lots of women in the room, why are there still so few on the stage?
Called by : Stella
Attended by :
Phil W, Matilda, Sarah Jane, Kirsty, Mary, Alex, Neil H, Chris, Lucinka, Mufrida, Avena, Teresa, James, Dylan (and about 6 others I didn’t get names for) and Jim in not-presence (he said if he could have, he’d have been at the sessions and stayed to listen, just listen.)
Summary of discussions :
- is it a comedy thing? A feeling there might be more push in standup for new women performers, and not yet in impro/v?
- having more women helps a show, a feeling there’s more ‘heart’ in the show with more women (this was said by one of the men)
- Unscripted (US – LA) has load of women in cast and it’s/they’re brilliant.
- Not only, or not so much, about men needing to make space for women on stage, but also about women needing to step up, be brave, make those leaps themselves.
- Older men are useful? Useful because/when they’re less ‘punchy’?
- Women don’t always give themselves time/space to be brilliant.
- Basic male/female biology/attitudes/society still not giving women as much space as men (cf front benches, media, CEOs etc)
- Is it worse than 25 years ago? Is there less of a gander balances? (possibly, if 25 years ago there were several companies with 3 men and 2 women, and now there are several companies with 7 men and 2 women, then yes.)
- Women are sexualized, in the world anyway, so it makes it hard to step on stage – women, especially if only 1 or 2 in a company, are sexualized by the audience before they do anything.
- Women need experience of knowing being on stage just as themselves is enough.
- Because we have aligned ‘risk’ with a male model of risk (eg big, brave, open to fail, open to look stupid), it can be difficult for women to take ‘risks’ of those risks are defined by a male model. What would women’s risk-taking be like? Is there a possibility it might be different to men’s? what is a risk for a woman???
- “I’ve got better at deciding I’m not rubbish YET”
- it’s hard to send yourself up when you’re young (and women’s drop out rate being higher, so women get less practice?)
- women’s fear is different to men’s
- the difficulty for young women (and older!!) of not looking good on stage, in a society that places such very high value on women’s looks.
- We need to teach audiences and teach men as well as women that we’re better TOGETHER.
- The culture of scarcity that means women can enjoy being the one or two women in a group (partly because it can feel ‘special’, also partly, in a culture that casts women as wives and girlfriends rather than heroes, once the wife and girlfriend and mother roles are gone, there’s nothing left for the women to play)
- We have a culture (dame role) of finding men dressed as women funny, but not vice versa. The Dame gets a laugh, before doing anything, just because of the dress up, the status ‘drop’, the Principal Boy does not. (To do with perceived status – the man, usually high status, drops status to play women, so is funny,. The women, usually low status, raises status to play man. Not so funny.)
- Also the archetypes women are so often presented as are so traditional (the wife/mother ting) – so what Do we do when on stage if not those roles?
- Impro doesn’t reward niceness or chivalry (no? an uncertainty about this, some types of impro perhaps)
- In 20 years it doesn’t feel like it’s changed much (22 year old woman saying the same stuff a 48 year old women said 20 years ago) – it reflects the world we live in.
- It’s possible that we might do an amazing thing, with an all women impro company, a thing that’s never been done before, without trying we can’t know what it is.
- Matilda talked a little about world-work, ghost roles : that is a woman is not on stage, there IS sill a woman there, as a ghost role, and therefore it’s an invitation to be on stage. (this was said at the point where there were no men in the session, so perhaps there were men there, as ghost roles??!!)
- The history of women making fools of themselves in public is less than that of men. Getting women to play with status is a different leap than getting men to do the same.
- Something about what do we do with the content once we’re ON stage – that is, it’s not only about standing up; it’s also about using the space, using the time, being present.
ACTION – Stella is going to support Matilda in calling that women’s impro/v workshop that’s been talked about for a while now.
So ... Matilda??? xx
Monday, 1 August 2011
Improbable's Monthly D&D Satellite - What are we doing about Interactive, Immersive and Gaming Theatre
July 21st at Battersea Arts Centre
Hosted by Tassos Stevens
Facilitated by Lucy Foster
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening, where they are highlighted means that a report has been typed up against it.
1. Is there scope to create a new kind of summer festival, with pervasive entertainment at the centre, not as an add on?
2. Theatre Maker V's Audience/Participants - How much to give and how much to expect?
3. Headphones and Instructions?
4. Can we develop/is there an established scale within interactive/immersive theatre?
5. What about content and narrative?
6. How do you entice people to trust you and to want to participate when they came not expecting to?
7. Use it to explore the future of humanity.
8. How do we make it less niche?
9. Can we animate BAC's foyer? Commission info and ideas pitch.
10. What possibilities does technology offer for immersive theatre?
11. What responsibility do artists have to take care of playing audiences?
12. What can/should we learn from LARP (Live Action Role Play)
13. How the hell do we explain immersive/interactive theatre?
14. What is the role of the playwright in this work?
Hosted by Tassos Stevens
Facilitated by Lucy Foster
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening, where they are highlighted means that a report has been typed up against it.
