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?
Thursday, 30 June 2011
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?
Do audiences care what critics think and is it different for bloggers?
Session proposed by Megan Vaughan (@meganfvaughan)
Do you trust bloggers more because they're not being paid?
Do you book tickets on the back of positive reviews?
The attitude towards bloggers has changed massively over the past year, the way we communicate has changed
Do people have a natural mistrust of things online because there is no barrier to entry or do they mistrust print media because of hidden agendas?
Is the instant reaction to a show on Twitter now important?
Critics have the strength of a newspaper's brand behind them. Bloggers have to be sought out.
Online critics are now like trip advisor. "15 people" have commented now has validated opinion, created concuss.
People are wary of comments, do they come from people involved in the show?
LG: We live in a world where we seek consensus of mass opinion, but if there's is no barrier to entry then why should we give any credence to them. We've become obsessed by the "noise" it is very easy to create the illusion of opinion.
Bloggers create the ability to influence by building their own brand.
Criticism can also be seen as a means of better understanding the show after the fact.
With a broadsheet opinion is fact. Bloggers are taken with more of a pinch of salt.
The programming policy of venues can add a lot to the trust to a production.
Different audience groups and demographics look for very different types of criticism.
Ought to be Clowns has traffic generated specifically by people searching "[show name] blogger review"
It is sometimes obvious when shows have really been struggling for pull quotes to use in their marketing material.
Moved on to talk about young people's theatre and immersive theatre.
Jake has people as young as 12 writing for AYT going up to a PHD student. 12-year old gets more hits as they at writing about the RSC.
Online we emulate the print media conventions. Should we not be looking for different forms of criticism?
What role can and should PR play? SESSION 2
Session proposed by Amber Massie Blomfield
[AG: I did not catch this session from the start.]
The relationship between a company and their PR should be long term.
The relationship between an artist and a PR should be similar to that between a company and a venue.
Let people into the artistic process - blogs, multiple points of access into process.
The role of the PR could be to help artists interact with the process.
The media is changing very rapidly.
Funding is impacting the way that organisations are interacting with their audiences and being forced in some ways.
PRs are still very much behind the time when it comes to connecting artists to their potential audiences. Much because of their lack of interest in social media past the more traditional options.
The current rehearsal room blogs are very stayed. They need to be personal and not just one person told that they blogging, not having much choice in it and not adding any value.
The role of the PR should be to bridge the gap between artists and their audience.
Is the artistic process not the creation of the work? Sometimes you don't have the time / inclination to go and blog etc
[AG: I then walked away and came back so missed a chunk.]
Should the massed PR community have congregated around the funding crisis to try and vocalise the issues on behalf of the industry?
Should theatre PRs be training their practitioners to tackle issues-based questions?
Should PRs be talking to PRs across other industries to learn best practice?
PRs are totally under valued and underpaid. They should be better valued in their industries as they have the opportunities to be the life blood of their companies.
They are just seen as an extension of the marketing department.
PRs are able to share better the ideas if they are deeply involved in if they are involved in the rehearsal process.
AMB: PR is a very similar role to that of a dramaturg, it is about exploring the work from the perspective of the audience.
Artists who manage their own Twitter and social media accounts are doing a passable job of managing their own PR.
Lots of theatre companies are doing lots of the nuts and blots of social media, but few to none of them have managed to implement overarching strategy.
Creative led organisations should be able to create better and more sophisticated PR campaigns by their very nature and the people who are involved.
The same is true of fundraising., which should be done most creatively in the creative industries, but is often better executed in the more traditional commercial sector.
LG: A good PR is informed and passionate and should know the tastes of someone to whom they are pitching to.
AMB: A PR's greatest strength is their integrity.
It is very easy to forget that PRs seek to work in theatre because they love it.
Do the leaders of organisations hold back the work of their PRs? The organisation can't move forwards in the public's eyes because the PR is very low down in the hierarchy of the organisation.
There is a regional theatre PRs network and a West End theatre PRs network. Should an Off-West End network be created?
Agencies can be very difficult to convince to do pro bono work, or to convince to collaborate and jump in on project at the bottom, perhaps before there is any funding attached.
Do you trust bloggers more because they're not being paid?
