|
|
 |
|
| |
A
Call for Experimentation: Why Ensembles Are Especially Ready to
Lead the American Theater into a New Period of Discovery
A Keynote Conversation with Dudley Cocke from the Network of Ensemble
Theaters Festival held July 23, 2003 at Amherst College (cont'd)
Now
to the operating principles to support the 2003-2005 mission. The
first point I want to make is: When proposing experiments for
NET support, members should feel free to consider the full range
of artistic practice. I want us to be inclusive of all this
aesthetic diversity that was mentioned earlier. Some people may
want to make a play with the Amherst community; somebody else may
want to make a play that examines the relationship between the audience
and the stage. The more variety the better. We’re not going
to get into that group think thing!
The
second operating principle is: Proposals will explain how the
experiment will build knowledge by summarizing the antecedent theory
and practice and recent observation that has led to the formulation
of the experiment’s hypothesis. Unlike the sciences,
it seems that in the arts we’re not conscious of building
knowledge. Not knowledge about how to get grants, etc., but knowledge
about the art making process itself. In fact, I think that sitting
right here this morning is a huge amount of untapped knowledge about
making theater. I’m looking for ways and means for NET to
claim, validate, and articulate that knowledge. Because I don’t
think non-ensemble theater artists are very conscious of building
knowledge either, I think NET could take a leadership role and help
the field as a whole. I’d like to see NET go to the forefront
of creating this knowledge about the art of making theater.
-
Several times you’ve mentioned support and resources.
What do you mean by support?
-
I mean the range of supporting resources, not just money,
but also training, advocacy, communication, etc.
-
We need to remember that at different stages of their development,
ensembles need different kinds of support. We need to pay special
attention to companies that are just starting out, and experimenting
with different styles that they have not yet made their own.
This leads to the issue of mentoring. How can a new ensemble
learn from the early experiences of older ensembles?
- Excellent
point. Now you see why I wanted this to be a conversation.
- Regarding
experimentation, passion can be critical. In my company’s
experience, there were times when it seemed important not to
know how we fit into the past tradition until we had created
something that we could then understand more historically.
- Likewise,
we really began with a kind of vision, and there was no way
to place ourselves in a lineage, because we had no idea where
we were going. No idea what language we were going to create.
A lot comes from synthesis of individual psychies, and what
you come up with. When you look back, you can see the connections,
but in the moment, we must have been influenced by things we
weren’t aware of.
- You
seem to be suggesting something like Jung’s collective
unconscious. Sometimes something new comes because we put
what is known, or what has been done, into a new pattern
of relationships. Other times, by clearing away inherited
theatrical assumptions and practices, we see our way to
make something new. I’m suggesting that experimentation
be in creative tension with what has come before, and rationality
in play with intuition.
Let’s
become conscious of what is being attempted artistically. Taking
for example the two plays we’ve just seen, our post-performance
discussion naturally focused not only on what the plays were attempting
to say, but what happened in the process of their trying to say
it. A lot of theaters – I know for our theater – it
took us 4 or 5 years to find out what theatrical tradition and history
we were a part of. Now every theater is part of some tradition,
some history. Let’s become more conscious of what tradition
and history that is. So when we’re trying an artistic experiment,
let’s think about who else has tried something like this.
What happened ? Won’t thinking in this way boost our creation
process? Roadside makes all original work, and I realize that we’re
not nearly as conscious of antecedent experience as I think would
be to our benefit.
Third
operating principle: Experiments that present a compelling hypothesis
and way to test the hypothesis will be favored. What’s
the exciting idea and what is the exciting way the theater proposes
to pursue the idea? By learning about what happened before, we can
place our experiment on a line of knowledge. There’s been
some talk here about ensemble theaters as process versus product.
I would argue that we want to stay away from these kind of either
- or terms. If you take the work we’ve watched in the last
couple of days, weren’t we simultaneously conscious of both
product and process? I don’t think such pleasure should be
reserved just for when artists discuss the art.
The
fourth operating principle to support the proposed 2003-2005 mission:
The results of all experiments will be documented and vetted, first
by the NET membership and then by the theater field. This will
be critical if our purpose is to build knowledge, not only among
ourselves, but in the field as a whole. We should look for inventive
ways to do this documentation and vetting, including ways that involve
the audience. We would expect this practice to engender a vibrant
dialogue among ourselves, the community, and theater field.