1. Is there scope to create a new kind of summer festival, with pervasive entertainment at the centre, not as an add on?
2. Theatre Maker V's Audience/Participants - How much to give and how much to expect?
3. Headphones and Instructions?
4. Can we develop/is there an established scale within interactive/immersive theatre?
5. What about content and narrative?
6. How do you entice people to trust you and to want to participate when they came not expecting to?
7. Use it to explore the future of humanity.
8. How do we make it less niche?
9. Can we animate BAC's foyer? Commission info and ideas pitch.
10. What possibilities does technology offer for immersive theatre?
11. What responsibility do artists have to take care of playing audiences?
12. What can/should we learn from LARP (Live Action Role Play)
13. How the hell do we explain immersive/interactive theatre?
14. What is the role of the playwright in this work?
Is there scope to create a new kind of summer festival, with pervasive entertainment at the centre, not as an add on?
Discussion of Summary:
Thanks to everyone I spoke to for your thoughts, ideas and enthusiasm. Summary of some of things that were discussed is:
- Use well recognized tropes, themes and plotlines to allow
- Build up to a climactic / significant event
- Create a ‘spectrum of involvement’ (thanks for the term) for people with different levels of engagement
- Put festival-goers into teams or ‘camps’, each with their own backstory role to play
- Give everyone involved in the festival – from the bands, to the support staff to security (?!) backstories and nuggets of information to give out
- Bring the festival locations / tents into the story so that people feel they are involved just by watching
- Issue invitations from the characters in the story – appeals / cries for help / challenges etc
- Give people who buy a ticket a prop / item of costume at the same time
- Create content providing backstory and reasons to engage in the run up
Anyone who didn’t speak to me last night but has an interest in getting involved or just coming along please email me at ben@tseffect.com….
Thanks to everyone I spoke to for your thoughts, ideas and enthusiasm. Summary of some of things that were discussed is:
- Use well recognized tropes, themes and plotlines to allow
- Build up to a climactic / significant event
- Create a ‘spectrum of involvement’ (thanks for the term) for people with different levels of engagement
- Put festival-goers into teams or ‘camps’, each with their own backstory role to play
- Give everyone involved in the festival – from the bands, to the support staff to security (?!) backstories and nuggets of information to give out
- Bring the festival locations / tents into the story so that people feel they are involved just by watching
- Issue invitations from the characters in the story – appeals / cries for help / challenges etc
- Give people who buy a ticket a prop / item of costume at the same time
- Create content providing backstory and reasons to engage in the run up
Anyone who didn’t speak to me last night but has an interest in getting involved or just coming along please email me at ben@tseffect.com….
Thursday, 30 June 2011
What are we going to do about Theatre Criticism?
Improbable's Monthly D&D Satellite: What are we going to do about Theatre Criticism?
June 21st 2011
Rich Mix
Here is a list of issues that were raised during the evenings session, where the title is highlighted means that a corresponding report was typed up.
1. London V Everywhere else
2. Do audiences really care what critics think and is it different for bloggers?
3. 4 stars or 5 stars - Does it matter?
4. Criticising the crips.
5. Who do we do it for?
6. INNER CRITICS - What we say about ourselves & how this makes us relate to outer critics.
7. The role of peer review in theatre criticism
8. Who or what is the next Kenneth Tynan?
9. Professional Theatre criticism is too academic
10. Filtering out the noise
11. Should bloggers aim for (or be held to) some kind of professional standards/ code of conduct?
12. Total Theatre Critic? Reinventing the process the show and the thoughts you have after wards
13. Might it be time for a Showgirls Moment?
14. Who are the important critics? Artists vs Funders Vs Audience
15. 300 words or 1000 words. Does it change how you watch the show?
16. Beyond the words? What can theatre critics do beyond just writing words?
17. A critic isn't a person?
18. What role can (and should) PR play in Theatre?
19. Does having the right to reply make it right to reply?
June 21st 2011
Rich Mix
Here is a list of issues that were raised during the evenings session, where the title is highlighted means that a corresponding report was typed up.
1. London V Everywhere else
2. Do audiences really care what critics think and is it different for bloggers?
3. 4 stars or 5 stars - Does it matter?
4. Criticising the crips.
5. Who do we do it for?
6. INNER CRITICS - What we say about ourselves & how this makes us relate to outer critics.
7. The role of peer review in theatre criticism
8. Who or what is the next Kenneth Tynan?
9. Professional Theatre criticism is too academic
10. Filtering out the noise
11. Should bloggers aim for (or be held to) some kind of professional standards/ code of conduct?
12. Total Theatre Critic? Reinventing the process the show and the thoughts you have after wards
13. Might it be time for a Showgirls Moment?
14. Who are the important critics? Artists vs Funders Vs Audience
15. 300 words or 1000 words. Does it change how you watch the show?
16. Beyond the words? What can theatre critics do beyond just writing words?
17. A critic isn't a person?
18. What role can (and should) PR play in Theatre?
19. Does having the right to reply make it right to reply?
Beyond the words. What can critics do beyond their words?