Do you book tickets on the back of positive reviews?
The attitude towards bloggers has changed massively over the past year, the way we communicate has changed
Do people have a natural mistrust of things online because there is no barrier to entry or do they mistrust print media because of hidden agendas?
Is the instant reaction to a show on Twitter now important?
Critics have the strength of a newspaper's brand behind them. Bloggers have to be sought out.
Online critics are now like trip advisor. "15 people" have commented now has validated opinion, created concuss.
People are wary of comments, do they come from people involved in the show?
LG: We live in a world where we seek consensus of mass opinion, but if there's is no barrier to entry then why should we give any credence to them. We've become obsessed by the "noise" it is very easy to create the illusion of opinion.
Bloggers create the ability to influence by building their own brand.
Criticism can also be seen as a means of better understanding the show after the fact.
With a broadsheet opinion is fact. Bloggers are taken with more of a pinch of salt.
The programming policy of venues can add a lot to the trust to a production.
Different audience groups and demographics look for very different types of criticism.
Ought to be Clowns has traffic generated specifically by people searching "[show name] blogger review"
It is sometimes obvious when shows have really been struggling for pull quotes to use in their marketing material.
Moved on to talk about young people's theatre and immersive theatre.
Jake has people as young as 12 writing for AYT going up to a PHD student. 12-year old gets more hits as they at writing about the RSC.
Online we emulate the print media conventions. Should we not be looking for different forms of criticism?
What role can and should PR play? SESSION 2
Session proposed by Amber Massie Blomfield
[AG: I did not catch this session from the start.]
The relationship between a company and their PR should be long term.
The relationship between an artist and a PR should be similar to that between a company and a venue.
Let people into the artistic process - blogs, multiple points of access into process.
The role of the PR could be to help artists interact with the process.
The media is changing very rapidly.
Funding is impacting the way that organisations are interacting with their audiences and being forced in some ways.
PRs are still very much behind the time when it comes to connecting artists to their potential audiences. Much because of their lack of interest in social media past the more traditional options.
The current rehearsal room blogs are very stayed. They need to be personal and not just one person told that they blogging, not having much choice in it and not adding any value.
The role of the PR should be to bridge the gap between artists and their audience.
Is the artistic process not the creation of the work? Sometimes you don't have the time / inclination to go and blog etc
[AG: I then walked away and came back so missed a chunk.]
Should the massed PR community have congregated around the funding crisis to try and vocalise the issues on behalf of the industry?
Should theatre PRs be training their practitioners to tackle issues-based questions?
Should PRs be talking to PRs across other industries to learn best practice?
PRs are totally under valued and underpaid. They should be better valued in their industries as they have the opportunities to be the life blood of their companies.
They are just seen as an extension of the marketing department.
PRs are able to share better the ideas if they are deeply involved in if they are involved in the rehearsal process.
AMB: PR is a very similar role to that of a dramaturg, it is about exploring the work from the perspective of the audience.
Artists who manage their own Twitter and social media accounts are doing a passable job of managing their own PR.
Lots of theatre companies are doing lots of the nuts and blots of social media, but few to none of them have managed to implement overarching strategy.
Creative led organisations should be able to create better and more sophisticated PR campaigns by their very nature and the people who are involved.
The same is true of fundraising., which should be done most creatively in the creative industries, but is often better executed in the more traditional commercial sector.
LG: A good PR is informed and passionate and should know the tastes of someone to whom they are pitching to.
AMB: A PR's greatest strength is their integrity.
It is very easy to forget that PRs seek to work in theatre because they love it.
Do the leaders of organisations hold back the work of their PRs? The organisation can't move forwards in the public's eyes because the PR is very low down in the hierarchy of the organisation.
There is a regional theatre PRs network and a West End theatre PRs network. Should an Off-West End network be created?
Agencies can be very difficult to convince to do pro bono work, or to convince to collaborate and jump in on project at the bottom, perhaps before there is any funding attached.
What role can (and should?) PR be playing in the arts?
These notes are an amalgam of two sets of notes that were taken during the discussion, by Andrew Girvan and me (Amber Massie-Blomfield). I have avoided restructuring too heavily for clarity’s sake, preferring to reflect the rather wide ranging and free flowing nature of the conversation.
