followspot@hotmail.com
January 17, 2006
I’d like to pose to you a question that appears in the article “How to Talk about Success” in the January 2006 issue of American Theatre: “What are some of the factors you consider in evaluating artistic success? What does it mean to you beyond box-office success or critical reviews?”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great question... In presenting work that is in various stages of development, here are some things I think about at Stark Raving.
One: we must mount a high quality, well-executed production so that a writer may see his/her work in the best light possible. In doing this, both strengths and weaknesses of a given script become evident, offering great information to the writer. So regardless of box office receipts and public criticism, when a playwright says to me - "I have a very good idea of where to next take this play." - I know we have been successful in our creative efforts.
Two: we must choose plays and execute productions in such a way so as to involve our audiences in the dialogue of developmental work. This can be harder to gauge. We use the word "provocative" in our tagline, because we want our offerings to provoke a response - hopefully in the form of a question(s). If audiences are debating a piece over a post show drink...if they are scribbling madly on response cards...if they are staying for an hour after a show to participate in a talk back...if they are taking time to send me emails about a play...then I know we have been successful in our creative efforts.
Three: the artists working for us should feel they are part of the "beginning" - that their contributions, their interpretations, their opinions are fertilizing the work. It takes very selfless artists to do new plays, because the focus is SO much on the writer. Actors are dealing with endless re-writes. Designers are adding and subtracting costume pieces and cues as these rewrites occur. It is most frustrating and takes immense patience. But if on completing a show, an artist feels he/she had truly affected the evolution of a young piece - and if this thrills them - then we have been successful in our creative efforts.
If only all the above-mentioned success consistently matched box office success. I think we all sigh at what is often a vast canyon between the two.
Matt Z
Yeah, what Matt said.
My measure of success is a bit more simple... did I tell the story well? Did I not only play my individual part well, but my part as a member of the ensemble and a component of the greater work? Did I take the audience on a journey to a place they'd never been to? If the answer to all those questions is yes, then my efforts have been a success - even if we only had four people in the house (how often THAT's been the case).
Oh, and the number of panties thrown on stage during a curtain call... that factors in to my definition somehow too. I'm not sure of the exact mathematical formula, but it's in there somewhere...
However you define it, it's got to be about the audience. I mean, if it's not for an audience, what is it for?
Now you may track success by tracking audience attendance or audience reaction or something else I haven't thought of ... but I think the audience has to be in the equation.
Which means that if the production was solely a growing experience for a performer -- and the audience didn't get anything out of it -- then I wouldn't necessarily consider that a success, except perhaps as a lesson in what doesn't move an audience.
But that's not success -- that's learning from your mistakes.
Post a Comment