The
fifth principle: NET will continue to seek intellectual and
aesthetic diversity, based on class, race, place, and gender, and
give this diversity the opportunity to show itself as it sees itself.
Isn’t it remarkable that in the almost 30 years that
I’ve been working in the theater that I’ve not heard
of one working-class theater festival in the U.S.! They tried to
get one together in Ireland some 15 years ago, but it never came
off. Class, of course, cuts across all ethnic/racial groups; could
that be the reason?
The
final operating principle that I am proposing: Because of the
current poor arts funding climate, NET will look for administrative
efficiencies, including partnerships, that maximize support for
its mission. I’ve already suggested that we consider
TCG to be one of our primary partners.
- How
do you think NET should build the argument to TCG?
-
Regular communication will be important, because TCG will
be interested in the breadth of our membership. As TCG begins
to understand who we are, together we can begin looking
to see how our members, and NET itself, can take advantage
of the many TCG services. I’m confident that it can
be a mutually beneficial relationship.
Those
are the operating principles, and now I want to discuss two sample
mechanisms for becoming conscious of experimentation and for building
knowledge about theater. Sample one is a NET grant or NET festival
application form. Here’s how it might read:
-
In one sentence, please state the hypothesis of your proposed
artistic experiment.
-
How do you propose to test your hypothesis?
-
What antecedent theory and practice and recent observation
has informed your hypothesis and the way you propose to test
it?
-
Please spell out any underlying assumptions of your hypothesis
and proposed methodology that you regard as significant.
-
How will you document your experiment?
What
I’ve done in this sample is take the charter, the mission
statement, and the operating principles that I have proposed and
translated them into a practical guideline.
My
second sample is a NET festival prospectus. Here, I’m thinking
about the festival being planned for 2004. Based on the ideas that
we’ve been discussing, the prospectus might read something
like this:
The
purpose of the Network of Ensemble Theater’s First Experimental
Theater Festival is to build knowledge about and sharpen the theory
and practice of making original theater.
Proposals
for Experimentation have not been limited in any formal way, but
include the full range of the theatrical experience – for
example, the actors’ relationship with the audience, and
the performance’s relationship to place. In the Festival’s
program, the artists reveal how they arrived at the hypothesis
that their performance tests.
Festival-goers
are encouraged to participate in the review sessions occurring
at different times after each performance. These sessions will
assess each experiment with an eye to what was learned and what
might occur next in the development of the experiment. The perspective
of audience members is very important to this process, so please
plan to engage in these conversations with the Festival’s
artists.
My premise is that we should not be trying to conceal our art from
the audience, but rather to reveal it. In this way, I expect that
the audience will have a deeper engagement with the work. So, for
example, we give the audience an idea before hand of what the artists
and the performance is attempting to do, and then we give the audience
the opportunity to comment on what they have experienced.
- We’ve
been doing just that, having pre-show talks, and find that it
opens the door for audience understanding and more participation.
- Several
questions: How much information is useful to the audience before
and after the show? And, how do we keep the artists from being
injured by criticism, so they can hear, learn, and respond?
- There
are a number of criticism models that exist. Some of you are
familiar with Liz Lerman’s model, and Roadside has developed
several models – one of them based on its story circle
methodology. Perhaps one of the break-out sessions can catalogue
and discuss these various models.
- I
find your general idea of testing an hypothesis very helpful.
You are asking us to be more complete about what we already
do – to think about how to articulate what we do, its
consequences, and how we carry what we learn from one project
to another. You’re asking us to help one another gain
that rigor and apply it to our work. At the same time, there’s
plenty of flexibility in what you propose. I like the word experiment
as opposed to experimental. Experiment emphasizes learning,
and what you propose is that the audience be a partner in the
experiment, as opposed to being experimented upon. This validates
the audience in an important way. Over time, I’ve learned
that I may not be able to fully explain the play – after
all, theater often resonates beyond reason – but I need
to be able to explain my interest in partnering with the people
for whom the work’s being performed.