• In times of crisis- particularly in light of the recent funding crisis- could PRs be playing a bigger role- being mindful of their responsibilities not only to champion their individual theatres but also to champion the importance of theatre as a whole- maybe having a shared set of principles as PRs about how we talk about theatre etc?
• The relationship between a company and their PR should be long term- allowing time to develop a trusting relationship, where the PR is qualified to genuinely speak for the organisation and play a meaningful part in developing the content of the organisation’s work.
• As the way in which we consume media changes, the PR’s role must be to keep pace with this change, and to help artists and organisations cope with it. PR can help audiences to engage with the artistic process by creating multiple points of access, through blogs, videos etc… As national newspapers etc become more strapped for cash there are opportunities for PRs to provide more content.
• Theatre makers should be in the vanguard of inventing new ways of using social media, because we are artists and we are adept at playing with media and taking risks in order to discover new forms of expression. But we are failing to keep up. There are a lot of bad examples of rehearsal blogs- they are not personal enough and don’t add any value to the audience experience- but perhaps we need to do it badly before we start doing it well. There is still too much attachment in theatres to traditional media and not enough interest in social media. No one knows yet what the future is for social media- but we only learn through doing.
• The role of the PR should be to bridge the gap between artists and their audience. There is a parallel between the role of dramaturg, when defined as ‘the representative of the audience in the rehearsal room’, and the PR, who ‘manages the relationship between an organization and its publics’. PRs should be feeding back into the organization from its stakeholders as much as they are representing the voice of the organization externally.
• Do PRs have a greater responsibility than to their own organisations- do they have a responsibility to talk about how we are representing the arts as a whole? Should the massed PR community have congregated around the funding crisis to try and vocalise the issues on behalf of the industry? Could we be networking more to establish some ‘metta narratives’ that should underpin our communications for our individual organisations? Could we establish a crack guerilla force of arts PR people to unleash their power at times of crisis?!
• Should theatre PRs be taking more responsibility for training practitioners to be spokespeople for the industry, and to tackle issues-based questions as they might in other industries?
• Should PRs be learning from the way PRs operate in other industries to improve their practice/ increase their standing in their organisations?
• PRs are totally under valued and underpaid, particularly in in-house roles. They are viewed as an extension of the marketing department- at the bottom of the hierarchy- a reflection of the flawed hierarchial structures that are still operating in our theatres. Their full skill set is not being employed- it should place them at the heart of their organisations. The job is far too tactical and not strategic enough.
• The role of PR in the arts has not been clearly defined at all, many really don’t understand what a PR person does and how it is distinct from marketing. Clearer definitions would facilitate greater use of a PR person’s skill set.
• PRs are able to share better the ideas if they are deeply involved in the rehearsal process.
• Everyone is now responsible for their own public ‘brand’ via social networking. Artists who manage their own Twitter and social media accounts are doing a passable job of managing their own PR, but PR professionals should be assisting them more. Lots of theatre companies are doing lots of the nuts and blots of social media, but few to none of them have managed to implement overarching strategy. Creative led organisations should be able to create better and more sophisticated PR campaigns by their very nature and the people who are involved. The same is true of fundraising, which should be done most creatively in the creative industries, but is often better executed in the more traditional commercial sector.
• A good PR is informed and passionate, has honesty and integrity, and should know the tastes of the person to whom they are pitching. A really good PR feels able to tell a particular journalist they may not enjoy this particular show.
• HONESTY is the strongest weapon in the PR person’s arsenal- once you’ve been dishonest with a journalist, you’ve lost them for good- or at least for a very long time. BUT there is a conflict between maintaining your integrity as an honest PR and keeping the person who pays your wages happy. Can we be genuine thought leaders and speak honestly? How do we manage this conflict? It is the fortunate few who can pick and choose the projects they work on. Long term relationships with companies rather than project-to-project relationships develop trusting relationships where the PR can be honest with companies about how and when its appropriate to engage the media. What can in house PRs do if they don’t believe in the work they are promoting? It is important that even if they don’t rate a particular show, they are able to understand it in the context of the bigger aims of the organization and talk about it from this perspective.