Posed by: Jake Orr
Present: A number of people, no names collected.
This question was born out of Jake’s questioning of how as a critic, he could be doing more with theatre than just writing about it. Is there a way to effectively write more than just words? Should a critic have to do more? Do they do enough already?
- Influence – does a critic already have a certain influence within their work. How can this be extended, or is this influence alone enough to support them and the work they see?
- A critic could become an advocate for the arts, helping to bring about discussion for cross-fertilisation, assisting the conversation.
- The group spoke about the critic as ‘the bridge’. How a critic can direct conversation between both the work and the audience. The critic acts as the bridge for the audience to see into the work, and likewise, the work to see the audience.
- This leads to the notion of the critic building ‘the community’, which works in a collaborative sense. If critics offer more in their reviews (such as more on the greater picture, the ‘landscape of the arts’) then the audience might be more inclined to read their reviews.
- Naturally the critic is subjective.
- How is it possible for someone (the critic) to talk about a piece of work within their words? Is it possible to convey the emotional journey as an audience your experience when watching theatre? Surely a critic has to convey more with his words, than what they see. The emotion of a piece.
- Is it possible for a critic to be doing more? Should they be doing more? Is there a need for more?
- There is a need for younger companies to be discussed, reviewed by critics. Can the critic go into a rehearsal room and offer themselves as a mentor for the work? The critic could become mentors for the arts and help to develop the work.
- How else can a critic respond to work beyond just writing? A suggestion to look at Hannah Nicklin’s collaborative approach to responding/engaging to the In-Between Festival in Bristol. Using video, audio, photos, words, discussion with artists. The critic becomes the catalyst and the reactor to the work.
- Bloggers have the ability to create more than just words, because they are not limited by the print media. Bloggers can create the ‘alternative content’. The ability to create an environment for the reader, which print media can not do.
- The online reviewers open up discussion, that print media struggles to do. The Guardian recently opened up their comments below the reviews for the first time online.
- What does an audience actually want to read within a review? Do they want to know more than just seeing a show? Do they just want to hear about what the critic liked and disliked? Is there space for more?
- The group felt that we started to over anaylise what a review/critic is/was/should be.
- Reiterating a key point from earlier: The online can create an environment for their audience. The online critics should try to build upon this more to create more than ‘just words’.
- The group spoke about several different publications and what they offered with reviews. Frustration over certain limited print.
- Does an audience have a loyalty with a certain critic, and therefore should that critic push the boundaries and challenge their audiences? Can this be done through their words?
-Critic as Teacher – Does this seem patronising?
Present: A number of people, no names collected.
This question was born out of Jake’s questioning of how as a critic, he could be doing more with theatre than just writing about it. Is there a way to effectively write more than just words? Should a critic have to do more? Do they do enough already?
- Influence – does a critic already have a certain influence within their work. How can this be extended, or is this influence alone enough to support them and the work they see?
- A critic could become an advocate for the arts, helping to bring about discussion for cross-fertilisation, assisting the conversation.
- The group spoke about the critic as ‘the bridge’. How a critic can direct conversation between both the work and the audience. The critic acts as the bridge for the audience to see into the work, and likewise, the work to see the audience.
- This leads to the notion of the critic building ‘the community’, which works in a collaborative sense. If critics offer more in their reviews (such as more on the greater picture, the ‘landscape of the arts’) then the audience might be more inclined to read their reviews.
- Naturally the critic is subjective.
- How is it possible for someone (the critic) to talk about a piece of work within their words? Is it possible to convey the emotional journey as an audience your experience when watching theatre? Surely a critic has to convey more with his words, than what they see. The emotion of a piece.
- Is it possible for a critic to be doing more? Should they be doing more? Is there a need for more?
- There is a need for younger companies to be discussed, reviewed by critics. Can the critic go into a rehearsal room and offer themselves as a mentor for the work? The critic could become mentors for the arts and help to develop the work.
- How else can a critic respond to work beyond just writing? A suggestion to look at Hannah Nicklin’s collaborative approach to responding/engaging to the In-Between Festival in Bristol. Using video, audio, photos, words, discussion with artists. The critic becomes the catalyst and the reactor to the work.
- Bloggers have the ability to create more than just words, because they are not limited by the print media. Bloggers can create the ‘alternative content’. The ability to create an environment for the reader, which print media can not do.
- The online reviewers open up discussion, that print media struggles to do. The Guardian recently opened up their comments below the reviews for the first time online.
- What does an audience actually want to read within a review? Do they want to know more than just seeing a show? Do they just want to hear about what the critic liked and disliked? Is there space for more?
- The group felt that we started to over anaylise what a review/critic is/was/should be.
- Reiterating a key point from earlier: The online can create an environment for their audience. The online critics should try to build upon this more to create more than ‘just words’.
- The group spoke about several different publications and what they offered with reviews. Frustration over certain limited print.
- Does an audience have a loyalty with a certain critic, and therefore should that critic push the boundaries and challenge their audiences? Can this be done through their words?
-Critic as Teacher – Does this seem patronising?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)