- This
discussion reminds me of a model that was practiced by the Lincoln
Center Institute. Several days before a theater company went
into a school to perform, another artist, who had studied the
visiting company’s work, would make a workshop about the
upcoming performance with the classes that were involved. This
workshop was led by a peer, not by a member of the visiting
company. As a visiting artist, I don’t want to do a pre-show
myself; usually, it’s just a stretch to get the performance
up at such a site. This Lincoln Center idea is something we
as artists can do for each other. So the NET membership can
learn about each other’s artistic process. What better
way to do this than having the opportunity to present such a
workshop, and, in a sense, to collaborate with the visiting
company.
- When
we’re thinking about and cataloging different critical
and audience engagement models, it’s important that we
look beyond this country.
- I
agree, and incidentally, one of TCG’s three major,
long-range goals and mandates is more international exchange
and learning. And we should remember, too, that a lot of
the world is right here within our national borders. For
example, for the past several years, Roadside and I have
been working with new immigrants – Hmong, Mixteco,
Lao, among others - in California’s great Central
Valley. We’re helping them bring their stories, experiences,
and performance traditions to the public stage. It is fascinating
work, and usually bilingual. It feels like these folks are
writing a new chapter in the American story.
- This
is an addition to the class, place, race, gender matrix, putting
in generation . I’m wanting to hear more from the younger
generations about what their circumstances are. That comes from
one of my board member’s who is quite a bit younger than
myself. She often reminds me that many of my thoughts and answers
and processes don’t necessarily apply to the generation
that she’s living in. I’m curious as to what the
issues are for a young company trying to start in 2003, as opposed
to 1986. Can we set up a place within NET where we try to understand
those things, because that will also have a great deal to do
with reaching audiences of diverse generations. What are the
different generational needs and interests that our festival
could meet? Why would a particular group come to the festival?
What would they hope to see?
- If
I picked up my local newspaper and read that I had the opportunity
to see a company of theater artists in their 20’s,
who had been together one year, and were concerned with
such and such questions, I would be drawn to that as an
audience member. Who better to lead us into a new period
of discovery?
- In
doing your bilingual work, how do you place that in the tradition
of theater making, and all the questions you were asking us
to ask ourselves about the work, how do you ask them to yourself?
-
You’ve caught me! One of the reasons I’m interested
in this conception is Roadside’s own shortcomings
– not knowing enough about the context of what we
do. We need to know more about the contemporary experiences
of others with bilingual work, and what is the history of
such work in the theater? How are other peoples in the world
working bilingually? Now, we’re basically doing it
out of enthusiasm; our company would benefit from knowing
more.
-
One of the things that we have here in this room is other groups
that have done bilingual work. We may not know that longer history,
but we have recent experience. How many in this room have done
bilingual work? Quite a few. But do we know about each other’s
experience? No. So, that’s one way we can learn.
-
Excellent example. I hope that we will take advantage of
just such opportunities.
Our
moderator has signaled me that our time is up for this session.
I would like to leave you with two thoughts from the beginning of
our conversation. First, that we not think of the history of theater
as a chronology of plays, playwrights, productions, and so forth,
nor do we think of this history as a series of anecdotes. Of course,
both exist. But I’m suggesting that we think of the history
of theater as a study of the creative act itself. That is already
our central concern as ensemble artists, and in building knowledge
about the creative act itself, I think that ensembles can make a
significant contribution to the field and lead the American theater
into a new period of discovery.
Second,
we should remember Francis Bacon: “Truth emerges more readily
from error than from confusion.”
Finally,
I must challenge you to identify the source of this quote. Your
career depends on answering correctly. The quote:
“I
don’t go to the theatre at all. I hate the theatre. I really
do, I can’t stand it. I think it’s totally disappointing
for the most part. It’s just always embarrassing, I find.
There’s more drama that goes down in a rodeo than one hundred
plays you can see.”
-
“George
Bush!” (a chorus)
-
Ronald Reagan!.
-
Wrong again! It’s Sam Shephard in an interview in
the inaugural issue of American Theatre magazine,
April, 1984. At the time, I happened to be writing an article
for American Theatre about our exchange with Zuni
Indians. As I was driving through New Mexico, I thought,
Sam, if you would only come out of New York and perform
for those rodeo audiences, they would certainly straighten
you out . . . son.
Thank
you.
©Dudley
Cocke, 2003
Back
to Page 1
Back
to Reading Room
|
|