• It is very easy to forget that PRs seek to work in theatre because they love it. If they were more valued and had more sophisticated roles, they may be more willing to accept poor pay! Instead good PRs move on to other industries, because a career isn’t sustainable.
• Do the leaders of organisations hold back the work of their PRs? The organisation can't move forwards in the public's eyes because the PR is very low down in the hierarchy of the organisation. Why do directors feel entitled to impose their ideas about how the PR should work if a PR wouldn’t impose their ideas about how the rehearsal room should be run?
• There is a regional theatre PRs network and a West End theatre PRs network. Should an Off-West End network be created?
• Would PRs be willing to become involved in experimental projects at an early stage before there is any funding? Perhaps if they were given the opportunity to experiment with their own approaches- rather than simply being invited into the process then asked to write and send a press release. It is easier for individual freelancers to do pro bono work than agencies.
As a result of this conversation those interested in the issues raised signed up to a mailing list, and discussions are now taking place about setting up an arts PR network as an adjunct to the Twespians network. Anyone wishing to join this mailing list should contact Amber: amber@mobiusindustries.com
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Improbable's Monthly D&D Satellite: Funding Cuts, where do we go from here?
May 23rd 2011
Roundhouse Studio
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. Maybe you/they deserved to be cut.
2. Crowdfunding websites? How do they work?
3. Dojo?
4. How to cross/meet the bridge organisations in London?
5. What would happen if our imagination dies? Having an imagination good or bad?
6. Is funding actually any good?
7. Stuck in the middle.
8. How do I stay connected?
9. United we stand?
10. Metamorphosis
11. How can closing down be a positive step for the future?
12. What would happen if our imagination dies? Having imagination good or bad?
Roundhouse Studio
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. Maybe you/they deserved to be cut.
2. Crowdfunding websites? How do they work?
3. Dojo?
4. How to cross/meet the bridge organisations in London?
5. What would happen if our imagination dies? Having an imagination good or bad?
6. Is funding actually any good?
7. Stuck in the middle.
8. How do I stay connected?
9. United we stand?
10. Metamorphosis
11. How can closing down be a positive step for the future?
12. What would happen if our imagination dies? Having imagination good or bad?
What would happen if our imagination dies? Having imagination good or bad?
Convener: Li E Chen
Summary:
What would happen if our imagination dies? Having imagination good or bad?
I posted this question, because I was wondering what people would do if they lost their funding and what people would do if they still have or just have the funding. How are they going to keep their imagination and create works that can potentially great? If imagination dies, what would people do?
The discussion wasn’t discussed at the DandD evening, as I was drawn into another break-out space. I had amazing conversations on “Is funding any good?” which was raised by a recent graduated theatre student. The session brought together some really important life-time tips for working in the arts. Key point: To create and maintain freedom in your works while you are also being funded.
“You need to keep reminding yourself how you work when you weren’t funded, and make sure you can still do the same when you receive your funding.”
“ACE funds for the artists’ journey and is held different kinds of views.”
“What does “value” mean in making arts for the public? The value is not just for yourself, nor just for the others. It’s both, two independent relationships.”
“Giving things Free is good practice.”
After more than a week later from the DandD, I worked on my above issue:-
Below are some comments that I worked on during my artist residency, as I think above questions are still relevant today.
There are different kinds of imagination:
Bad imagination:
- imagination just for attention
- imagination to become someone that you’re not
- imagination theatre war
- imagination the future
- imagination for what you think it is right
- mix up imagination to real life
- is just about yourself
- want to control what you should be imagining
- your imagination is easily being killed
- not REAL to yourself
- stay focus with your imagination
- closed your eyes and never blink
- me
Good imagination
- imagination the dream of freedom
- imagination to become someone that you’re not
- imagination the future
- imagination from ‘nothing’ is there before
- imagination for what you think it is right
- don’t mix up imagination to real life
- is bigger than yourself
- to control what you imagine but be open about your surrounding: people, place, air, weather, location, economic situation, etc.
- stay focus with your imagination
- be REAL
- your imagination is easily being killed, dangerous, life and death - closed your eyes, open your eyes, closed your eyes, open your eyes, blink your eyes and look
- our
What if our imagination dies?
What if someone imagine ‘nothing’?
what if our imagination does not connect to reality or the fake-reality?
what if we imagine time disappear and can’t be measured any more.
what if we can imagine ‘things’ that our hearts can’t feel, eyes can’t see, thoughts can’t define.
Collection quotes on imagination:
I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them. – Pablo Picasso
I am imagination. I can see what the eyes cannot see. I can hear what the ears cannot hear. I can feel what the heart cannot feel. – Peter Nivio Zarlenga
You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. – Mark Twain
Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. – Carl Sagan
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact. – William Shakespeare
—-
I don’t think I need to have Piña Bausch’s imagination in order to do great work.
I don’t think I need to have Trisha Brown’s imagination in order to do great work.
I will have my own and think what make senses to me. My imagination will be on ‘nothing’, the process of thinking ‘nothing’, the works on ‘nothing’, I imagine nothing to question, nothing to tell, nothing to do, I imagine what is best, say nothing, explain nothing, record nothing, create nothing. I might sing a song on nothing. I might create exhibition on nothing. I might write a play on nothing. I might create movement on nothing. My imagination of nothing is like wind, air, sun and noise from people and the city.
I haven’t answer the question.
Summary:
What would happen if our imagination dies? Having imagination good or bad?
I posted this question, because I was wondering what people would do if they lost their funding and what people would do if they still have or just have the funding. How are they going to keep their imagination and create works that can potentially great? If imagination dies, what would people do?
The discussion wasn’t discussed at the DandD evening, as I was drawn into another break-out space. I had amazing conversations on “Is funding any good?” which was raised by a recent graduated theatre student. The session brought together some really important life-time tips for working in the arts. Key point: To create and maintain freedom in your works while you are also being funded.
“You need to keep reminding yourself how you work when you weren’t funded, and make sure you can still do the same when you receive your funding.”
“ACE funds for the artists’ journey and is held different kinds of views.”
“What does “value” mean in making arts for the public? The value is not just for yourself, nor just for the others. It’s both, two independent relationships.”
“Giving things Free is good practice.”
After more than a week later from the DandD, I worked on my above issue:-
Below are some comments that I worked on during my artist residency, as I think above questions are still relevant today.
There are different kinds of imagination:
Bad imagination:
- imagination just for attention
- imagination to become someone that you’re not
- imagination theatre war
- imagination the future
- imagination for what you think it is right
- mix up imagination to real life
- is just about yourself
- want to control what you should be imagining
- your imagination is easily being killed
- not REAL to yourself
- stay focus with your imagination
- closed your eyes and never blink
- me
Good imagination
- imagination the dream of freedom
- imagination to become someone that you’re not
- imagination the future
- imagination from ‘nothing’ is there before
- imagination for what you think it is right
- don’t mix up imagination to real life
- is bigger than yourself
- to control what you imagine but be open about your surrounding: people, place, air, weather, location, economic situation, etc.
- stay focus with your imagination
- be REAL
- your imagination is easily being killed, dangerous, life and death - closed your eyes, open your eyes, closed your eyes, open your eyes, blink your eyes and look
- our
What if our imagination dies?
What if someone imagine ‘nothing’?
what if our imagination does not connect to reality or the fake-reality?
what if we imagine time disappear and can’t be measured any more.
what if we can imagine ‘things’ that our hearts can’t feel, eyes can’t see, thoughts can’t define.
Collection quotes on imagination:
I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them. – Pablo Picasso
I am imagination. I can see what the eyes cannot see. I can hear what the ears cannot hear. I can feel what the heart cannot feel. – Peter Nivio Zarlenga
You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. – Mark Twain
Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. – Carl Sagan
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact. – William Shakespeare
—-
I don’t think I need to have Piña Bausch’s imagination in order to do great work.
I don’t think I need to have Trisha Brown’s imagination in order to do great work.
I will have my own and think what make senses to me. My imagination will be on ‘nothing’, the process of thinking ‘nothing’, the works on ‘nothing’, I imagine nothing to question, nothing to tell, nothing to do, I imagine what is best, say nothing, explain nothing, record nothing, create nothing. I might sing a song on nothing. I might create exhibition on nothing. I might write a play on nothing. I might create movement on nothing. My imagination of nothing is like wind, air, sun and noise from people and the city.
I haven’t answer the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)